Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Former Spokane police officer Jeffery Thurman was the subject of a June 13, 2019 article in the Spokesman-Review, owned by Cowles Co., which alleged he was fired for racial slurs, sexual harassment, and talk of killing black people. On June 14, 2021, Thurman filed a defamation lawsuit against Cowles Co. Shortly after, on July 25, 2021, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) took effect. Thurman amended his complaint on December 3, 2021, adding new factual allegations and a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).The trial court partially granted Cowles' special motion for expedited relief under the UPEPA, dismissing Thurman’s CPA claim but denying the motion to dismiss the defamation claim, reasoning that the defamation claim was part of the original complaint. Cowles appealed the denial of expedited relief for the defamation claim, and Thurman cross-appealed the dismissal of his CPA claim.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the UPEPA applied to both Thurman’s defamation and CPA claims. The majority reasoned that the defamation claim was "asserted" on a continuing basis on the UPEPA’s effective date. The dissent argued that the defamation claim was not "asserted" on or after July 25, 2021, and thus the UPEPA did not apply.The Washington Supreme Court held that Thurman’s amended defamation claim relates back to the original complaint filed on June 14, 2021, and is not subject to the UPEPA. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, deciding the case on statutory grounds and declining to address the constitutional arguments. View "Thurman v. Cowles Co." on Justia Law

In this case, Joely Ng filed a complaint against Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc. and several doctors, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death following the death of her husband, Kenneth Ng. Kenneth was admitted to the Medical Center due to a malfunction of his G-tube, which was improperly placed by Dr. McMahon. Subsequent doctors failed to confirm the correct placement, leading to Kenneth developing sepsis and dying three months later. Joely Ng sought noneconomic damages for both wrongful death and medical malpractice claims.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the Medical Center’s motion to strike portions of Ng’s complaint that sought two separate caps on noneconomic damages under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). The court reasoned that the wrongful death claim was not separate from the medical negligence claim and thus could not be subject to a separate MICRA cap. The court denied leave to amend but allowed for the possibility of future amendments if Ng could allege facts supporting the claims as separate and distinct.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court concluded that wrongful death and survival claims, even when based on the same medical malpractice, are separate and distinct. Therefore, Ng is entitled to seek two separate MICRA caps for noneconomic damages. The appellate court granted the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to strike and to issue a new order denying the motion. View "Ng v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Paula Russell, an assistant manager at Wal-Mart, injured her back in 2009 and reached maximum medical improvement in 2011, receiving a seven percent disability rating for her lumbar spine. She was awarded workers' compensation benefits based on this rating. However, her condition worsened, and in December 2011, she sought additional medical treatment and benefits due to a change in her condition. In 2013, a single commissioner found her condition had changed and awarded her continued medical treatment and temporary total disability benefits.The Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission reversed this decision, concluding that Russell had not proven her condition had worsened. This led to a series of appeals and remands between the court of appeals, the single commissioner, and the Appellate Panel. In 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case to the Appellate Panel for immediate and final review. The Appellate Panel again found that Russell failed to prove a change of condition, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Appellate Panel's denial of Russell's change of condition claim was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the Appellate Panel had improperly weighed the MRI scans over the uncontradicted medical opinions of Russell's doctors, who testified that her condition had worsened. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Commission with instructions to award Russell benefits. View "Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Robert E. Dupuis and twelve other plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, seeking damages for sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated by the Bishop’s clergy when the plaintiffs were minor children. Their claims were previously barred by the statute of limitations. The Bishop moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that 14 M.R.S. § 752-C(3) (2022), which purports to revive the plaintiffs’ claims, deprives the Bishop of a constitutionally protected vested right.The Business and Consumer Docket (McKeon, J.) denied the Bishop’s motions but reported its orders to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court under Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c). The court accepted the report to determine whether the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) is constitutional.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the retroactive application of section 752-C(3) contravenes centuries of precedent and multiple provisions of the Maine Declaration of Rights, as well as the Constitution’s provisions regarding separation of powers. The court concluded that once a statute of limitations has expired for a claim, a right to be free of that claim has vested, and the claim cannot be revived. Therefore, section 752-C(3) is unconstitutional as applied to expired claims. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland" on Justia Law

Timothy Davis accidentally shot himself in the leg with his Sig Sauer P320 X-Carry pistol while getting out of his truck. Davis claimed the gun was fully holstered and that he did not pull the trigger. He alleged that the P320 was defectively designed, making it prone to accidental discharge, and that alternative designs could have prevented his injury. Davis filed a products-liability lawsuit against Sig Sauer under Kentucky law, citing strict liability and negligence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted Sig Sauer’s motions to exclude Davis’s expert witnesses and for summary judgment. The court found that Davis’s experts, James Tertin and Dr. William J. Vigilante, Jr., did not investigate the exact circumstances of the shooting and thus could not opine on causation. Without expert testimony, the court held that Davis could not pursue his products-liability claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the experts’ opinions on causation but reversed the exclusion of their testimonies on design defects and reasonable alternative designs. The appellate court found that the experts’ opinions were admissible to prove that the P320 was defectively designed and that reasonable alternative designs existed. The court held that Davis had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the P320 was defectively designed and caused his injury. Consequently, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Davis v. Sig Sauer, Inc." on Justia Law

