Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A patient was hospitalized after contracting COVID-19 and, as his condition worsened, was transferred between several hospitals in Kentucky and Indiana. During his treatment, he was intubated, placed on a ventilator, and medically immobilized. While under this care, he developed a severe bed sore that progressed to necrotizing fasciitis. Despite ongoing treatment, he ultimately died, with his death certificate listing multiple causes including cardiopulmonary arrest and sepsis. His estate claimed that negligence in the treatment of the bed sore caused his death and filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against more than eighty healthcare providers.The case began when the estate filed its complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance, while a medical-review panel was being requested. Before the panel was constituted, the providers moved for summary judgment in Vanderburgh Superior Court, arguing they were immune from liability under Indiana’s Healthcare Immunity Act, Premises Immunity Act, and the federal PREP Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the providers, finding that statutory immunity applied and that the court, not the medical-review panel, could decide the immunity issue. The estate appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the question of immunity required expert input from the medical-review panel, especially regarding causation.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that the trial court could make a preliminary determination on statutory immunity without waiting for a medical-review panel’s opinion, since the facts relating to the connection between the patient’s COVID-19 treatment and his injury were undisputed for summary judgment purposes. The court further held that the providers were immune from civil liability under both state and federal law, as the patient’s injuries arose from treatment provided in response to the COVID-19 emergency. The court affirmed summary judgment for the providers. View "Estate of Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns injuries suffered by two individuals, one in New York and one in Pennsylvania, each struck by buses operated by New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit), a public transportation entity created by the New Jersey Legislature. NJ Transit operates as a “body corporate and politic” with significant powers such as suing and being sued, entering contracts, and raising funds. Its founding statute specifies that debts or liabilities of NJ Transit are not debts of the State of New Jersey, and all expenses must be paid from NJ Transit’s own funds. The State retains substantial control over NJ Transit through board appointments and removal powers, veto authority, and some legislative oversight, but the statute also stresses NJ Transit’s operational independence.After the incidents, the injured parties filed negligence lawsuits against NJ Transit in their home state courts. NJ Transit moved to dismiss both suits, arguing it was an arm of New Jersey and thus entitled to sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals of New York concluded that NJ Transit is not an arm of New Jersey, allowing the New York suit to proceed. Conversely, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that NJ Transit is an arm of New Jersey and dismissed the Pennsylvania suit.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed both cases to resolve the conflict. It held that NJ Transit is not an arm of the State of New Jersey and therefore does not share in New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity. The Court emphasized that NJ Transit’s status as a legally separate corporation, responsible for its own debts and judgments, and the absence of formal state liability for its obligations, are decisive. The Court affirmed the New York decision, reversed the Pennsylvania decision, and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp." on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy in Virginia arrested an individual for skateboarding on a public road and suspected public intoxication. During the arrest, the deputy punched the individual in the face multiple times, causing significant injuries, including facial fractures and a brain hemorrhage. The individual sued the deputy for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for common law battery. The deputy argued that the force he used was necessary because the individual resisted arrest and that, regardless, he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed the case on the deputy’s motion for summary judgment. The district court examined the record, including body camera footage, and found that several key facts were disputed, such as whether the individual had surrendered and ceased resisting before the deputy continued to use force. The court held that if a jury found in favor of the individual on these disputed facts, it would be clearly established that the level of force used was excessive. Therefore, the district court denied the deputy’s motion for summary judgment, including his claim of qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed its jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity at this interlocutory stage. The court explained that it could not review the district court’s factual determinations but could consider whether, taking the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the facts as viewed by the district court, prior precedent clearly established that the deputy’s actions would constitute excessive force. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Barricks v. Wright" on Justia Law

