Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Kent’s parents, Rick and Pamela, were visiting Kent's family. Kent’s father had suffered serious health problems for years; he spent most of his visit in bed. One morning, Kent, a physician, found his father unresponsive, but breathing. Rick had executed a living will and did not want life-sustaining procedures. Kent made his father comfortable. At 7:08 p.m., Kent determined that his father had died. Firefighter-EMT Oryszczak arrived and examined the body. Kent stated that he was a physician and that his father had passed away about 15 minutes earlier. Deputy Lopez arrived. Pamela stated that she did not have power-of-attorney paperwork with her. Oryszczak explained that without paperwork, protocol required them to “do everything.” Kent began yelling and gesturing. Oryszczak asked for assistance, stating that he was afraid of Kent intervening. Kent told deputies that “they were not going to assault my dead father in my home.” Lopez pulled out his taser. Kent undisputedly said, “Go ahead and Taze me” Lopez deployed the taser. The prongs struck Kent and he fell. Kent remained handcuffed, with the taser probes attached, during 15-20 minutes of questioning. Kent sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court denied defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants felt they were faced with an emergency, whether they thought they had a legal obligation to attempt resuscitation, and whether Kent was non-compliant, and that case law clearly established that using a taser on an individual who was not under arrest, posed no safety threat, made no threats, and was not physically resistant, constituted excessive force. View "Kent v. County of Oakland" on Justia Law

Hawver claims that the Jackson, Michigan, Center for Family Health a federally qualified health center, caused her mother’s death by providing negligent medical care. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive remedy for claims against federally qualified health centers such as Family Health, 42 U.S.C. 233. By the time Hawver filed suit, the two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under the Act had run. The district court dismissed, holding that failure to satisfy the Act’s statute of limitations requirements doubles as a failure to satisfy the subject matter jurisdiction requirements of the federal courts and precludes equitable tolling. After the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, held that the Act’s statute of limitations requirements do not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and that equitable tolling may save a late claim in some circumstances. The Sixth Circuit remanded to the district court to determine whether equitable tolling saves Hawver’s claim. View "Hawver v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2004, Yates, 17 years old, was sexually active and was suffering from severe menstrual cramps. Smith, a licensed physician assistant, counseled Yates about various contraceptives, and the risks and benefits accompanying each. Yates admits that she was counseled concerning the risk of a stroke and clotting associated with ORTHO EVRA®. She decided to try Depo-Provera, which requires injections at three-month intervals. In 2005 she discontinued Depo-Provera due to weight gain and switched to the ORTHO EVRA® patch. Smith again discussed side effects. Yates admitted that she would have used ORTHO EVRA® even if she had read package warnings. Yates suffered a stroke while she was wearing her first weekly patch. A board-certified neurologist and neurophysiologist opined that Yates’s “use of the Ortho-Evra patch was the contributing cause of her stroke.” Smith’s suit was transferred for consolidated pretrial proceedings in connection with In re: Ortho Evra Products Liability Litigation. The district court dismissed her claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The ORTHO EVRA® warnings in effect when Yates was prescribed the patch adequately warned her prescribing medical provider of the risk of stroke; there was no duty to directly warn Yates. The court rejected design defect, manufacturing defect, and negligence claims. View "Yates v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs received internet and cable services from TWC in Chardon, Ohio. The Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI), conducting an online investigation to identify individuals possessing and sharing child pornography, located a suspect using a public IP address of 173.88.218.170 and found images and movie files titled consistent with child pornography. The IP address of plaintiffs’ computers was 173.88.218.70. Responding to a subpoena for subscriber information for the .170 address, TWC indicated that it was assigned to plaintiffs. While executing a search warrant for plaintiffs’ residence, BCI agents determined that the IP address assigned to plaintiffs was the .70 address, not the .170 address. The search was terminated without discovery of any evidence of criminal activity. Plaintiffs alleged that the search was extensive, destructive, and in plain sight of neighbors; that TWC’s conduct was intentional and fraudulent; that disclosure of their subscriber information without authorization violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2707(a)); and state-law claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of TWC’s claim of immunity under section 2703(e), but found that 18 U.S.C. 2707(e)’s “good faith reliance” defense barred the claims and that the state-law claims failed because the factual allegations were insufficient to establish that TWC disclosed the information intentionally, wrongfully, or in breach of contract. View "Long v. Insight Commc'ns of Cent. Ohio, LLC" on Justia Law