Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

An employee alleged a work-related knee injury and filed a timely claim for workers’ compensation benefits, including a request for a hearing. The employer denied the claim, asserting the injury was not work-related. After an independent medical evaluation found the knee pain was due to a preexisting condition, no further medical treatment was sought or provided through the workers’ compensation system for over nine months. The employer then moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that the employee had failed to receive or seek benefits for a period exceeding six months, as required by Oklahoma law.An Administrative Law Judge denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, relying on precedent from the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, and held that because the employee had requested a hearing within six months of filing the claim, dismissal was not warranted. The Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed this decision, agreeing that the employee’s timely request for a hearing satisfied the statutory requirements and that further inquiry into whether benefits were sought or received was unnecessary.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and reversed the Commission’s order. The Court held that under 85A O.S. § 69(A)(4), an employee must not only make a timely request for a hearing but must also continue to actively pursue the claim by receiving or seeking benefits for any six-month period during the life of the claim. The Court found that the employee’s failure to seek or receive benefits for more than six months triggered the employer’s right to dismissal. The Court also held that the statute is constitutional, as it applies equally to all injured employees and does not violate due process or constitute a special law. The Commission’s order was vacated and the employer’s motion to dismiss was granted. View "OBI HOLDING COMPANY v. SCHULTZ-BUTZBACH" on Justia Law

In 2019, a well-known advice columnist publicly accused a sitting U.S. president of sexually assaulting her in a department store in 1996. The president, while in office, responded with public statements denying the allegations, asserting he did not know the accuser, and claiming she fabricated the story for personal and political gain. The accuser then filed a defamation lawsuit in New York state court, alleging that these statements were false and damaged her reputation. The case was removed to federal court after the Department of Justice certified that the president acted within the scope of his office, but the DOJ later withdrew this certification. During the litigation, the accuser also brought a separate lawsuit under a new state law allowing survivors of sexual assault to sue regardless of the statute of limitations, which resulted in a jury finding that the president had sexually abused and defamed her after leaving office.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for the accuser in the original defamation case, relying on issue preclusion from the verdict in the later case. The trial was limited to damages, and the jury awarded the accuser $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The president moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to presidential immunity, that the damages were excessive, and that the jury instructions were erroneous. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the president had waived any claim to absolute presidential immunity by failing to timely assert it, and that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. United States did not alter this conclusion. The court also found no error in the district court’s application of issue preclusion, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions, and concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and not excessive. The judgment in favor of the accuser was affirmed in full. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

An 11-year-old child with significant disabilities, including autism and other disorders, attended a public elementary school where staff were aware of his special needs and history of leaving school grounds when unsupervised. Despite this knowledge, the child was left alone multiple times, and on May 17, 2021, he walked out of the school unattended and was never seen again. His mother, acting as his legal guardian, alleged that the school district and staff negligently supervised her son, leading to his disappearance and likely death or serious harm. She also claimed severe emotional distress resulting from the incident.The mother filed suit in the District Court for Sarpy County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), naming the school district and three staff members as defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by sovereign immunity under the PSTCA’s due care and discretionary function exemptions, and that the complaint failed to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted the motion, finding both exemptions applied and that the emotional distress claim was either barred or insufficiently pled. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, based solely on the complaint’s allegations and reasonable inferences, it could not determine whether the PSTCA exemptions applied, as a more developed factual record was needed. The court also found the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible claims for negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Larsen v. Sarpy Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 77-0027" on Justia Law

