Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

James Secrist, after recovering from COVID-19, began experiencing significant neurological symptoms, including leg weakness and inability to urinate. He was evaluated by various healthcare professionals at Rush Medical Foundation and Cardiovascular Institute of the South between March and June 2021. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with transverse myelitis attributed to COVID-19. James and his wife Dawn filed a medical malpractice suit against the involved healthcare providers, alleging negligence in failing to recognize and urgently address his worsening neurological condition.The case was brought in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under Mississippi Code Section 11-71-7, which provides legal immunity to healthcare professionals and facilities for acts or omissions related to healthcare services performed during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The circuit court found that the alleged negligent acts occurred during the COVID-19 state of emergency, that James’s condition was caused by COVID-19, and that the defendants’ actions were covered by the statutory immunity. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the statutory language and the facts alleged in the complaint de novo. The Supreme Court determined that Section 11-71-7 immunity applied because James’s injuries resulted from treatment for a condition caused by COVID-19 during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the statute should be construed more narrowly to exclude these facts, and also found extrajurisdictional cases cited by plaintiffs to be distinguishable. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal, holding that the defendants are immune from liability under Section 11-71-7. View "Secrist v. Rush Medical Foundation" on Justia Law

Four women incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Michigan suffered from persistent, painful rashes between 2016 and 2019. Despite repeated complaints, medical staff—contracted through Corizon Health—failed to diagnose scabies, instead providing ineffective treatments and attributing the condition to environmental factors like improper laundering. It was only after an outside dermatologist intervened that scabies was correctly identified, prompting prison-wide treatment efforts. However, these efforts were delayed and, in some cases, inadequate, resulting in prolonged suffering for the affected inmates.After their experiences, the four women filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against multiple defendants, including high-level Michigan Department of Corrections officials and Wayne State University medical officers, alleging Eighth Amendment violations and state-law negligence. The district court found that the women’s complaint plausibly alleged “clearly established” Eighth Amendment violations by all defendants and denied the officials’ request for qualified immunity. The court also rejected a claim of state-law immunity, finding that the officials could be the proximate cause of the inmates’ injuries under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denials. The Sixth Circuit held that existing precedent did not “clearly establish” that the non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers was so unreasonable as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal damages claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause under Michigan law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Machelle Pearson v. MDOC" on Justia Law

Several women incarcerated at a Michigan prison developed painful, persistent rashes between 2016 and 2019. Their complaints were largely ignored by prison staff, and medical providers initially misdiagnosed the condition, ruling out scabies, a highly contagious skin infestation. The prison’s contracted health care provider, Corizon Health, and its infectious disease coordinator were tasked with managing infectious diseases but failed to control the outbreak. Only after an outside dermatologist diagnosed scabies did prison officials begin widespread treatment and quarantine measures, though these efforts were not immediately effective. Four inmates who suffered from these conditions filed suit, seeking damages and injunctive relief against both the medical providers and high-level prison officials who had not directly treated them.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied motions for judgment on the pleadings by the Michigan Department of Corrections and Wayne State Officials. The district court held that the inmates had plausibly alleged that all defendants, including non-treating prison officials, committed clearly established Eighth Amendment violations and were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the gross negligence claims could proceed under Michigan law, as the complaint adequately alleged that the officials proximately caused the harms.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that, under existing precedent, non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers did not clearly constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. The court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the inmates’ federal damages claims against these officials, finding no clearly established law requiring them to override medical judgments. However, the court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, concluding that proximate cause under Michigan law could not be resolved at the pleading stage. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "BLC Lexington SNF, LLC v. Townsend" on Justia Law

