Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a medical malpractice suit brought by the parents of a stillborn child against the midwives who attended the birth. The plaintiffs alleged that the midwives failed to obtain informed consent for delivery by midwife at a birth center instead of by a physician at a hospital. They claimed the midwives did not disclose the risks associated with midwife delivery for an expectant mother of advanced maternal age with a history of miscarriage. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the midwives, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that midwife delivery caused the stillbirth.The superior court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause, a necessary element in informed consent claims. The court noted that the plaintiffs needed to show both that they would not have consented to the treatment if properly informed and that the treatment caused the injury. The midwives presented expert testimony indicating that their care did not cause the stillbirth, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this with their own expert evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of the midwives. The court held that the plaintiffs did not present admissible evidence to dispute the midwives' expert opinion that the stillbirth was caused by an infection unrelated to the midwives' care. The court also affirmed the superior court's award of enhanced attorney’s fees to the midwives, finding that the plaintiffs engaged in vexatious or bad faith conduct during the litigation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to provide necessary expert testimony on causation was fatal to their claims. View "Goodwin v. Mat-Su Midwifery, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Boren applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to have an unimproved airstrip on his property recognized as a designated county airstrip. Gary Gadwa, Sarah Michael, and other concerned citizens opposed Boren’s application, but it was ultimately approved. Following the approval, Boren sued Gadwa, Michael, and others for defamation, defamation per se, conspiracy to commit defamation, and declaratory relief, alleging they made false statements about the airstrip and his use of it. Boren filed an amended complaint, and Gadwa and Michael moved to dismiss the claims, arguing their statements were protected by litigation privilege and constitutionally protected petitioning activity.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho dismissed Boren’s claims, agreeing with Gadwa’s and Michael’s arguments. The court also denied Boren’s motion to file a second amended complaint, concluding it would be futile. Boren appealed the district court’s decisions.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Boren’s civil conspiracy claim and declaratory judgment claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of most of Boren’s defamation claims, finding that the applicability of the absolute and qualified litigation privileges was not evident on the face of the complaint. The court also held that neither the First Amendment nor the Idaho Constitution provides absolute protection for defamatory statements made in the course of protected petitioning activity. The court reversed the district court’s decision denying Boren’s motion to amend his complaint, as the amendment would not be futile. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court declined to disqualify the district judge on remand and did not award attorney fees to any party. View "Boren v. Gadwa" on Justia Law

Hurricane Katrina destroyed Paul and Sylvia Minor’s home in 2005. The Minors had a homeowner’s insurance policy with United Services Automobile Association (USAA) that covered wind damage but excluded storm surge or flood damage. USAA issued payments for wind damage but not for storm surge or flood damage, leading to a dispute. The Minors claimed a total loss due to wind and demanded policy limits. In 2013, a jury awarded the Minors $1,547,293.37 in compensatory damages.The Minor Estate appealed a pretrial order granting partial summary judgment to USAA on the Minors’ bad faith claim. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding USAA’s denial and delay of payment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the bad faith claim. On remand, a jury awarded the Minors $10,000,000 in punitive damages and $457,858.89 in extra-contractual damages (attorneys’ fees). USAA appealed, and the Minor Estate cross-appealed the denial of its post-trial motion for additional attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the jury’s award of $10,457,858.89 in damages. The court also reversed and rendered attorneys’ fees on behalf of the Estate in the amount of $4,500,000, plus post-judgment interest. The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury and that the $10 million punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. The court also found no error in the jury’s award of extra-contractual damages and no errors warranting a new trial. View "United Services Automobile Association v. Estate of Minor" on Justia Law

Steven Chase appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict on a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The claim arose from a failed real estate transaction between Steven’s mother, Audrey Chase, and Streamline Builders, LLC, owned by Richard Swoboda, for the construction of a home. Steven was involved in the transaction, assisting his mother by communicating with Swoboda and realtors, and inspecting the home. The sale did not close due to disagreements over holdback amounts for uncompleted items. Following the failed closing, Streamline and Swoboda sued Steven for tortious interference.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Idaho, Kootenai County. At the close of Streamline and Swoboda’s evidence, Steven moved for a directed verdict, arguing insufficient evidence of wrongful interference. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found in favor of Streamline and Swoboda, awarding $20,000 in damages. Steven appealed, contending the district court erred in denying his motion because he acted as his mother’s agent and could not be liable for tortious interference.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that Steven failed to preserve his agency argument for appeal, as he did not present it to the district court in support of his motion for a directed verdict. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, noting that Steven’s argument on appeal differed from his argument at trial, where he focused on the lack of improper motive rather than his agency status. The court also awarded attorney fees on appeal to Streamline and Swoboda, finding Steven’s appeal unreasonable and without foundation. View "Streamline Builders, LLC v. Chase" on Justia Law

David Bourne was diagnosed with chronic anxiety, major depressive disorder, and chronic low back pain by Dr. Zidrieck Valdes in 2015. Valdes prescribed Klonopin and an opioid. In 2019, Valdes informed Bourne of new CDC guidelines against concurrent use of these medications and switched Bourne to Buspar. Bourne experienced withdrawal symptoms and refused a referral to an in-patient drug treatment facility. Despite reporting stress and receiving a half-dose emergency prescription of Klonopin, Bourne showed no signs of withdrawal or suicidal ideation in subsequent visits. In November 2019, Bourne died by suicide, leaving a note blaming the medication changes.Bourne's wife and child sued Valdes for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in not tapering off Klonopin. Their expert, Dr. Donald A. Misch, supported this claim. Valdes moved for summary judgment, arguing that suicide is a superseding cause that precludes liability. The district court agreed, citing the "suicide rule" and granted summary judgment, stating Valdes had no control over Bourne.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a patient's suicide does not automatically preclude liability for medical malpractice. The court emphasized that established medical malpractice principles should apply, and whether a medical provider's negligence led to a patient's suicide is a factual question for the jury. The court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the "suicide rule" and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bourne v. Valdes" on Justia Law

