Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Trudy Maxwell, a 93-year-old resident of Atria Park of San Mateo, died after ingesting an industrial strength cleaner mistakenly served to her by an Atria employee. Trudy’s eight surviving children, including James Maxwell III (James III), filed a lawsuit against Atria Management Company and related entities, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and elder abuse. The trial court denied Atria’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that James III, who signed the arbitration agreement, was not authorized to do so under his durable power of attorney (DPOA) because he was not authorized to make health care decisions for Trudy. Instead, Trudy’s daughter, Marybeth, held the power of attorney for health care.The Atria defendants appealed, arguing that James III had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement and that all of Trudy’s heirs were bound to arbitrate their wrongful death claims. They also contended that California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), which allows an exception to arbitration when third-party claims may be affected, was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s order denying arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court instructed the trial court to reconsider the validity of the arbitration agreement in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, which held that agreeing to an optional arbitration agreement is not a health care decision. The appellate court also directed the trial court to determine whether the DPOA was valid and whether James III had the authority to agree to arbitration despite Marybeth holding the health care POA. Additionally, the court noted that the wrongful death claims of Trudy’s children were not subject to arbitration as they were not parties to the arbitration agreement. View "Maxwell v. Atria Management Co., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2021, Hal de Becker contracted COVID-19 and was treated with ivermectin by his personal physician. Hal was later admitted to Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center, where his ivermectin treatment was stopped without consent, and he was administered remdesivir. Hal's condition deteriorated, and he died shortly after being discharged. Hal's family sued the attending doctors and the hospital, alleging negligence, professional negligence, and wrongful death, claiming the doctors and hospital failed to obtain informed consent and made treatment decisions based on media narratives.The Eighth Judicial District Court dismissed the claims against the doctors and the hospital. The court found that the claims against the doctors were barred by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and that the expert affidavit provided by the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of NRS 41A.071. The court also dismissed the claims against the hospital, finding them similarly barred by the PREP Act and that the claims were for professional negligence rather than ordinary negligence.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were for professional negligence and required an expert affidavit under NRS 41A.071. The court found the expert affidavit insufficient as to the doctors because it did not specify acts of negligence separately for each doctor. However, the affidavit was sufficient as to the hospital. Despite this, the court concluded that the PREP Act barred the claim against the hospital because it related to the administration of remdesivir, a covered countermeasure. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "De Becker v. UHS of Delaware, Inc." on Justia Law

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination.However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Paul Passafiume, as the independent administrator of the estate of Lois Passafiume, who filed a professional negligence complaint against Daniel Jurak, D.O., and others, alleging wrongful death and survival actions due to negligent care leading to Lois's death in 2014. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the plaintiff sought damages for loss of material services beyond his remarriage in 2015.In the Grundy County circuit court, the defendants filed a motion in limine to limit the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness, economist Stan Smith, regarding the loss of material services to the period before the plaintiff’s remarriage. The court denied this motion, allowing evidence of loss of material services beyond the remarriage. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,121,914.34 in damages, later reduced due to contributory negligence. The defendants' posttrial motion for a new trial or remittitur was denied, leading to an appeal.The Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that a plaintiff’s remarriage does not limit damages for loss of material services in a wrongful death action. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois.The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the appellate court's judgment, holding that in a wrongful death claim under the Wrongful Death Act, a plaintiff’s remarriage does not affect the recoverable damages for the loss of a decedent’s material services. The court overruled previous appellate decisions that had incorporated material services into loss of consortium claims, which terminate upon remarriage. The court maintained that material services remain a separate element of pecuniary damages under the Act, unaffected by remarriage. View "Passafiume v. Jurak" on Justia Law

Mark Glen Spencer died from sepsis two days after a surgical procedure performed by Dr. Lana Nelson at Norman Regional Medical Authority. Spencer's brother, Jimmy Wayne Spencer, acting as the Special Administrator of the estate, filed a wrongful death action against the hospital and Dr. Nelson, alleging negligent and grossly negligent treatment. The hospital delayed providing complete medical records, which were essential for evaluating the claim.The District Court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the potential claim before the statutory deadline and that Dr. Nelson, as a hospital employee, was immune from individual liability under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the discovery rule did not apply to wrongful death claims under the GTCA and that Dr. Nelson could not be individually sued for actions within the scope of her employment.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule applies to wrongful death actions arising from medical negligence under the GTCA. It also ruled that governmental employees have no immunity under the GTCA for gross negligence or acts outside the scope of employment. The court found that the trial court erred in making factual determinations on a motion to dismiss and that it should have taken the plaintiff's allegations as true. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "SPENCER v. NELSON" on Justia Law

From 2018 to 2020, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) sent misleading communications to customers behind on their electric bills, threatening winter disconnection without providing accurate information about customers' rights and the required process under Maine Public Utilities Commission rules. In 2020, the Commission investigated and CMP consented to a finding of rule violations and paid a $500,000 penalty.Brett Deane, Henry Lavender, and Joleen Mitchell, CMP customers who received these misleading communications, filed a multicount complaint against CMP in January 2020. The Business and Consumer Docket dismissed claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory violations, and granted summary judgment for CMP on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the misrepresentation claims, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege pecuniary harm, which is necessary for such claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the statutory cause of action, determining that 35-A M.R.S. § 1501 does not create a private right of action. Finally, the court upheld the summary judgment on the IIED claim, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate severe emotional distress as required by law, and that CMP's conduct, while extreme and outrageous, did not warrant an inference of severe emotional distress. View "Deane v. Central Maine Power Company" on Justia Law

