Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Dr. Jeffery Weisman filed a lawsuit after resigning from Washington University’s residency program, alleging that he was forced to resign due to hostile treatment and that Washington University and Barnes Jewish Hospital prevented him from transferring to another residency program. Weisman brought claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, fraudulent inducement, and defamation under Missouri law. Washington University and Barnes Jewish Hospital counterclaimed for a violation of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act (MCTA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Weisman’s tortious interference and fraudulent inducement claims, and some of his breach of contract claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Barnes Jewish Hospital on the remaining breach of contract claims and the defamation claim. The court also dismissed the MCTA counterclaims and the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees. Weisman appealed the adverse judgments on his claims, and the defendants cross-appealed the dismissal of the MCTA counterclaims and denial of attorneys’ fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the statute of frauds barred Weisman’s breach of contract claim related to the Lab-Residency Contract, as it was an oral agreement for a term of five years. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims, concluding that Evers and Benzinger, as agents of Washington University, were not third parties to the contracts. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the fraudulent inducement claims, as the alleged Separation Agreement did not exist. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the MCTA counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Weisman’s tender of full payment rendered the claims moot. View "Weisman v. Barnes Jewish Hospital" on Justia Law

Kierra Dates filed a lawsuit against the City of Atlanta after her minor son was injured by a falling tree branch on City property. Dates sent an initial ante litem notice to the City within the required time frame, claiming a nonspecific amount of loss. Over a year later, she sent a supplemental notice claiming a loss of $1,000,000. The trial court dismissed her complaint for failing to comply with the municipal ante litem notice statute, and Dates appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Dates's first notice was not specific enough and that her second notice was untimely. The court also ruled that the tolling provision for actions brought by minors did not apply to municipal ante litem notices.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine whether the minor tolling provision applies to the municipal ante litem notice statute. The Court concluded that the tolling provision does not apply. The Court reasoned that the municipal ante litem notice statute is a condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit, not a statute of limitations, and therefore is not subject to tolling under the minor tolling provision. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that Dates's supplemental notice was untimely and not tolled by the minor tolling provision. View "DATES v. CITY OF ATLANTA" on Justia Law

A man named Yoon Suk Chang was injured at the American Memorial Park on Saipan when his foot got caught in a large hole in a grassy area. He suffered severe ankle injuries, which required surgery and led to significant medical expenses and financial losses. Chang filed a negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States, alleging that the National Park Service (NPS) allowed a dangerous hole to go unrepaired.The District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands dismissed Chang's complaint, citing the discretionary function exception of the FTCA. The court reasoned that the decisions on how to inspect and maintain the grassy areas involved policy considerations, such as safety, public access, and aesthetics. Therefore, the court concluded that the discretionary function exception applied, and the United States was immune from the lawsuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the discretionary function exception did not apply because the routine maintenance of a grassy lawn did not involve government employees balancing public policy considerations. The court emphasized that the NPS's failure to repair a hole in a regularly maintained grass area was a matter of routine maintenance, which is not protected by the discretionary function exception. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Chang v. United States" on Justia Law

Caitlin Workman, a maintenance trainee at a coal mine, was injured on November 8, 2021, when a chain under tension snapped and struck her right upper extremity. She was diagnosed with a right shoulder contusion and back laceration. Following the injury, she experienced increased pain, weakness in her right arm, grip strength deficit, and a noticeable tremor. Despite conflicting medical evidence, the claim administrator determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and suspended her temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review affirmed this decision.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) also affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that Ms. Workman had reached MMI and that her continuing symptoms were unrelated to the compensable injury. The ICA relied on the opinion of Dr. Mukkamala, who conducted an independent medical evaluation and found no need for further diagnostic studies or treatment.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the Board failed to properly weigh the medical evidence as required by West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g(a). The Court noted that the Board did not adequately explain why it favored Dr. Mukkamala’s opinion over the medical evidence provided by Ms. Workman’s treating physicians, who indicated that her symptoms were related to the compensable injury and that she had not reached MMI. The Court also found that the Board’s conclusion that Ms. Workman’s symptoms were unrelated to the compensable injury was clearly wrong.The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the ICA’s decision and remanded the case to the Board of Review with directions to award Ms. Workman TTD benefits from November 9, 2021, through April 9, 2022, and to authorize additional testing and treatment as supported by proper medical evidence. View "Workman v. ACNR Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

In April 2022, six-year-old Emory Sayre was killed by her school bus in Parker County, Texas. The bus was manufactured by Blue Bird Body Company and sold by Rush Truck Centers of Texas to Brock Independent School District. Emory's parents, Sean and Tori Sayre, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County against Rush Truck and Blue Bird, asserting various claims including strict liability and negligence. They argued that venue was proper in Dallas County due to several activities related to the bus sale occurring there.The trial court denied the defendants' motion to transfer venue to Parker or Comal County. Rush Truck and Blue Bird filed an interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed, holding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Dallas County.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and focused on whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal. The Court held that Section 15.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits interlocutory appeals only in cases where a plaintiff’s independent claim to venue is at issue. Since the Sayres asserted identical claims based on identical facts with identical venue grounds, the trial court did not need to determine whether each plaintiff independently established proper venue. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in taking jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Texas vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. v. Sayre" on Justia Law

