Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the compensatory-damages caps for noneconomic loss in Ohio Rev. Code 2315.18 were unconstitutionally applied to Plaintiff, who was sexually abused by Defendant when she was a child.A jury found Defendant guilty of over ninety counts of, among other things, rape and kidnapping. Thirty-four of those counts involved acts against Plaintiff. Plaintiff later filed a tort action against Defendant and asked the trial court for a declaratory judgment holding that section 2315.18 was unconstitutional as applied to her case. The jury awarded Plaintiff, inter alia, $20 million in compensatory damages for the abuse she suffered after the damages caps went in effect. The trial court denied Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief and reduced her $20 million noneconomic damages award to $250,000. The court reversed, holding that section 2315.18 is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff to the extent that it failed to include an exception to its compensatory-damages caps for noneconomic loss for plaintiffs who have suffered permanent and severe psychological injuries. View "Brandt v. Pompa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a deceased employee's prior timely filing of a workers' compensation claim for an injury was sufficient to establish the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction over a dependent's subsequent claim for death benefits allegedly resulting from that injury, thus reversing the court of appeals' ruling below.The Commission in this case denied Plaintiff's claim for death benefits and dismissed the claim with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff's untimely filing could not grant the Commission jurisdiction over the claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decedent's timely claim established the Commission's jurisdiction over this matter. View "McAuley v. N.C. A&T State University" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court ordering certain records produced to Plaintiff in discovery before trial, holding that the district court erred by relying on civil discovery rules to compel production of the records at issue.Plaintiff's daughter was killed in a motorcycle accident. Plaintiff brought a tort action against the driver of the motorcycle and settled without subpoenaing the county sheriff's investigative reports. After a criminal investigation and prosecution of the driver was complete Plaintiff brought this enforcement action under Iowa Code chapter 22 against the county sheriff's department seeking to obtain its complete investigation file. The district court ordered the records produced to Plaintiff in discovery before trial without ruling on their confidentiality. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in compelling disclosure of the sheriff's investigation materials to Plaintiff's counsel. View "Vaccaro v. Polk County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the opinion and order of the Workers' Compensation Board denying Officer Tracy Toler's petition for reconsideration of the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) declining to award Toler an additional two percent impairment rating for pain, holding that a physician that is not licensed in Kentucky does not meet the definition of "physician" under Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.0011(32).Dr. Craig Roberts conducted an independent medical examination on Toler and assessed a six percent whole person impairment rating. To contest the rating, Toler's employer filed a report by Dr. Christopher Brigham believing a four percent impairment rating was more appropriate. The ALJ found Dr. Brigham's opinion to be more credible than Dr. Roberts' and did not award Toler an additional two percent impairment rating for pain. On appeal, Toler argued that Brigham did not qualify as a "physician" under section 342.0011(32). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ALJ's opinion and order, holding that Dr. Brigham did not meet the statutory definition of "physician" under the statute, and therefore, his report was inadmissible. View "Toler v. Fiscal Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the circuit court that Ky. Rev. Stat. 411.137 and Ky. Rev. Stat. 391.033, collectively known as Mandy Jo's Law, prevented Lawrence Miller from being awarded any of the settlement proceeds from the wrongful death action against the hospital where his stillborn daughter, Autumn, was born, holding that Mandy Jo's Law is not applicable when the child in question is stillborn.After Autumn was born stillborn, her mother, Brittany Bunch, filed suit against the Hospital alleging wrongful death. Miller subsequently filed a motion to intervene. After DNA testing proved Miller's paternity, the trial court allowed Miller's motion to intervene. The Hospital, Bunch, and Miller reached a settlement, and Bunch argued that Miller should not be awarded any settlement proceeds in accordance with Mandy Jo's Law. The trial court agreed and granted judgment for Bunch. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislature did not contemplate the application of Mandy Jo's law to the facts in this case. View "Miller v. Brunch" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued Biomet, Inc. and associated entities (Biomet) after the wife’s M2a Magnum hip implant failed. The M2a Magnum is a large-diameter metal-on-metal hip implant produced by Biomet. The wife argued that the implant caused irreparable damage to her hip joint and surrounding tissues. A jury awarded the wife $20 million in damages. The jury awarded an additional $1 million in damages to her husband for his loss of consortium. Biomet appealed, arguing that (1) the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, (2) Plaintiffs failed to establish the required standard of care, (3) Plaintiffs failed to show a breach by Biomet, and (4) the damages award was excessive.   The Eighth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court explained that the jury could have, in its discretion, believed or discounted the expert testimony in its entirety. Further, the jury could have determined whether Biomet’s testing procedures met industry standards. If credited by the jury, this testimony was a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that Biomet failed to meet a reasonable standard of care. Thus, the court did not overturn the jury’s determination because the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find a design defect. Further, the court deferred to the jury’s judgment as to whether $20 million is the correct compensation for a lifetime of hip dislocations and seven revision surgeries. View "Mary Bayes v. Biomet, Inc." on Justia Law

