Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Somsak Limprasert, a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 and acute hypoxic respiratory failure, who was transferred to PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC, for rehabilitation and treatment. While at PAM, Limprasert, who was bedridden and unable to stand without support, was assisted by PAM's workers to rise from his bed. However, they unexpectedly let go of him while he was in a standing position, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Limprasert filed a complaint against PAM, asserting claims for negligence and abuse of the vulnerable, and alternatively, under Nevada’s medical malpractice statutes. However, he failed to attach a supporting declaration from a medical expert to his complaint.The district court found that Limprasert’s claims were of professional negligence, requiring a supporting declaration from a medical expert. As Limprasert filed his complaint without the supporting declaration and the erratum was not filed at the same time as the complaint, the district court granted PAM’s motion to dismiss. Limprasert appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the decision, finding that the district court erred by dismissing Limprasert’s complaint. PAM petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for judicial review.The Supreme Court of Nevada determined that Limprasert’s claims were of professional negligence, requiring an affidavit under Nevada law. However, the court concluded that Limprasert’s expert declaration complied with the law, and the district court therefore erred by dismissing his complaint for noncompliance. The court reversed the dismissal of Limprasert’s professional negligence claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC" on Justia Law

A defamation lawsuit was filed by Dana Cheng, a New York resident and political commentator, against Dan Neumann and Beacon, a Maine news outlet, for characterizing Cheng as "far-right" and a "conspiracy theorist" in an article. Neumann and Beacon sought dismissal of the case under both federal law and a New York anti-SLAPP law, which applies to meritless defamation lawsuits. The district court conducted a choice-of-law analysis, decided that New York law applied, and granted the motion to dismiss under New York's anti-SLAPP statute.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appellate court agreed with the district court's ruling but for a different reason: it decided that Cheng's lawsuit had to be dismissed under binding First Amendment principles protecting free speech by the press. Back at the district court, Neumann requested attorneys' fees under the fee-shifting provision of New York's anti-SLAPP law. The district court denied Neumann's request after determining that Maine, not New York, law applied to the specific issue of attorneys' fees.Neumann appealed again, arguing that the district court erred in its choice-of-law analysis. The appellate court, noting the lack of clear controlling precedent on the issue, certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine the question of which state's law applies to the attorneys' fees issue. View "Cheng v. Neumann" on Justia Law

The case involves Sherold D. Roaf, who was rear-ended by Francisco Ortiz, an employee of Medstar. Roaf sued Ortiz for negligence and Medstar for both vicarious liability for Ortiz's negligent driving and direct liability for Medstar's negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of Ortiz. Roaf sought compensatory and economic damages but did not seek punitive damages. Medstar admitted liability for the incident but did not move to dismiss the negligent hiring claim. Instead, it sought to prevent Roaf from introducing Ortiz’s personnel record and driving history, arguing that such evidence would be irrelevant and could improperly influence the jury. The trial court denied the motion, allowing Roaf to pursue both theories of liability.The Superior Court in Maricopa County allowed the case to proceed to trial, where Roaf's counsel introduced evidence of Ortiz's driving record and Medstar's hiring policy. The jury found Roaf's full damages to be $4.625 million, allocating 40% fault to Ortiz and 60% to Medstar. Medstar moved for a new trial, arguing that the negligent hiring claim was superfluous and had allowed Roaf to put prejudicial evidence before the jury. The court denied the motion, finding that the evidence of Ortiz’s driving history had no unfair influence and that the damage award was supported by other evidence.The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, agreeing that the jury’s award was appropriate based on the evidence and that Medstar failed to show that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the separate claims of negligent hiring and vicarious liability to go to the jury.However, the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that because Medstar admitted liability, it was wholly responsible for Roaf’s damages. Therefore, evidence of liability relating to the negligent hiring claim should have been precluded. The court also found that Medstar suffered prejudice because of the erroneous admission of Ortiz’s personnel record and driving history. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial. View "ROAF v REBUCK CONSULTING" on Justia Law

