Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In consolidated interlocutory appeals, Defendants-Appellants, natural gas producers with wells in south central Kansas, challenged a preliminary injunction enjoining them from further gas production from those wells. The district court entered the preliminary injunction after concluding there was a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff-Appellee Northern Natural Gas Co. would prevail on its state-law claim alleging that Defendants' natural gas production from these wells was an actionable nuisance because it was disrupting Northern's nearby underground storage of natural gas. The parties agreed that, to prevail on its nuisance claim, Northern needed to establish four things: 1) Defendants acted with the intent to interfere with Northern's use and enjoyment of the storage field; 2) there was some interference with the use and enjoyment of the Field of the kind Defendants intended; 3) that interference was substantial; and 4) the interference was of a such a nature, duration or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the Field. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was a substantial likelihood that Northern could prove all four of those elements of its nuisance claim. View "Northern Natural Gas Company v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arthur Firstenberg allegedly suffers from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which requires him to avoid exposure to sources of electromagnetic radiation. These sources include cell-phone towers which emit radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Petitioner filed suit against the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (AT&T), asserting that signal upgrades at AT&T base stations in Santa Fe adversely affected his health and that the City is required to regulate those upgrades. The district court dismissed Petitioner's action against the City and AT&T for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Petitioner appealed. After briefing, the Tenth Circuit noted a potential jurisdictional problem: Petitioner's complaint failed to satisfy the well-pleaded-complaint rule for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. All parties insisted that federal jurisdiction was proper. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, and reversed the district court's dismissal to remand the case to state court. View "Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Clarice Sanchez, a long-time secretarial employee of the United States Forest Service, suffered irreversible brain damage after falling at work. As a result of her injury, Sanchez lost the left half of her field of vision. She requested a hardship transfer to Albuquerque where she could better access ongoing medical treatment. After the Forest Service declined to accommodate her request, she brought suit under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and held that Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her disability. On appeal, the Forest Service urged the Court to affirm summary judgment on an alternative ground. However, the Court declined, concluding that transfer accommodations for the purpose of medical treatment or therapy were not unreasonable per se. View "Sanchez v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Pennie Keyes-Zachary appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying her applications for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability based on, among other things, neck, back, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, and knee problems, accompanied by pain; hearing loss; urinary frequency; anger-management problems; depression; and anxiety. The ALJ upheld the denial of her application for benefits. The Appeals Council denied her request for review of the ALJ's decision, and she then appealed to the district court. The district court remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration. After the second hearing, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff retained residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions, but that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council declined jurisdiction, and the ALJ's decision was then deemed the Commissioner's final decision. On appeal Plaintiff raised two issues: (1) that the ALJ "failed to properly consider, evaluate and discuss the medical source evidence;" and (2) the ALJ "failed to perform a proper credibility determination." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the ALJ's decision and affirmed the Commission's final determination in Plaintiff's case. View "Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Dr. George Cohlmia, a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area, sued St. John Medical Center (SJMC) alleging a number of federal and state antitrust and business tort claims. His claims followed SJMC's suspension of his medical privileges after a pair of surgeries, one resulting in death and another in permanent disfigurement. In response, SJMC asserted an affirmative defense that it was immune under federal law from damages pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). SJMC also moved for summary judgment on the antitrust and tort claims, arguing they failed for lack of evidentiary support. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims, finding SJMC was immune from damages under the HCQIA, and further that Dr. Cohlmia had not met his burden of showing disputed facts that would demonstrate anticompetitive conduct or injury. After a thorough de novo review of the record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment. View "Cohlmia, Jr. v. St. John Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant William Foster sued his former employer, Defendant-Appellee PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), and Defendant-Appellee the PPG Industries Employee Savings Plan (collectively, Defendants) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to recover Plan benefits allegedly due him after Foster’s ex-wife fraudulently withdrew Foster’s entire Plan account balance. The district court upheld the decision of the Plan Administrator, who had determined that the Plan was not liable to reimburse Foster for the fraudulently withdrawn benefits. Foster appealed. Finding no merit to Foster's argument, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Foster v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff James Bannister was injured in a motorcycle accident on the freeway near Oklahoma City in 2009. According to Bannister, he was forced to lay down and slide his motorcycle at a high speed when a car in front of him braked suddenly, that car having been cut off by another car. Bannister slammed into the wall of the freeway and suffered substantial injuries. He did not collide with any other vehicle; neither of the aforementioned cars remained at the scene of the accident; and no witnesses besides Bannister ever gave an account of the crash. Bannister filed an insurance claim with his insurer, defendant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm denied Bannister’s claim, finding him to be majority at fault in the accident. Bannister subsequently filed suit in Oklahoma state court, and State Farm removed the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. By the time the case went to trial, Bannister sought relief solely on a tort theory: that State Farm violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing in denying his claim. The jury found in favor of Bannister, but the district court granted State Farm’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), ruling essentially that the evidence showed that State Farm’s denial of Bannister’s claim was based on a reasonable dispute regarding whether Bannister was majority at fault, and that no evidence suggested that further investigation would have undermined the reasonableness of that dispute. Bannister failed to “make a showing that material facts were overlooked or that a more thorough investigation would have produced relevant information” that would have delegitimized the insurer’s dispute of the claim. As such, the Tenth Circuit concluded his inadequate-investigation theory of bad faith was without merit, and JMOL in favor of State Farm was appropriate. View "Bannister v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Jimmie Allison’s causes of action arose from conduct on Kirtland Air Force Base, a federal enclave established in 1954. Because Allison’s state law claims were based on legal theories created by common law after that date, they are barred unless federal statutory law allows them to go forward. Because no federal statute authorized state employment and tort claims of the sort underlying this case to be asserted against federal contractors, Plaintiff's suit was barred by the federal enclave doctrine. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Plaintiff's case. View "Allison v. Boeing Laser Technical Service" on Justia Law

Petitioner Frances Leon Harvey's appeal before the Tenth Circuit stemmed from a Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA")lawsuit that he brought against the United States government for complications arising from an injury to his hand. Petitioner claimed that government employees injured him by: (1) misdiagnosing and delaying treatment of his hand fracture; and (2) performing negligent surgery on his hand. He argued that the district court erred in holding the misdiagnosis/delay-in treatment claim to be time-barred and in granting summary judgment on the negligent surgery claim for failure to produce expert evidence. Furthermore, Petitioner argued because Navajo law was the substantive law of this case, the district court failed to follow Navajo law when it dismissed his negligent surgery claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court properly denied Petitioner's motion for default judgment. Although the Court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the misdiagnosis claim was time-barred, the Court concluded that Petitioner's failure to provide expert evidence doomed both his misdiagnosis and surgical malpractice claims. Finally, although the parties disagreed about whether Arizona law or Navajo law applied, the Court did not reach the issue because the outcome would have been the same under both.

"Haunted houses may be full of ghosts, goblins, and guillotines, but it’s their more prosaic features that pose the real danger." When the flashlight Tyler Hodges used in connection with taking tickets at an Oklahoma City haunted house began flickering and then died, he ventured inside the house in search of a replacement. To navigate, Mr. Hodges used the light of his cell phone. An actor complained that the light dampened the "otherworldly atmosphere" of the house, Mr. Hodges turned it off and made his way to the freight elevator, where the spare flashlights were stored. When he reached the elevator, Mr. Hodges lifted the wooden gate across the entrance and stepped in, not seeing that the elevator car was not there. Mr. Hodges sued Brewer Entertainment, the haunted house’s operator, for various torts. Brewer held two insurance polities, one with Western World Insurance Company, and the other with Markel American Insurance Company. Brewer quickly looked to them to defend the lawsuit and ultimately pay any award. For its part, Western World had excluded from its haunted house coverage “any claim arising from chutes, ladders, . . . naked hangman nooses, . . . trap doors . . . [or] electric shocks.” Because the policy did not specifically exclude "blind falls down elevator shafts," the company admitted coverage and proceeded to defend Mr. Hodges’s suit. Markel however, balked, refusing to defend or pay any claim. Western World sued to have Markel contribute to the costs of defending Mr. Hodges' suit. The district court agreed with Markel, and entered summary judgment in its favor. Upon review of the record, the Tenth Circuit found that Markel's escape clause was not enough for it to avoid contributing to defending Mr. Hodges' suit. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in Markel's favor and remanded the case for further proceedings.