Following heavy snowfall in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the roofs of several chicken houses at ten poultry farms collapsed. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which insured the farms, sued Rogers Manufacturing Corporation, the manufacturer of the roof trusses used in the chicken houses, claiming strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Rogers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Norfolk’s claims were barred by the Arkansas statute of repose.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas agreed with Rogers and dismissed the complaint. Norfolk appealed the dismissal, arguing that the statute of repose did not apply to Rogers because the roof trusses were standardized goods, not custom-designed for the farms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Norfolk’s favor. The court found that Norfolk’s complaint plausibly supported an inference that the roof trusses were standardized goods, which would not be covered by the Arkansas statute of repose. The court emphasized that at this early stage, the complaint should not be dismissed if it allows for a reasonable inference of liability.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the facts and legal arguments could be further developed as the case progresses. View "Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Rogers Manufacturing Corporation" on Justia Law

Charles Leonhardt, a pretrial detainee at the Big Horn County Jail, suffered from back pain and was eventually diagnosed with two lower back infections after being transported to a hospital. He sued Big Horn County Sheriff Ken Blackburn, Jail Captain Debbie Cook, unnamed detention officers, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office, and the Jail, alleging negligence and deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment.The District Court of Big Horn County granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. The court found that Sheriff Blackburn had fulfilled his duty to arrange for medical care by contracting with Midway Medical Clinic, which provided medical services to inmates. The court also determined that the actions of Sheriff Blackburn, Captain Cook, and the detention officers were reasonable and did not proximately cause Mr. Leonhardt’s injuries. Additionally, the court found no evidence of deliberate indifference to Mr. Leonhardt’s medical needs, as the defendants ensured he received timely medical care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the negligence claim, as the defendants acted reasonably and provided Mr. Leonhardt with access to medical care. The court also found no evidence that the defendants were aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Leonhardt’s health, thus failing to meet the subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both the negligence and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. View "Leonhardt v. Big Horn County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Defendants discovered that a parcel of land near their property was seemingly omitted from the plaintiff's deed. They arranged for the heirs of a previous owner to deed that parcel to them without confirming the heirs' ownership or consulting the plaintiff, who used the parcel. After recording their deed, defendants informed the plaintiff that they owned the parcel and asked her to remove her belongings. The plaintiff sued for deed reformation and slander of title.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Civil Division, granted the plaintiff's claim for deed reformation on summary judgment and concluded that Mr. Kolodziej slandered the plaintiff's title after a bench trial. Defendants appealed the decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the plaintiff had a transferrable ownership interest capable of disparagement, as the reformed deed related back to the original deed. The court found that the defendants published a false statement by recording a deed that falsely claimed ownership of the disputed parcel. The court also concluded that Mr. Kolodziej acted with malice by recklessly disregarding the plaintiff's potential claim to the property. Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff's legal expenses incurred in clearing the cloud on her title constituted special damages necessary to sustain her slander-of-title claim. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the deed reformation and the ruling on the slander-of-title claim, including the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff. View "Massucco v. Kolodziej" on Justia Law

In this case, Claudia Kennedy, as the executor of Donald R. Gerres's estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Western Reserve Senior Care and Dr. Sataya Acharya, among others, alleging that substandard medical care led to Gerres's death in October 2013. Kennedy initially filed the lawsuit in September 2014, voluntarily dismissed it in January 2019, and refiled it within a year.The trial court denied the healthcare providers' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that the four-year statute of repose for medical claims barred Kennedy's refiled action. However, after the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Durrani, which held that the saving statute does not preserve claims refiled after the statute of repose expires, the healthcare providers sought summary judgment. The trial court denied this motion but later granted a directed verdict in favor of the healthcare providers after Kennedy's opening statements.Kennedy appealed to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, arguing that R.C. 2305.15(A) tolled the statute of repose because Dr. Acharya had moved out of Ohio. The Eleventh District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that applying the tolling statute to Dr. Acharya, who left Ohio for legitimate business purposes, violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that R.C. 2305.15(A) does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause as applied to a physician who moved out of Ohio to practice medicine in another state. The court found that the tolling statute serves a legitimate local purpose and does not impose a burden on interstate commerce that is clearly excessive in relation to its benefits. The judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a self-represented pediatric dentist, sued the defendant newspaper for defamation, alleging that two articles published by the defendant exaggerated the scope and seriousness of disciplinary proceedings against him. The articles reported on disciplinary actions taken by the Department of Public Health and the Connecticut State Dental Commission, which resulted in a reprimand, fines, and probation of the plaintiff’s dental license. The plaintiff claimed that five statements in the articles were defamatory and that a stock photograph accompanying the articles was independently defamatory.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the five statements were either substantially true or protected by the fair report privilege under the First Amendment. The court did not address the photograph as an independent defamation claim, as the plaintiff had not distinctly raised it as such in his pleadings. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, declining to consider the photograph claim because it was not distinctly raised before the trial court.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision. The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment without treating the plaintiff’s references to the photograph as an independent defamation claim. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s self-represented status did not relieve him of the obligation to sufficiently articulate his claims. The court also clarified that the fair report privilege is not defeated by demonstrating malice in fact, and that the privilege applies as long as the report is a fair and substantially accurate account of the proceedings. View "Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co." on Justia Law