A pet food manufacturer, Sunshine Mills, had a longstanding business relationship with Nutra-Blend, a supplier of animal nutrient products. For years, Sunshine Mills ordered a specific concentration of Vitamin D3 (Vitamin D3 7500) from Nutra-Blend for use in its dog food. In 2017, due to a miscommunication, Nutra-Blend shipped a different, much more concentrated product (Vitamin D3 500) instead. Sunshine Mills, unaware of the difference and believing Nutra-Blend only sold one type of Vitamin D3, accepted and used the product, resulting in several dogs developing Vitamin D toxicity, with some becoming ill or dying.After the incident, Sunshine Mills sued Nutra-Blend in the Lee County Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, a claim under the Mississippi Products Liability Act (MPLA), and common-law negligence. Nutra-Blend moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were subsumed by the MPLA and failed on other grounds. Sunshine Mills abandoned its tort-based claims, leaving only the contract-based claims. The Lee County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Nutra-Blend on all claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and held that the MPLA does not govern Sunshine Mills’ remaining claims because they do not allege damages caused by a defective product, but rather by breach of contract and implied warranty. The court clarified that the MPLA applies only to claims for damages caused by defective products, not to contract-based claims between commercial entities. The court also found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the breach of contract and implied warranty claims, precluding summary judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sunshine Mills, Inc. v. Nutra-Blend, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco, seeking $5,000,000 in damages for injuries sustained after falling from a scooter that struck a pothole. During discovery, the City sought information about the plaintiff’s intoxication at the time of the incident. The plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide timely and complete responses to certain form interrogatories related to requests for admission about intoxication, despite repeated requests and meet and confer efforts by the City. Additionally, during an independent medical examination, observers chosen by the plaintiff’s attorney interfered with the process, preventing the examining doctor from completing the evaluation.The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County addressed two discovery disputes. First, it granted the City’s motion to compel responses to the interrogatories and imposed a $6,500 sanction against the plaintiff’s counsel for failing to provide timely, code-compliant responses. Second, it imposed a $1,500 sanction after finding that the plaintiff’s observers had improperly interfered with the medical examination. The parties settled the underlying action, but the plaintiff appealed the sanctions. The City moved to dismiss portions of the appeal, arguing that some orders were not appealable and that the sanctions for the medical exam were below the statutory threshold for appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, granted the City’s motion to partially dismiss the appeal, finding that the orders regarding the protective order and the $1,500 sanction were not appealable. The court affirmed the $6,500 sanction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it, as the plaintiff’s counsel lacked substantial justification for opposing the motion to compel. The appellate court also imposed $30,000 in sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel for filing a frivolous appeal and referred the matter to the State Bar. View "Morales v. City of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Three plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, which is designed to prevent certain strains of human papillomavirus. Each plaintiff experienced adverse symptoms following their Gardasil injections, but the onset of these symptoms occurred more than three years before they filed petitions for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The plaintiffs acknowledged to the special master that their petitions were untimely and sought equitable tolling of the Vaccine Act’s limitations period.The special master in the United States Court of Federal Claims found the petitions untimely and denied equitable tolling, resulting in dismissal of the claims. The plaintiffs then filed suit against Merck & Co. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which was handling multi-district litigation related to Gardasil. Merck moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to timely pursue their remedies under the Vaccine Act. The district court dismissed the complaints, holding that the proper forum for challenging the special master’s timeliness rulings was the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit, not the district court. The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to the process by which Gardasil was added to the Vaccine Injury Table.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Fourth Circuit held that the addition of Gardasil to the Vaccine Injury Table did not violate the Constitution. It further held that timely participation in the Vaccine Act compensation program is a prerequisite to bringing a tort suit, and that courts hearing vaccine-related tort suits may not reconsider the timeliness of a Vaccine Act petition once the special master has made a finding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints. View "Needham v. Merck & Company Inc." on Justia Law

An employee suffered a severe hand injury, including the amputation of a finger, while operating a table saw without a safety guard at work. After receiving some worker’s compensation benefits, the employee filed a civil tort action against the employer, alleging that the employer’s requirement to use the saw without a guard constituted “willful or unprovoked physical aggression,” which, under Idaho law, would allow a lawsuit outside the worker’s compensation system. The employer did not respond to the lawsuit, and the employee obtained a default judgment for damages.Several months later, the employer moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the employee’s worker’s compensation claim had been filed first. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District agreed, stayed enforcement of the default judgment, and directed the parties to seek a determination from the Idaho Industrial Commission on whether the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception applied. The Commission concluded that the exception did not apply, and the district court then set aside the default judgment and dismissed the civil action.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the district court erred by deferring to the Commission on the applicability of the statutory exception and by setting aside the default judgment. The Supreme Court clarified that district courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the exception to the exclusive remedy rule applies, even if a worker’s compensation claim was filed first, unless the Commission has already decided the issue. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, vacated the Commission’s findings, and remanded with instructions to reenter the default judgment in favor of the employee. View "Tyler v. Masterpiece Floors, Inc." on Justia Law