This action was brought by plaintiff Nancy Holm, administratrix of the estate of her husband, Christopher Friedauer, who died in 2015 after falling at his workplace, Holmdel Nurseries, LLC. As a longtime employee of the family-owned business, Christopher had been covered by workers’ compensation insurance, but he was no longer covered after he became a member of the LLC in 2012. Plaintiff claimed that defendant Daniel Purdy, who served as the insurance broker for Holmdel Nurseries from 2002 to 2015, failed to provide to the LLC the notice mandated by N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, and that Christopher was unaware that he no longer had workers’ compensation coverage in his new role as an LLC member. She alleged that as a result of defendant’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, Friedauer’s dependents were deprived of a workers’ compensation death benefit to which they would have been entitled under N.J.S.A. 34:15-13 had he been covered by workers’ compensation insurance at the time of his death. Defendant asserted that Friedauer’s father, Robert Friedauer, the LLC’s managing member for insurance issues, instructed defendant in 2002 that Holmdel Nurseries did not want to purchase workers’ compensation coverage for its LLC members because of the cost of that coverage. At the close of a jury trial, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:37-2(b) and his motion for judgment at trial pursuant to Rule 4:40-1. Informed by the New Jersey Legislature’s expression of public policy in N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, the New Jersey Supreme Court concurred with the Appellate Division that defendant had a duty to advise the LLC members, at the time of the workers’ compensation policy’s purchase or renewal, that an LLC member actively performing services on the LLC’s behalf was eligible for workers’ compensation coverage, but that the LLC must elect to purchase such coverage in order to obtain it. Consistent with N.J.S.A. 34:15-36, however, the Supreme Court held that defendant could not be held liable for breach of that duty unless the damages alleged were caused by defendant’s willful, wanton or grossly negligent act of commission or omission. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s assessment of the evidence presented by plaintiff on the question of proximate cause. Accordingly, the Court concurred that the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and his motion for judgment at trial, and affirmed as modified the Appellate Division’s judgment. The case was thus remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Holm v. Purdy" on Justia Law

Appellee Linda Reibenstein undisputedly brought her claims against Appellant Patrick Conaboy, M.D., after the two-year period had run, and the death certificate undisputedly and correctly noted the medical cause of Reibenstein’s decedent’s death. The trial court ruled that the phrase “cause of death” referred specifically and only to the direct medical cause of death. Accordingly, it granted summary judgment to Dr. Conaboy under Section 513(d) of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (“MCARE”). The Superior Court reversed, interpreting “cause of death” more broadly to encompass considerations associated with the manner of death (i.e., legal cause). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that MCARE’s tolling provision could not bear the breadth of that reading, and reversed. View "Reibenstein v. Barax" on Justia Law

Appellants, who were maimed in a hot air balloon accident in southeastern Pennsylvania in 2015, pursued appellate challenges to the District of Maryland’s rulings against them and in favor of T.H.E. Insurance Company (the “Insurer”) in an insurance coverage dispute. In federal court proceedings initiated in Maryland, Appellants sued certain of the Insurer’s named insureds, and a business called New Horizon Balloon Team (collectively, the “Insureds”) — for the gruesome injuries Appellants’ sustained in the balloon accident (the “damages lawsuit”). While the damages lawsuit was pending, the Insurer initiated these insurance coverage proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming as defendants the three Insureds, plus Appellants. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the Insurer’s contention with respect to a $100,000 coverage limit for each balloon passenger. The Memorandum Opinion also rejected both of Appellants’ bad faith claims. Appellants appealed those rulings.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Applying Maryland principles of res judicata in this dispute, the court was satisfied that the coverage issue presented by the Insurer in these proceedings is not barred by the settlement agreement in the damages lawsuit. As such, the court agreed with the district court that Appellants are not entitled to a summary judgment award on the coverage issue on res judicata grounds. Further, the district court thus did not err in ruling Appellants were inside the balloon’s basket at the time of their injuries. As such, Appellants were “passengers” under the Policy and Coverage B’s limit of $100,000 per passenger applies. View "T.H.E. Insurance Company v. Melyndia Davis" on Justia Law

This dispute over UM coverage arose from a motor vehicle accident wherein an uninsured motorist struck and killed Macy Lee Alvey, III, who was in the course and scope of his employment with Rony’s Towing & Recovery, LLC (“Rony’s Towing”). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted this writ to determine whether the failure to include the insurer’s name on an uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage selection form rendered it invalid. Because inclusion of the insurer’s name was an express requirement on the face of the UM form itself, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal that the failure to include such information resulted in an invalid waiver of coverage. View "Berkeley Assurance Co. v. Willis, et al." on Justia Law