Ricky Hughes, a railroad employee, was injured twice at work during his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. He did not disclose these potential personal injury lawsuits to the bankruptcy court. About 19 months after his bankruptcy closed, Hughes filed a personal injury lawsuit against his employer and other defendants. The district court granted summary judgment against Hughes based on standing and judicial estoppel, as he had not disclosed the potential lawsuit in his bankruptcy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that Hughes had standing to bring the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the claims vested with Hughes, as per Section 1327 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that estate assets vest with the debtor. The court rejected the defendants' argument that Section 554(d), which provides that undisclosed estate assets that have not been expressly abandoned remain property of the estate, should control.The court also applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a position in a case that is clearly inconsistent with a position it took in a previous case. The court found that judicial estoppel applied to claims arising from the first incident but not the second. The court reasoned that when Hughes was injured for the second time, he had already made all of the payments required under his five-year plan, and there was no permissible statutory basis to modify the plan. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not rely on the second nondisclosure, and there was no risk of inconsistent court determinations or threats to judicial integrity. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hughes v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd." on Justia Law

The case revolves around the murder of Sallie Copeland Evans by her grandson, Isaiah Evans Ceasar, a lance corporal in the United States Marine Corps. Sallie's son, Mitchell Garnet Evans, acting as the executor of her estate, filed a wrongful death claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the Marine Corps was negligent in its handling of Ceasar, who had previously expressed suicidal intentions and violent tendencies. The district court dismissed the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the district court had erred in dismissing the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the jurisdictional question and the merits of the case were inextricably intertwined. However, the court also found that Evans failed to state a wrongful death claim under North Carolina law. The court concluded that even if the Marine Corps had a duty to Sallie, her murder was not foreseeable under the circumstances. Therefore, while the district court's decision was procedurally incorrect, it was substantively proper. The court affirmed the district court's decision on alternative grounds and dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Evans v. US" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Sterry, an inmate at the Moose Lake Correctional Facility, who filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) and Correctional Officer Ashley Youngberg. Sterry alleged that Youngberg sexually assaulted and harassed him while he was working in the prison kitchen. The DOC was aware of Youngberg's history of harassment but had not disciplined her prior to the incidents involving Sterry. Sterry's lawsuit included claims of battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence under a theory of vicarious liability.The district court dismissed Sterry's claims, concluding that the DOC was immune from the suit under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act because Youngberg was not acting within the scope of her employment when the alleged assault occurred. Sterry appealed this decision, and the court of appeals reversed the district court's ruling. The court of appeals found that Sterry's complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive the motion to dismiss, as it was consistent with common law principles of vicarious liability applicable to private employers.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The court held that a state employer could be held vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional tort under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act if the tort is related to the duties of the employee and occurs within work-related limits of time and place. The court also found that Sterry's complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive the DOC's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Sterry's claim could allow a jury to find that Youngberg was acting within the scope of her employment when the alleged assault occurred, under circumstances where the DOC would be liable under common law for vicarious liability. View "Sterry v. Minnesota Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Matthew Couch, a self-described investigative journalist and political commentator, who operates a news and opinion website and maintains active profiles on various social media platforms. Couch had been involved in spreading conspiracy theories about the unsolved murder of Seth Rich, a worker for the Democratic National Committee. In 2019, a podcast called Conspiracyland discussed the murder and the conspiracy theories surrounding it, including those propagated by Couch. Following this, Couch sued the journalist and his publishers for defamation and other related torts.