Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A patient was involuntarily admitted to a hospital for mental health treatment due to dementia-related aggression. During his stay, he developed and experienced worsening pressure ulcers. After being transferred to another facility, he died ten days later. The estate of the patient filed a wrongful death and survival action against the hospital, alleging negligence and corporate negligence in the care and treatment of the patient’s pressure ulcers, claiming these injuries contributed to his decline and death.The Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas granted the hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the hospital’s care for the pressure ulcers was incidental to the patient’s mental health treatment. The court concluded that, under Section 114 of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), the hospital was immune from liability for ordinary negligence because the care provided was coincident to mental health treatment, and the complaint did not allege willful misconduct or gross negligence. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed this decision, holding that the immunity provision of the MHPA applied to the hospital’s conduct.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the MHPA’s immunity provision applied to the hospital’s treatment of the patient’s physical ailments during his mental health admission. The Court held that the MHPA’s immunity provision covers not only treatment directly related to mental illness but also medical care coincident to mental health treatment, including foreseeable physical complications like pressure ulcers. Because the estate’s complaint alleged only ordinary negligence and not gross negligence or willful misconduct, the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the hospital. View "Wunderly v. Saint Luke's Hosp." on Justia Law

A patient alleged that she suffered a neck fracture after falling from her hospital bed while medicated and unattended at a hospital. She filed a complaint against the hospital within the one-year statute of limitations for medical claims, also naming ten John Doe defendants described as unknown medical providers involved in her care. The hospital was served and answered the complaint, but the plaintiff did not obtain summonses or attempt service on the John Doe defendants. Several months later, with the hospital’s consent, she amended her complaint to replace the John Doe defendants with specific individuals and entities, including two doctors and a medical group.The newly named defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims against them were time-barred because they were not named before the statute of limitations expired and the plaintiff had not complied with Ohio Civil Rule 15(D), which governs the naming and service of unknown defendants. The Richland County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion, holding that the statutory 180-day extension for joining additional defendants in medical-claim actions did not apply to defendants who were “obvious” at the outset and that the plaintiff was required to comply with Civil Rule 15(D). The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the statutory extension applied to any additional defendants not named in the original complaint, regardless of whether their existence was contemplated at filing.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s decision. It held that a plaintiff is not required to comply with Civil Rule 15(D) to name additional defendants in an amended complaint under R.C. 2323.451(D)(1), and that the 180-day extension under R.C. 2323.451(D)(2) is not limited to newly discovered defendants. Because the plaintiff properly amended her complaint to join the additional defendants, the extension applied and her action was timely commenced. View "Lewis v. MedCentral Health Sys." on Justia Law

A patient with a history of aortic valve replacement visited an urgent care facility with symptoms including fever, headache, and chills. The urgent care doctor suspected bacterial endocarditis, a potentially fatal infection, and referred the patient to the emergency department at a hospital, providing a note and calling ahead. At the emergency department, the attending physician reviewed the note but dismissed the suspicion of endocarditis, diagnosing the patient with a viral syndrome and discharging him. The patient later saw his primary care provider, who also suspected endocarditis, but he died two days later. An autopsy confirmed death from complications of sepsis due to acute bacterial endocarditis. The patient’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the hospital and emergency physician’s failure to diagnose and treat endocarditis caused his death.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s expert testimony did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required by Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-572 for emergency department malpractice claims. The court reasoned that the experts did not state causation to a high degree of medical probability. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the expert opinions were insufficient to meet the heightened standard and that summary judgment was appropriate.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed and remanded. It held that the clear and convincing evidence standard in § 12-572 is a standard of proof, not a prima facie element of the claim. The Court clarified that a plaintiff’s expert testimony that negligence “likely” caused the injury is sufficient to establish causation for purposes of surviving summary judgment. The factfinder must consider all relevant, admissible evidence—not just expert testimony—when determining whether causation has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "HENKE v. HOSPITAL" on Justia Law