The City of Boston, along with its Public Health Commission and Housing Authority, brought suit against two pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), OptumRx and Express Scripts, alleging that the PBMs had worked with opioid manufacturers to misrepresent the risks of opioid drugs. The City claimed that this conduct violated Massachusetts public nuisance law and resulted in harm to the City. The PBMs removed the case to federal court and argued that the suit was untimely because it was brought after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. The City responded by asserting that its complaint sufficiently alleged a continuing nuisance and that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the PBMs’ fraudulent concealment of their wrongdoing.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the PBMs’ motion to dismiss, finding that the City either knew or should have known of its injuries and of the PBMs’ alleged role before 2021, based on public records and prior litigation, and thus failed to file suit within the statutory period. The district court further ruled that the City had not adequately pled a continuing nuisance, as it did not allege any specific, recent unlawful acts within the limitations period, and rejected the City’s claim of fraudulent concealment, determining that the City had the means to discover the facts needed for its claim. The district court also denied a motion by the PBMs to disqualify the City's law firm, Motley Rice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed both the dismissal of the City’s state law claim and the denial of the motion to disqualify Motley Rice. The court held that the action was time-barred and that the City had not met the requirements for tolling the statute of limitations or for pleading a continuing nuisance under Massachusetts law. View "The City of Boston v. OptumRx, Inc." on Justia Law

Gene Cleveland Battieste, a veteran, underwent surgery at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi in 2006. Although he had consented to surgery on certain cervical vertebrae, an additional procedure was performed on his C2 vertebra without his knowledge or consent. Following the surgery, Mr. Battieste experienced post-operative complications, including infection and increased pain. He applied for VA disability benefits in 2008, which were ultimately approved in 2020. The 2020 decision by the VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals was the first time Mr. Battieste or his family learned of the unauthorized surgery and the VA’s failure to provide proper informed consent or adequate post-operative care. Mr. Battieste died in 2022.In November 2022, the administrator of Mr. Battieste’s estate filed an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which the VA denied. In May 2024, a lawsuit for medical negligence was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court dismissed the case, finding that Mississippi’s medical malpractice statute barred any action brought more than seven years after the alleged negligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court determined that Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-36(2)’s seven-year period is a statute of repose, not merely a statute of limitations. The court found that Mississippi’s intermediate appellate courts consistently interpret the seven-year provision as an absolute bar to claims, and the statute’s structure and language support this reading. Because the suit was filed more than seven years after the surgery, the court held the claim was time-barred and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Battieste v. United States" on Justia Law

A woman underwent knee replacement surgery at a hospital and soon developed respiratory distress. Shortly after the operation, she allegedly suffered a femur fracture in a fall while hospitalized, which her doctor failed to detect on an X-ray. The following day, she fell again, reportedly because a nurse fell on her while assisting her, resulting in a more severe fracture. This severe injury caused fat emboli to enter her bloodstream and led to a pulmonary embolism. She was transferred to another hospital, where her deteriorating condition was documented. She died nearly two weeks later. Her estate filed a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging that the defendants’ negligence in failing to diagnose and prevent the fracture ultimately caused her death.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the lawsuit as untimely under Iowa Code § 614.1(9)(a), which imposes a two-year statute of limitations on medical malpractice actions. The district court determined that the estate knew or should have known of the injury and its cause by February 5, 2021, the date the decedent was transferred and her injury was documented. Because the estate filed its petition on February 17, 2023, more than two years later, the court found the claims time-barred.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that, under Iowa law, wrongful-death claims based on medical malpractice are derivative of the decedent’s personal injury claims. When the injury and its negligent cause are known during the decedent’s lifetime, the limitations period begins at that time, not the date of death. Because the estate had knowledge of the injury and its cause by February 5, 2021, the wrongful-death action was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. View "Cataldo v. RCHP-Ottumwa, LLC" on Justia Law

A property owner in Idaho allowed her adult grandson, who suffered from severe mental illness and a history of violent behavior, to reside on her rural property. She periodically employed a caretaker to perform maintenance, but did not supervise his work or control his schedule. In September 2021, the grandson killed and mutilated the caretaker, perceiving him as a trespasser. The grandson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison. The caretaker’s family sued the property owner and her limited liability company, seeking to hold them liable for wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner and the LLC. The court found no duty to protect the caretaker under either a special relationship or an assumed duty theory, and rejected the emotional distress claims, holding the alleged conduct was not extreme or outrageous and that no duty was owed to the heirs. The claims against other defendants were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of the premises liability claim or claims against one family member.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the property owner’s employment relationship with the caretaker did not create a special relationship imposing a duty to protect him from the grandson, nor did her limited attempts to mediate disputes constitute a voluntarily assumed duty. The Court also concluded that the IIED and NIED claims failed as a matter of law because the owner’s conduct was neither extreme nor outrageous, and she owed no legal duty to the heirs. The Supreme Court awarded partial attorney fees to the owner, finding the IIED and NIED appeals were frivolously pursued. View "Spears v. Antelope Mountain Resort, LLC" on Justia Law