Brett Favre, a former professional football player, sued Shannon Sharpe, another former player and sports talk show host, for defamation. Sharpe had made statements on his show accusing Favre of stealing funds from a government program intended for impoverished individuals. These comments were made in the context of a widely reported welfare scandal in Mississippi, where federal funds were misused, and Favre was alleged to have received some of these funds. Favre had not been criminally charged but was involved in a civil suit filed by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) to recover misused funds.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed Favre's defamation suit on the pleadings. The court ruled that Sharpe's comments were rhetorical hyperbole and thus not actionable. The court found that no reasonable person would interpret Sharpe's statements as literal accusations of theft, given the context of the broadcast.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court did not analyze the rhetorical hyperbole argument but instead focused on whether Sharpe's statements were protected opinions based on disclosed facts. The court concluded that Sharpe's statements were strongly stated opinions based on widely reported facts about the welfare scandal. The court noted that the broadcast included corrections and clarifications about the facts, and Sharpe's comments did not imply undisclosed false facts. Therefore, the statements were nonactionable as they were opinions based on truthful, established facts.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Favre's defamation claim, holding that Sharpe's statements were protected opinions and did not constitute defamation. View "Favre v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

Ryan Davis and Anthony Crane ordered wet ready-mix concrete from Simon Contractors for a garage floor project. Both had limited experience with concrete, though Davis had experience with a similar product called thinset. The concrete was delivered in two truckloads, and Davis and Crane worked without proper protective equipment. They suffered severe chemical burns from prolonged contact with the wet concrete.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska held a jury trial. Davis and Crane claimed Simon Contractors was negligent for failing to warn about the dangers of wet concrete. The jury found in favor of Simon Contractors. Davis and Crane appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions and the admission of evidence about Davis’s prior litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court correctly instructed the jury on the sophisticated user and assumption of risk defenses under Nebraska law. The court held that Davis and Crane’s experience with similar products and the warnings provided were sufficient for the jury to conclude they knew or should have known the risks. The court also found no error in the assumption of risk instruction, as evidence showed Davis and Crane were aware of the dangers and failed to take necessary precautions.Regarding the cross-examination about Davis’s prior litigation, the court ruled that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless. The probative questions were about Davis and Crane’s knowledge of the risks, and the evidence on these issues was clear. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Simon Contractors. View "Davis v. Simon Contractors, Inc." on Justia Law

Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell sued Dr. Inder Singh for malpractice, alleging he violated a duty of care by refusing to treat their mother, Carol McCurry, who died while awaiting transfer to another hospital. Carol was brought to Methodist Hospital with shortness of breath and was diagnosed with an aortic dissection and a possible heart attack. Dr. Michael Brandon, the treating emergency physician, consulted Dr. Singh, an on-call interventional cardiologist at Mercy General Hospital. Dr. Singh initially agreed that Carol needed acute catheterization but later decided she was not a candidate for the procedure. Consequently, Dr. Singh did not accept her transfer, and Carol died before she could be transferred to another facility.The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh, ruling that he did not owe a duty of care to Carol because no physician-patient relationship existed between them. The court found that Dr. Singh did not affirmatively treat or directly advise Carol, and thus, no legal duty was established.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that a physician's duty of care arises only when a physician-patient relationship is established, which did not occur in this case. Dr. Singh's consultation with Dr. Brandon and his decision not to treat Carol did not create such a relationship. The court also declined to apply the reasoning from an Arizona case cited by the plaintiffs, emphasizing that under California law, the duty of care is contingent upon the existence of a physician-patient relationship. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh was affirmed. View "McCurry v. Singh" on Justia Law

Raizel Blumberger filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Ian Tilley, alleging that he failed to provide proper medical care during childbirth, resulting in her injuries. Dr. Tilley was an employee of Eisner Pediatric and Family Medical Services, a federally funded health center deemed a Public Health Service (PHS) employee for 2018. The Attorney General appeared in state court, stating that Dr. Tilley's status was under consideration. A year later, the Attorney General advised that Dr. Tilley was not a deemed employee, leading Dr. Tilley to remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and 42 U.S.C. § 233(l)(1).The United States District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case, finding Dr. Tilley's removal untimely under § 1442 and concluding that the Attorney General satisfied its advice obligations under § 233(l)(1). Dr. Tilley appealed, arguing that the Attorney General failed to properly advise the state court of his deemed status, thus making removal appropriate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court analyzed the timeliness of Dr. Tilley's § 1442 removal under the wrong legal standard and remanded on that basis. The court determined it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s § 233 analysis, despite potential untimeliness. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Attorney General was obligated under § 233(l)(1) to advise the state court that Dr. Tilley had been a deemed employee during the relevant period. The court reversed the district court’s conclusion that the Attorney General’s notice satisfied § 233(l)(1) and held that the government was obligated to remove the case to federal court. The case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "BLUMBERGER V. TILLEY" on Justia Law