After her pregnancy extended past her due date, a woman was admitted to a hospital and came under the care of a physician who, along with hospital staff, induced labor. When a vacuum extraction delivery attempt failed, the physician performed an emergency cesarean section, delivering a baby who was born alive but in critical condition. The infant died eight days later after being treated in neonatal intensive care and ultimately removed from life support.The woman brought suit against the physician, the hospital, and a nurse-midwife, asserting several claims, including medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, both on behalf of her deceased son’s estate and on her own behalf. As relevant here, she sought damages for her own emotional distress based on an alleged lack of informed consent for the vacuum extraction procedure. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment dismissing her direct medical malpractice claim but denied summary judgment on her lack of informed consent claim, finding factual disputes. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, holding that precedent barring recovery for purely emotional damages in prenatal torts did not apply to lack of informed consent claims, and alternatively invited the Court of Appeals to revisit its precedent.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether its prior decision in Sheppard-Mobley v King, which bars recovery for purely emotional damages by a birthing parent when medical malpractice causes in utero injury to a fetus born alive, also applies to lack of informed consent claims. The Court held that it does, reasoning that lack of informed consent is a form of medical malpractice and that no legal or logical basis exists to treat such claims differently for purposes of emotional damages. The Court declined to overrule its precedent, reversed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissed the lack of informed consent claim for emotional damages, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "SanMiguel v. Grimaldi" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, S.C., filed a civil action in September 2022 against Doe 1, alleging that she was sexually assaulted by her foster father while in foster care under Doe 1’s custody, care, and control, “in approximately 1981.” S.C. complied with the statutory requirement to file certificates of merit, which were approved by the Tulare County Superior Court. Later, upon receiving her juvenile case records, S.C. discovered she was not placed in foster care by Doe 1 until March 1984, and thus sought to amend her complaint to reflect that the alleged abuse occurred between 1984 and 1986.The Tulare County Superior Court denied S.C.’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, reasoning that the certificate of merit requirement under former section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not allow for amendments to the complaint or certificates of merit after filing. The court subsequently granted Doe 1’s motion for summary judgment, finding that S.C. was not in Doe 1’s custody in 1981, as alleged in the original complaint, and therefore Doe 1 could not have owed or breached any duty to S.C. at that time.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed both the summary judgment and the orders denying S.C.’s motion for leave to amend. The court held that former section 340.1 does not prohibit amendments to the complaint under section 473, subdivision (a)(1), and that the certificates of merit may be amended in accordance with the relation-back doctrine. The appellate court directed the superior court to allow S.C. to amend her complaint to allege the abuse occurred between 1984 and 1986 and to permit the filing of amended certificates of merit. Costs on appeal were awarded to S.C. View "S.C. v. Doe 1" on Justia Law

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, a patient received medical care that included a hysterectomy performed by a physician at a local medical center. Following the procedure, the patient experienced significant complications, including infection, sepsis, and additional surgeries, which led to prolonged recovery and ongoing health issues. The patient and her husband filed a lawsuit against the physician, the medical practice, and the hospital, alleging negligence and gross negligence in the performance of the surgery and subsequent care.The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that they were immune from civil liability under North Carolina’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which was enacted in response to the pandemic. They asserted that the Act provided them with immunity because the care was rendered during the pandemic and was impacted by it, and that the complaint did not allege bad faith. The Superior Court in Pitt County denied the motions to dismiss. The defendants appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the requirements for statutory immunity under the Emergency Act were not met on the face of the complaint and that the denial of the motions to dismiss was not immediately appealable as a matter of right.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss was an interlocutory order and not immediately appealable. The Court concluded that the Emergency Act provides immunity from liability, not from suit, and therefore does not create a substantial right warranting immediate appeal. The Court also found that the denial of the motions did not implicate personal jurisdiction under the relevant statute. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Land v. Whitley" on Justia Law

Melvin Joseph Long was fatally injured while working on an industrial chiller at North Carolina State University. The chiller, which had been improperly winterized by university maintenance employees, developed internal pressure after water left in its tubes froze and caused the tubes to burst, allowing refrigerant to enter and pressurize the system. When Long, an OSHA-certified pipefitter, attempted to remove a flange from the chiller, the pressurized component caused the flange to detach explosively, striking him and resulting in his death.After the incident, Long’s estate filed a wrongful death action in the Superior Court of Person County against the university employees involved. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact and concluding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The estate appealed, arguing that issues of foreseeability and contributory negligence should have precluded summary judgment. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the accident was not a foreseeable result of the defendants’ actions and, alternatively, that contributory negligence barred recovery.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case de novo. It held that the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated the accident resulted from an unforeseeable sequence of events, and that foreseeability is a necessary element of proximate cause for actionable negligence. The Court found that neither the defendants’ training nor the equipment manuals provided any basis to reasonably foresee the type of injury that occurred. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding summary judgment for the defendants. View "Long v. Fowler" on Justia Law

