Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Scott Cannon, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Blaise Cannon, filed a wrongful death and punitive damages claim against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBS). Cannon alleged that BCBS's denial of coverage for a specific inhaler led to asthma-related complications that contributed to Blaise's death. Blaise was a beneficiary of his partner's BCBS health insurance policy, which was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to BCBS on the grounds of ERISA preemption. The court found that Cannon's wrongful death claim was preempted by ERISA because it related to an employee benefit plan and arose from the denial of benefits under that plan. The court also held that the claim conflicted with the remedial scheme established by ERISA, which provides specific civil enforcement mechanisms.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Cannon's claim was statutorily preempted under ERISA because it had a connection with the ERISA-regulated health insurance plan. The court also found that the claim was preempted under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, as it sought remedies for the denial of benefits under the plan. The court rejected Cannon's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association altered the preemption analysis, reaffirming that ERISA preempts state laws that relate to employee benefit plans. The court concluded that Cannon's wrongful death claim was derivative of Blaise's potential claim for benefits, which would have been preempted by ERISA. View "Cannon v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI filed a lawsuit in September 2018 against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings and related entities, alleging negligence, product liability, and design defect claims related to the GranuFlo product used in hemodialysis treatments. The claims arose from a 2012 public memorandum by Fresenius that GranuFlo could lead to cardiopulmonary arrest. The plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations was tolled by a putative class action filed in 2013 (the Berzas action) in the Eastern District of Louisiana, which was later transferred to the District of Massachusetts as part of multidistrict litigation (MDL).The District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as time-barred, concluding that the Berzas action ceased to be a class action by June 2014 when the named plaintiffs filed Short Form Complaints or stipulations of dismissal, which did not include class allegations. The court also noted that the Berzas plaintiffs did not pursue class certification actively, and the case was administratively closed in April 2019.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The First Circuit held that the Berzas action lost its class action status by June 2014, and any tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah ended at that time. The court reasoned that allowing indefinite tolling based on an inactive class certification request would contravene the principles of efficiency and economy in litigation. Therefore, the plaintiffs' 2018 complaint was untimely, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Norene Rodríguez and Iris Rodríguez, sued Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, Inc. and Dr. José Báez Córdova for medical malpractice related to the treatment of their mother, Gloria Rodríguez González, who died after being treated for COVID-19. They alleged negligence in her care, particularly in failing to provide timely prophylactic medication for deep vein thrombosis, which they claimed led to her death.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any genuine issue of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also found that Dr. Báez was immune from suit under Puerto Rico law, as he was acting within his duties as a faculty member of the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) at the time of the alleged malpractice. Consequently, Encompass could not be held vicariously liable for his actions. The plaintiffs' remaining claims were deemed waived for lack of development.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Dr. Báez was immune from suit under Puerto Rico law, as he was acting in his capacity as a UPR faculty member supervising medical residents. The court also upheld the district court's application of the local anti-ferret rule, which disregarded certain facts not adequately supported by specific citations to the record. The plaintiffs' argument that Encompass was vicariously liable for the actions of other non-immune personnel was deemed waived, as it was not raised in the lower court. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing. View "Rodriguez v. Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, Inc." on Justia Law

Annalia Montany, a student in the University of New England’s (UNE) occupational therapy master’s degree program, injured her back when Scott McNeil, an instructor playing the role of a mock patient, feigned a fall while Montany attempted to assist him in transferring from a wheelchair into a bed. Because of her back problem she failed a practical exam and did not receive a passing grade for the course. Montany was subsequently dismissed from the program. Montany filed suit against UNE and McNeil, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) contrary to Montany’s assertion, expert testimony was required in this case; and (2) Montany’s breach of contract claims failed. View "Montany v. University of New England" on Justia Law

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute involving claims of defamation and other causes of action was premised on a diversity of citizenship. Hearts With Haiti Inc. and Michael Geilenfeld sued Paul Kendrick. Although a jury found for the plaintiffs, the First Circuit remanded the case to address the question of whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Geilenfeld was domiciled in Haiti and thus was not a citizen of a state for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) as a stateless American citizen domiciled abroad, Geilenfeld did not satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to cure the jurisdictional defect by dismissing Geilenfeld from the action. View "Hearts With Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick" on Justia Law