Two former seasonal employees of a ski resort were injured in a snowmobile accident after being laid off from their jobs. The accident occurred when, two days after their termination, they returned to the resort to drop off uniforms and accepted a ride from a current employee on a company snowmobile to attend a gathering organized by other former employees. The snowmobile crashed, causing serious injuries. Prior to their employment, both injured parties had signed a release agreement that waived the resort’s liability for injuries sustained from activities on resort property, including those caused by the resort’s negligence. The agreement specified that a free ski pass was consideration for the waiver.Both individuals brought lawsuits against the resort alleging vicarious liability for the employee’s negligence and direct liability for its own negligence. The Third District Court, Summit County, granted summary judgment in favor of the resort on the vicarious liability claims, finding no evidence the employee was acting within the scope of employment during the snowmobile ride. However, the district court denied summary judgment on the direct liability claims, relying on Pugmire v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., a 1907 Utah Supreme Court decision holding that employer-employee agreements waiving liability for employer negligence are void as contrary to public policy.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the dismissal of the vicarious liability claims, concluding that there was no factual basis for a jury to find the employee acted within the course and scope of his employment. The court reversed the district court’s ruling on direct liability, holding that Pugmire applies only to releases for work-related injuries and does not bar enforcement of the waiver in this case, where the injuries occurred outside the employment context. The case was remanded for consideration of any other arguments regarding the release agreement. View "Deer Valley v. Olson" on Justia Law

An adult individual filed a civil lawsuit against a city and unnamed prison employees, alleging he was sexually assaulted while incarcerated. The complaint claimed that several prison employees assaulted him, motivated by his sexual orientation, resulting in severe physical injuries. The only cause of action implicating the city was for sexual abuse, with allegations that the city was negligent in its supervision, staffing, and protection of inmates.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County initially overruled the city’s preliminary objections, allowing the case to proceed and requiring the city to answer the complaint. However, upon the city’s request for reconsideration and after additional briefing, the court amended its order to permit an interlocutory appeal. The city then petitioned the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, challenging the applicability of a statutory exception to governmental immunity for sexual abuse. The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the statutory sexual abuse exception to governmental immunity applied only when the victim was a minor at the time of the abuse, and remanded for further proceedings.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the statutory waiver of governmental immunity for sexual abuse claims under Section 8542(b)(9) of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act applies solely to victims who were minors at the time of the abuse. The Supreme Court held that the statutory language unambiguously limits the exception to cases where the plaintiff was under eighteen at the time of the offense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order, maintaining that the city retains immunity from tort liability for alleged sexual abuse unless the victim was a minor when the abuse occurred. View "City of Phila. v. J.S." on Justia Law

A Maryland county brought a lawsuit against several pharmacy benefit managers, mail-order pharmacies, and retail pharmacies, alleging that they worked with opioid manufacturers to deceptively market opioids and facilitated opioid abuse by placing these drugs on preferred formularies with few restrictions. The county claimed that this conduct created a public nuisance by causing widespread opioid misuse, which resulted in increased public health and safety costs for the county. The county sought a finding of public nuisance, an injunction, abatement costs, damages to compensate for public services, and attorney’s fees.Prior to review by the Supreme Court of Maryland, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified two questions to the state high court. The questions asked whether, under Maryland’s common law, the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance can constitute an actionable public nuisance, and what elements and forms of relief are available for such a claim if so. The county argued that Maryland common law supported these claims, relying on language from prior cases and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, while defendants maintained that Maryland had never recognized such a broad public nuisance doctrine, especially for lawful and licensed conduct.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance does not constitute an actionable public nuisance under Maryland common law. The court explained that Maryland’s public nuisance doctrine historically allowed government entities only to seek criminal prosecutions or injunctive relief—not damages—and has not been expanded to cover lawful, regulated conduct such as the licensed dispensing of opioids. The court further found that the county’s complaint failed to meet a key requirement of public nuisance: interference with a common public right. Even if it did, the court stated that judicial restraint was appropriate given the extensive federal and state regulation of this area, making common law public nuisance an unsuitable remedy. View "Express Scripts v. Anne Arundel Cnty." on Justia Law