A Minnesota resident filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing her former live-in partner as a disputed creditor. After the discovery of a nonexempt interest in a lake cabin, creditors were invited to file claims. The former partner, initially acting pro se and later with counsel, filed several claims seeking reimbursement for property and funds allegedly provided to the debtor. These claims were reduced and ultimately settled for $9,000, with the debtor withdrawing her objections. Shortly thereafter, the creditor filed a new claim for $400,000, alleging personal injury torts such as assault, battery, and emotional distress, supported by a draft complaint. The debtor objected, arguing the claim was untimely, unsupported, and barred by various defenses.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota sustained the debtor’s objection and disallowed the personal injury claim. The court applied the narrowest test for “personal injury tort” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), finding the claim did not involve bodily injury and thus was not a personal injury tort. The court also found the claim barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel, reasoning that the prior settlement and proceedings precluded relitigation of the same issues.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The panel held that, under any of the three recognized tests, the creditor’s claim was for damages for a “personal injury tort.” Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred in determining it had jurisdiction to finally adjudicate the claim. The panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order disallowing the claim and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, directing that the district court must try the personal injury tort claim as required by statute. View "Arrieta v. Smith" on Justia Law

This case arises from a 2004 automobile accident in which one driver, LaMoin Larkin, died. Larkin’s insurer paid benefits to his estate and then sued the surviving driver, Jared Weston, for negligence, also seeking a declaratory judgment that Weston was insured by Farmers Insurance Exchange at the time of the accident. Farmers Insurance Exchange denied coverage, claiming the policy had been cancelled prior to the accident. Weston filed a crossclaim against Farmers, alleging breach of the duty to defend. Weston and Larkin’s insurer arbitrated the negligence claim, resulting in a finding of liability against Weston and a judgment entered in 2009.The Third District Court, Salt Lake County, confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment. It later held a bench trial to resolve whether Farmers had properly cancelled Weston’s policy, ultimately finding the cancellation was valid and that Weston was not insured at the time of the accident. The court also granted summary judgment that Farmers had breached its duty to defend Weston, as the complaint raised a genuine issue regarding cancellation. Subsequent proceedings addressed damages, including emotional distress and attorney fees. The district court found Weston failed to prove emotional distress caused by the breach and reduced damages to zero. The court also ruled that the 2009 judgment had not expired, allowing it to be amended to include interest and costs.The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings on cancellation, breach of duty to defend, and emotional distress, but reversed on consequential damages, holding Farmers liable for the arbitration judgment and related attorney fees. On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that the 2009 judgment expired in 2017 under Utah law, reversing the court of appeals on that issue and vacating the award of damages and attorney fees based on the expired judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed that Farmers breached its duty to defend but found no basis for damages or attorney fees due to the expiration of the judgment. View "Farm Bureau v. Weston" on Justia Law

Six women who were formerly incarcerated at the Jasper City Jail in Alabama alleged that they suffered repeated sexual abuse by jailers, primarily by one officer, while serving as inmates. The plaintiffs described a range of sexual assaults and harassment, with one plaintiff also alleging abuse by a second jailer. The jail operated under the authority of the City of Jasper’s police chief, with a chief jailer and other supervisory staff responsible for daily operations. Jail policies expressly prohibited sexual contact between staff and inmates, and there were procedures for reporting grievances, but the plaintiffs claimed these mechanisms were ineffective or inaccessible.After the alleged abuse, the Alabama State Bureau of Investigation began an inquiry, leading to the resignation of the primary alleged abuser and, later, his indictment on state charges. The plaintiffs filed six separate lawsuits, later consolidated, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations against the police chief, chief jailer, and the City, as well as claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). One plaintiff also brought claims against a second jailer. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding insufficient evidence that the supervisory officials or the City had knowledge of, or were deliberately indifferent to, the alleged abuse, and that the claims against one jailer failed for lack of proper service.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the actions or inactions of the supervisory officials or the City and the alleged constitutional violations, as there was no evidence of a widespread custom or policy of tolerating sexual abuse, nor of deliberate indifference or failure to train. The court also found that certain claims were time-barred and that the TVPRA claims failed due to lack of evidence that the City knowingly benefited from or had knowledge of the alleged trafficking. View "Bridges v. Poe" on Justia Law