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court granted judgment to all defendants, finding that Couch failed to plausibly allege actual malice or verifiable facts that were defamatory. It also denied Couch's request to file an amended complaint, concluding that the proposed amendments would not fix the deficient pleadings.The case was then brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Couch failed to plausibly state any claims against the defendants. Eight of the supposedly defamatory statements lacked any evidence that could prove actual malice, and the other six lacked verifiable facts that could be proven or disproven to a jury. The court also noted that each of Couch's other claims relied on the success of the defamation claim, and thus, they failed as well. The court concluded that Couch's proposed amended complaint did not fix these problems, and therefore, affirmed the dismissal of the case with prejudice. View "Couch v. Verizon Communications Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a products liability lawsuit filed by Virginia Redding against Coloplast Corporation. Redding alleged that vaginal mesh devices inserted inside her body were defectively designed. Coloplast argued that Redding's suit was time-barred under Florida's four-year statute of limitations for products liability lawsuits, as her claim accrued more than four years before she filed suit. The district court sided with Redding, and Coloplast appealed.The case was previously reviewed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The district court denied Coloplast's motion for summary judgment, arguing that Redding's suit was time-barred. The court found that the facts in a similar case, Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corporation, were "strikingly similar" to Redding's case and compelled the conclusion that Redding's injuries were not sufficiently different from the symptoms that could have occurred as a result of the surgeries to put her on notice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Redding, did not overwhelmingly establish that she knew or should have known about a compensable injury arising out of Coloplast's mesh before September 18, 2010, such that a reasonable jury could not conclude otherwise. As a result, Redding's claims were not time-barred under Florida's four-year statute of limitations. View "Redding v. Coloplast Corp." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the "learned intermediary doctrine" in a product liability case involving a medical device. The plaintiff, Michelle Himes, sued the defendant, Somatics, LLC, alleging that the company failed to provide adequate warning about the risks associated with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), a treatment she underwent for severe depression. Himes claimed that she was only warned about the possibility of short-term memory loss, and not about the potential for permanent brain damage, severe permanent retrograde and anterograde amnesia, and acute and/or chronic organic brain syndrome, which she alleges she suffered as a result of the treatment.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Somatics, finding that Himes failed to present evidence showing that a more detailed warning would have changed her physician's decision to administer ECT. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's finding but noted a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the physician would have communicated a stronger warning to Himes.The Supreme Court of California was asked to clarify the causation standard under the learned intermediary doctrine. The court held that a plaintiff is not required to show that a stronger warning would have altered the physician’s decision to prescribe the product to establish causation. Instead, a plaintiff may establish causation by showing that the physician would have communicated the stronger warning to the patient and an objectively prudent person in the patient’s position would have thereafter declined the treatment. The court emphasized that the causation analysis must take into consideration whether the physician would still recommend the prescription drug or medical device for the patient, even in the face of a more adequate warning. View "Himes v. Somatics, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a medical malpractice claim filed by Saeed Gohari, acting as the guardian ad litem for Nammi Gohari, a minor. Nammi was born prematurely in 2012 and developed irreversible brain damage, which the family attributed to professional negligence by the medical staff at facilities operated by Dignity Health. The malpractice claims were filed against Dignity Health and several individuals who provided medical care to Nammi's mother, Afsaneh Amin-Akbari, over a decade after Nammi's birth, on November 30, 2022.The case was initially brought before the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under NRS 41A.097, which sets a limitation period for filing medical malpractice claims. However, Gohari argued that the complaint was still timely under NRS 41A.097(5) due to a pair of emergency directives issued by Governor Steve Sisolak during the COVID-19 pandemic, which tolled the limitations period. The district court agreed with Gohari, concluding that the directives tolled the limitations period for 122 days, making Gohari's complaint timely.The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to vacate the district court order and direct the district court to dismiss the case because Gohari's complaint was untimely under NRS 41A.097(5) and its timeliness was not preserved by the directives. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, concluding that the district court correctly applied the directives and that the law does not require dismissal of Gohari's complaint as untimely. The court found no support for Dignity Health's argument in the directives’ plain language and held that the directives tolled Gohari's limitations period for 122 days. View "Dignity Health v. District Court" on Justia Law