Patrick Camerano died after suffering a fall while on a “respite/nursing stay” at a facility operated by East Boston Neighborhood Health center (EBNHC). Plaintiff, Patrick’s son, sent a letter styled as a “claim” to the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) alleging state common law and federal statutory violations and seeking $1,700,000 in damages for Patrick’s alleged wrongful death. The district court granted summary judgment to the government, concluding (1) Plaintiff’s tort claims against EBNHC are considered tort claims against the United States, which was subject to a two-year limitations period; and (2) Plaintiff did not file his administrative complaint with HHS until more than two years after learning that his father had suffered a fatal injury caused by a fall. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s arguments that his claim did not accrue until his newly retained counsel was able to ascertain the name of the respite/nursing home where his father’s accident happen failed; (2) Plaintiff’s argument that the two-year limitations period should be equitably tolled also failed; and (3) the district court did not commit procedural error in granting summary judgment to the government. View "Camerano v. United States" on Justia Law

Lisa Tam Chung, a Texas high school senior, purchased a vacation package through StudentCity.com for a trip to Cancun, Mexico, adding an optional snorkeling excursion. The snorkeling trip ended with the vessel taking on water and Lisa being pulled under the water. Lisa died as a result of her injuries. Lisa, through her parents, brought a wrongful death claim against StudentCity. During discovery, the district court, with the acquiescence of the parties, limited pretrial discovery to specific issues. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of StudentCity. The First Circuit reversed, holding that because the district court entered summary judgment on an issue not briefed and on which discovery had not been allowed, the district court’s shift in focus exceeded its authority. Remanded. View "Chung v. StudentCity.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured while receiving treatment at a federally funded healthcare facility. Plaintiff later filed an administrative claim with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) using a Standard Form 95 (SF 95). Plaintiff, however, failed to fill out the box for a sum certain. HHS denied Plaintiff’s claim. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued the United States seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The United States moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to provide a timely sum-certain demand. The magistrate judge treated the motion as one for summary judgment and recommended that judgment enter for the United States, concluding that Plaintiff did not timely satisfy the FTCA’s requirements. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation on de novo review. The First Circuit affirmed, arguing that, where Plaintiff’s SF 95 did not include a sum certain, none of Plaintiff’s arguments for reversal had merit. View "Holloway v. United States" on Justia Law

Erasmo Rodriguez-Vazquez (Rodriguez) successfully worked to obtain the reversal of several wrongfully convicted individuals. Those individuals and/or their heirs or assigns brought two suits, consolidated into this case, against the police officers and prosecutors who were involved in their prosecutions. The parties reached a settlement. The district court issued a report that the parties and the district court have treated as a gag order barring the parties from disclosing the terms and conditions of the settlement. Rodriguez subsequently made statements about the settlement to the press. The district court held Rodriguez in contempt and referred him to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Supreme Judicial Court for disciplinary review. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and vacated the contempt and sanctions order, holding that the district court’s contempt finding and sanction were based on clearly erroneous findings of fact because Rodriguez did not violate what the parties all treat as a confidentiality order issued by the district court. View "Rodriguez-Vazquez v. Solivan Solivan" on Justia Law

While she was a student at Harvard Law School (HLS), Megon Walker was a member of the staff of the Journal of Law and Technology. During Walker’s final semester, concerns arose regarding a draft article (the Note) that Walker had written. After a hearing, the HLS Administrative Board (Board) found that the Note contained plagiarism. Walker received a formal reprimand, which ultimately appeared on her transcript. Walker graduated from HLS despite the reprimand, but the notation placed on transcript caused the loss of a lucrative employment offer. Walker filed suit against the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the then-Dean of Students at HLS, and the former Chair of the Board, seeking to have the notation removed from her transcript. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment against Walker on her claims of breach of contract and defamation. View "Walker v. Harvard University Fellows" on Justia Law