Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

During Vivian Harrison’s divorce proceeding to Kirk Harrison, Kirk hired psychiatrist Norton Roitman to conduct a psychiatric analysis of Vivian. Without meeting with or examining Vivian, Dr. Roitman submitted to the court a written report diagnosing Vivian with a personality disorder. Vivian subsequently filed a complaint against Dr. Roitman, alleging that his statements constituted, inter alia, medical malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Roitman’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Dr. Roitman was absolutely immune from liability for each of Vivian’s causes of action because he was a witness preparing an expert report in connection with the matter in controversy at the time he made the statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if the allegations contained in Vivian’s complaint were true, Dr. Roitman's defense of absolute immunity precluded her claim. View "Harrison v. Roitman" on Justia Law

Real parties in interest (collectively, Seaver) filed a complaint against Petitioners (collectively, the Helfsteins) and against Uninet Imaging, Inc., alleging claims arising out of agreements between the Helfsteins and Seaver following Uninet’s purchase of the Helfsteins’ companies. The Helfsteisn settled with Seaver, and Seaver voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Helfsteins. Seaver later filed a notice of rescission, alleging that the Helfsteisn fraudulently induced them to settle. Meanwhile, the district court resolved the claims between Seaver and Uninet. Seaver later filed a Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the settlement agreement and voluntary dismissal, seeking to proceed on their claims against the Helfsteins. The Helfsteisn filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over them and that the Rule 60(b) motion was procedurally improper. The district court denied the motion. The Helfsteins then filed this original writ petition asking the Supreme Court to consider whether Rule 60(b) can be used to set aside a voluntary dismissal or a settlement agreement. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that even if Rule 60(b) applied in this case, the motion was time-barred. View "Helfstein v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Cristie Anderson and her husband (together, Plaintiffs) sued Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino (Mandalay) after Alonzo Gonzalez, a Mandalay employee, raped Anderson in her hotel room at Mandalay. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligent hiring, vicarious liability, and loss of consortium but later abandoned all claims except the vicarious liability claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Mandalay, concluding that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Gonzalez would rape Anderson. The district court also denied, as futile, Anderson’s motion to amend her complaint to add direct negligence claims against Mandalay. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable jury could find that Gonzalez’s criminal conduct was reasonably foreseeable; and (2) direct negligence claims against Mandalay would not be futile because a reasonable jury might find that the criminal conduct was foreseeable. Remanded. View "Anderson v. Mandalay Corp." on Justia Law