Jenna Sondag underwent hip surgery performed by Dr. John Hoffman at Orthopaedic Specialists, P.C. in February 2017. She filed a medical malpractice action in January 2019, agreeing to designate expert witnesses by a deadline set under Iowa Code section 668.11. Sondag missed this deadline due to a combination of her attorneys’ involvement in a lengthy trial, a medical emergency affecting one attorney, and a calendaring error by their docketing software. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the missed deadline, while Sondag sought an extension to name her expert witnesses.The Iowa District Court for Scott County held a hearing on both motions, and in 2019, found good cause for Sondag’s delay due to the circumstances described. The court denied summary judgment and extended the expert designation deadline. The defendants did not seek interlocutory appeal at that time. Nearly four years later, days before trial, the district court revisited its prior order after the defendants filed a motion in limine to decertify Sondag’s expert. The court reversed its earlier finding, excluded the expert, and dismissed the case for failure to timely designate an expert witness.Sondag appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, siding with the district court’s 2023 decision. The Supreme Court of Iowa granted further review. The Supreme Court held that while a district court may correct an erroneous ruling before final judgment, its 2019 order extending the deadline was not an abuse of discretion, but its 2023 order excluding the expert and dismissing the case was an abuse of discretion. The court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for trial. View "Sondag v. Orthopaedic Speciatists, P.C." on Justia Law

The appellant arrived at the emergency room of a medical center with severe lower back pain, right flank pain, and numbness and weakness in her left leg. Initial evaluations suggested symptoms consistent with sciatica, but further testing revealed profound anemia and a herniated disk, which did not warrant surgery. Imaging also showed a nonoccluding thrombus in her aorta. She was discharged after several days, with recommendations for follow-up. About two weeks later, she returned to the hospital with ischemic symptoms in her left leg, which led to an above-the-knee amputation due to advanced ischemia.The matter was initially heard in the Houston Circuit Court, where the appellant sued the medical center and a physician for negligence, alleging that improper evaluation and failure to initiate anticoagulant therapy resulted in limb loss. The physician was dismissed as a defendant, leaving the case against the medical center. After discovery, the medical center moved for summary judgment, arguing the appellant lacked substantial evidence of causation. The circuit court granted summary judgment, finding that causation could not be established.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the standard that summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court found that the appellant failed to present expert testimony establishing a proximate causal connection between the alleged breach and her injury. The medical expert's causation testimony was deemed speculative, as it relied on hypothetical actions by a vascular surgeon outside the expert’s specialty. The medical center’s expert, a vascular surgeon, testified that no different treatment would have been provided. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Armour v. Southeast Alabama Medical Center" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs were injured when their car was struck by a vehicle driven by a deputy sheriff responding to an emergency call. The accident occurred at an intersection where the deputy, traveling westbound, proceeded against a red light while the plaintiffs, traveling southbound, had the green light. Although the deputy activated her emergency lights and slowed down, coming to a complete stop at least once and waiting for northbound traffic to yield, it was disputed whether she used her air horn or siren, and whether she looked for or could see southbound traffic due to possible obstructions. It was also undisputed that she did not notify dispatch as required by departmental policy.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the defendants had established entitlement to summary judgment by showing Deputy Fong had not acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The appellate court observed that the deputy took several safety precautions before entering the intersection. Two justices dissented, reasoning that a jury could find recklessness based on the evidence.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence did not support a finding that the deputy acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The court emphasized that police vehicles are statutorily exempt from the requirement to use audible signals when exercising emergency driving privileges and that violations of internal policies exceeding statutory requirements do not establish liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the complaint. View "Granath v Monroe County" on Justia Law

A police officer suffered severe injuries during a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when a demonstrator threw a heavy object that struck him in the face. The protest was organized in response to police conduct and was led by a prominent activist who had previously participated in similar events that sometimes turned violent. On the day of the incident, the leader was observed directing protestors, including leading them onto a highway and not discouraging violent behavior as the situation escalated. The officer’s injuries were significant, resulting in lasting physical and psychological harm and the end of his law enforcement career.The officer sued the activist, Black Lives Matter, and related entities in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging negligence and other tort claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims with prejudice, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed as to the negligence claim against the activist. The Supreme Court of the United States vacated that decision, remanding for clarification of Louisiana negligence law. The Supreme Court of Louisiana confirmed that state law recognizes a duty not to negligently precipitate third-party crimes under the circumstances alleged. After further proceedings, the district court again granted summary judgment for the activist, finding no duty, lack of causation, and First Amendment protection.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that there is sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the activist’s leadership and actions breached a duty of care and were a cause-in-fact of the officer’s injuries, and that such a claim is not foreclosed by the First Amendment. The case was remanded for trial. View "Ford v. Mckesson" on Justia Law