A service dog attacked a young child in a restaurant, leading the child's parents to sue several parties, including a medical doctor who had written letters for the dog's owner, stating that her service animals helped with her anxiety disorder. The parents did not dispute the doctor's diagnosis but argued that he was negligent for not verifying whether the dog was appropriately trained as a service animal, which they claimed led to their daughter's injuries.The trial court denied the doctor's motion to dismiss, which argued that the claims were health care liability claims (HCLCs) requiring an expert report. The Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that the claims did not concern the doctor's medical diagnosis or treatment and thus did not constitute HCLCs.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the claims against the doctor were not HCLCs. The court held that the doctor's failure to verify the dog's training did not involve a departure from accepted standards of medical care. Therefore, an expert report was not required. The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Leibman v. Waldroup" on Justia Law

The Government of Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico claimed that the manufacturers failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, resulting in harm from the weapons' misuse. The complaint included allegations that the manufacturers knowingly supplied firearms to retail dealers who sold them illegally to Mexican traffickers, failed to impose controls on their distribution networks, and made design and marketing decisions to stimulate demand among cartel members.The U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision. The First Circuit found that Mexico had plausibly alleged that the defendants aided and abetted illegal firearms sales, thus satisfying the predicate exception under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers. The Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the requirements for aiding and abetting liability, as they did not show that the manufacturers took affirmative acts to facilitate the illegal sales or intended to promote the criminal activities. Consequently, PLCAA barred the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child suffered severe brain damage due to a massive air embolism during surgery in July 2018. The child's parents, John and Amelia Tullis, sued the healthcare providers, including the University of Utah, in 2019, alleging negligence and seeking damages for pain, anguish, and future medical expenses estimated to exceed $22 million.The University of Utah sought to limit the potential recovery by invoking the 2017 Governmental Immunity Act of Utah (GIA), which capped damages at $745,200. The Third District Court of Salt Lake County denied the University's motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that the decision in Condemarin v. University Hospital, which found a different damages cap unconstitutional as applied to University Hospital, necessarily determined that the 2017 GIA’s damages cap was also unconstitutional as applied to the University.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Condemarin controlled the current issue. The court concluded that Condemarin, a plurality decision with a narrow holding, did not control the case. The court noted that Condemarin’s holding was limited to the specific statutes at issue in that case, which imposed a $100,000 cap, whereas the 2017 GIA set a higher limit and included a mechanism for adjusting for inflation. The court emphasized that Condemarin’s holding did not automatically apply to the revised statute with different terms.The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the district court should consider the Tullises' request for discovery on the applicability of the damages cap. View "University of Utah Hospital v. Tullis" on Justia Law

Lois Ann Brown slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Lynchburg, Virginia, on January 28, 2021, following a snowstorm the previous night. The snowstorm ended by 6:15 AM, and Brown fell at approximately 8:30 AM. Brown did not see any salt or deicing chemicals on the ground or on her clothing after the fall. The store manager, Anthony Ware, confirmed that he did not see any salt or chemicals in the parking lot. Surveillance footage showed the contractor's truck driving around the parking lot but not stopping or applying any deicing measures.Brown initially filed a negligence lawsuit against Wal-Mart in state court, seeking $300,000 in damages. Wal-Mart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, holding that Brown failed to show that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice of the specific patch of ice and that Brown did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Wal-Mart breached its duty of care.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the snowstorm itself provided Wal-Mart with notice of the ice and snow in the parking lot, creating a duty to use reasonable care to remove the hazards. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Wal-Mart breached its duty of care. The evidence, including conflicting testimonies and surveillance footage, suggested that a reasonable jury could find for either party. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP" on Justia Law

Julie Sprafka underwent knee replacement surgery in August 2016 using the ATTUNE knee replacement system designed by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Four years later, she required revision surgery due to the debonding of the tibial baseplate. Sprafka filed a lawsuit against DePuy, claiming strict liability, negligent products liability, and breach of warranties. She later withdrew the warranty claims and proceeded with the products liability claims, alleging defective design and failure to warn.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case. DePuy moved to exclude the opinions of Sprafka’s design defect expert, Dr. Mari S. Truman, and for summary judgment. The district court granted DePuy’s motions, excluding Dr. Truman’s opinions for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert standards. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of DePuy, as Sprafka could not prove her design defect claim without expert testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Dr. Truman’s opinions were unreliable and speculative. The appellate court noted that Dr. Truman’s opinions were not based on independent research and lacked scientific scrutiny. The court also found that Sprafka did not preserve the argument that Dr. Kristoffer Breien’s expert opinion alone could support her design defect claim. Additionally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, as Sprafka failed to provide sufficient expert testimony to support her claims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Sprafka v. Medical Device Bus. Services" on Justia Law