Kyle Messerli died from acute intoxication after repeatedly inhaling Difluoroethane gas contained in computer duster cans, a practice known as “huffing.” He became addicted to the substance, using multiple cans daily, and ultimately overdosed. His father, Robbin Messerli, acting individually and as representative of Kyle’s estate, sued several manufacturers and distributors of the computer duster products. The lawsuit alleged that the companies knew their products were being abused but failed to take adequate steps to reduce harm, including ineffective warnings and product design changes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas reviewed the case. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Kansas law bars tort recovery when the plaintiff’s injuries result from their own illegal acts. The district court agreed, finding that the illegality defense—where a plaintiff’s illegal conduct proximately causes their injury—remains valid under Kansas law and was not abrogated by the state’s adoption of comparative fault principles. The court dismissed Messerli’s claims and denied his subsequent motion to certify the question to the Kansas Supreme Court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether the illegality defense applies to products liability actions under Kansas law. The court held that the defense is still available, as neither the Kansas Legislature nor the Kansas Supreme Court has abrogated it. The court further determined that Kansas’s comparative fault regime does not implicitly eliminate the illegality defense, which is grounded in public policy against allowing recovery for injuries caused by one’s own illegal acts. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Messerli’s claims. View "Messerli v. AW Distributing" on Justia Law

In May 2022, Garry Douglas Seaman shot and killed James Preston Freeman and seriously wounded Heidi Gabert, following the end of his romantic relationship with Gabert, with whom he shares a minor child. Seaman was criminally charged, and Gabert and Dawn Freeman, James’s spouse, filed a civil suit for damages. To prevent Seaman from transferring or selling assets during the litigation, Gabert and Freeman successfully sought a receivership over all of Seaman’s property. After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement memorialized in a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which included $10 million judgments for Gabert and Freeman, liquidation of Seaman’s assets, and a homestead exemption for Seaman.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, approved the creation of a designated settlement fund (DSF) to facilitate asset liquidation. Initially, the court’s DSF Order required the Liquidation Receiver to reserve funds from asset sales to pay Seaman’s capital gains taxes, interpreting the MOU’s tax payment provision as unambiguous. Gabert and Freeman moved to amend this order under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing the court erred in its interpretation and that the parties did not intend to reserve funds for Seaman’s capital gains taxes. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court agreed, finding the MOU ambiguous and, based on extrinsic evidence, concluded the parties did not intend to reserve such funds. The court amended its order, striking the provision requiring reservation for capital gains taxes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in amending the DSF Order. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, correctly found the MOU ambiguous, and its factual finding regarding the parties’ intent was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s amended order. View "Gabert v. Seaman" on Justia Law

A public elementary school district arranged for its students to attend a four-day overnight outdoor science camp operated by the county office of education. The county office provided direct overnight supervision, while district teachers were present but only on call. A student alleged that, during her attendance at the camp as a fifth grader, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a county office employee who served as a night monitor. The student claimed that both the district and the county office knew or should have known of the employee’s prior misconduct and failed to protect her.The student filed a negligence claim against the district, the county office, and the employee. The district moved for summary judgment in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, arguing that it was immune from liability under Education Code sections 35330 and 44808. The district contended that the camp was a “field trip or excursion” subject to a statutory waiver of claims and that, alternatively, it could not be liable because its employees were not providing immediate and direct supervision at the time of the alleged assaults. The trial court granted summary judgment for the district based solely on section 35330, finding the statutory waiver applied.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. It held that the district failed to establish as a matter of law that the camp was a “field trip or excursion” under section 35330, as the program was part of the required science curriculum rather than a recreational or observational departure. The court also found the district did not meet its burden under section 44808 to show that no district employee should have been providing immediate and direct supervision, especially in light of allegations that the district knew of risks posed by the county employee. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the district. View "Doe v. Mount Pleasant Elementary School District" on Justia Law