A woman visited a Huntsville shopping center in May 2021, where renovations were underway, including the installation of new sidewalks in front of a Staples store. The construction zone was marked with barricades, caution tape, signage, and fluorescent paint to warn pedestrians of uneven concrete resulting from recent work. Despite these measures, the woman tripped and fell while walking through the marked area, attributing her fall to a slight elevation change in the concrete. She later filed suit against the property owner, the general contractor, a concrete-cutting subcontractor, and Staples, alleging negligence, wantonness, premises liability, and respondeat superior.The Madison Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of the shopping center owner and the general contractor, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The subcontractor was dismissed by agreement, and the plaintiff later settled with Staples’ successor. The circuit court did not specify its reasoning for the decision. After her postjudgment motion failed, the plaintiff appealed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the summary judgment de novo, considering whether the alleged hazard was open and obvious, which would negate the defendants’ duty to warn or maintain. The court concluded that, as a matter of law, the multiple warnings—including barricades and fluorescent paint—rendered the uneven concrete an open and obvious condition to a reasonable person. Therefore, the defendants owed no additional duty to warn, and the plaintiff’s claims for negligence and wantonness failed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment of the Madison Circuit Court. View "Walter v. Branch Hays Farm SC Associates, LP" on Justia Law

A homeowner alleged that he hired a roofing company in 2011 to install a specific type of roof on his residence. After installation, problems with roof materials became apparent, including issues with a protective layer that remained unresolved despite multiple repair attempts by both the roofing company and the manufacturer over more than a decade. The homeowner asserted that these defects persisted, and that communication from the roofing company ceased in early 2024. As a result, he filed a lawsuit in Etowah County, Alabama, alleging breach of express and implied warranties, as well as negligent or wanton installation and repair, and sought damages.The roofing company moved to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue, arguing that a forum-selection clause in a “Service Agreement” required all disputes to be heard in Madison County, Alabama. The company attached an unsigned and undated sample agreement to its motion, but did not produce a copy signed by the homeowner or any evidence that the homeowner had agreed to such a clause. The homeowner responded that he had never signed, nor was he aware of, the agreement submitted by the company and also challenged the clause’s reasonableness. The Etowah Circuit Court denied the company’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the company’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the lower court to dismiss the case or transfer it to Madison County. The Supreme Court held that the company failed to meet its burden of proving that the forum-selection clause applied, as it did not present evidence linking the blank agreement to the parties’ actual contract. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition, concluding that the circuit court did not clearly err in refusing to dismiss or transfer the case. View "Ex parte Continental Roofing Company, LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose among four adult brothers regarding the division of their parents’ estate. After their mother’s death, two of the brothers, Brittin and Kent, reported to the San Diego Police Department that their mother was missing, despite knowing she had died of natural causes. Their intention was to cast suspicion on their siblings, Todd and Wade, with whom they had a contentious relationship. The police briefly investigated before learning of the mother’s death and closing the matter. The phone call from the police deeply distressed Wade, a recovering alcoholic who had been sober for 15 years. Within a week, Wade relapsed, drove his motorcycle while intoxicated, and died in a crash. A psychologist testified at trial that the distress caused by the police inquiry precipitated Wade’s relapse.The Superior Court of San Diego County presided over a jury trial in which Todd, both individually and as Wade’s successor in interest, pursued claims for wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligence, and conspiracy. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and IIED, and determined their conduct was a substantial factor in causing Wade severe emotional distress and his subsequent death. Damages were awarded to both Wade’s estate and Todd, including punitive damages. The defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial were denied.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, the defendants conceded the jury’s factual findings but argued that their actions were not, as a matter of law, the legal cause of Wade’s death. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that under the broader scope of liability for intentional torts, the defendants' intentional infliction of emotional distress was a legal cause of Wade’s death. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and the denial of JNOV, upholding all damages awards. View "Fisher v. Fisher" on Justia Law