Devin Nunes, a former Member of Congress, along with NuStar Farms, LLC, and its owners, sued journalist Ryan Lizza and Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., for defamation. The lawsuit stemmed from an article published by Esquire, which implied that Nunes and his family were hiding the fact that NuStar Farms employed undocumented labor. The plaintiffs alleged both express defamation and defamation by implication.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa initially dismissed Nunes's express defamation claim but allowed the defamation by implication claim to proceed. On remand, Nunes filed an amended complaint focusing solely on defamation by implication. NuStar Farms and its owners also filed a new lawsuit alleging both express defamation and defamation by implication. The district court consolidated the cases and ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on certain elements of their defamation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that Nunes did not present sufficient evidence to prove special damages, which are required under California law for defamation claims when general and exemplary damages are not recoverable due to failure to comply with the notice and demand statute. Nunes's claims of impaired career opportunities and diminished fundraising ability were unsupported by evidence.For the NuStar plaintiffs, the court applied Iowa law and found insufficient evidence of economic harm or reputational damage. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a preexisting good reputation that could have been damaged by the article. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Nunes v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were injured during a nightclub shooting at a rap concert featuring performers from rival gangs. They sued the nightclub's owner and operators for negligence per se and strict liability on an ultrahazardous activity theory, claiming inadequate event planning and security. The trial court granted summary adjudication for the defendants on the negligence per se claim and judgment on the pleadings for the ultrahazardous activity claim, leading to a judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing there were triable issues of fact for both claims.The Superior Court of Riverside County initially reviewed the case. The court granted summary adjudication on the negligence per se claim, finding that the conditional use permit was not designed to prevent the type of injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court treated the motion regarding the ultrahazardous activity claim as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted it without leave to amend, concluding that hosting a rap concert, even with performers from rival gangs, was not an ultrahazardous activity.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the conditional use permit constituted a statute, ordinance, or regulation under the negligence per se doctrine. Furthermore, the court found that the permit was not designed to prevent the specific type of harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Regarding the ultrahazardous activity claim, the court concluded that hosting a rap concert, even with rival gang members, did not constitute an ultrahazardous activity as the risks could be mitigated with proper planning and security measures. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Carmichael v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, Inc." on Justia Law

A motorist struck and injured a pedestrian during rush hour. The motorist claimed the pedestrian stepped out from behind a large truck, obstructing her view. Witnesses and investigating officers corroborated the motorist's account, finding no evidence of speeding, reckless driving, or distraction. The pedestrian sued the motorist and her insurer for negligence, and the motorist raised a contributory-negligence defense.The Hamilton Superior Court initially granted the pedestrian's motion to compel the motorist to produce her iPhone for inspection, limited to the hour surrounding the accident. However, the court reversed its decision upon reconsideration, citing significant privacy concerns and lack of evidence suggesting the motorist was using her phone at the time. The court also granted a motion in limine to exclude any discussion of the phone inspection at trial. A jury found the pedestrian 90% at fault, barring recovery under Indiana's contributory-fault standard. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the burden of the proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit given the motorist's privacy concerns.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the pedestrian's discovery request lacked necessary evidentiary support and was overly broad. The court emphasized that privacy concerns are not a per se bar to discovery but must be balanced against the need for information. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel, as the pedestrian failed to show that the benefit of inspecting the motorist's phone outweighed her privacy interests. View "Jennings v. Smiley" on Justia Law

Clover Boykin filed a lawsuit against Greenwood Leflore Hospital (GLH) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that GLH intentionally withheld her medical records, preventing her from filing a medical malpractice suit. Boykin claimed that GLH's actions violated her constitutional right of access to the courts. GLH responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that Boykin's claims failed as a matter of law, the employee was immune from suit, GLH was never served, and the suit was time-barred.The Leflore County Circuit Court denied GLH's motion to dismiss and granted Boykin additional time to serve GLH. GLH then sought an interlocutory appeal, which the Supreme Court of Mississippi granted. Boykin did not file a brief in response to the appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi accepted Boykin's failure to file a brief as a confession of error and found that Boykin's claims failed as a matter of law. The court held that HIPAA does not provide a private right of action and that Boykin could not use § 1983 to enforce a federal statute that does not give her an individual right. The court reversed the trial judge's denial of the motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of GLH. View "Greenwood Leflore Hospital v. Boykin" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Norene Rodríguez and Iris Rodríguez, sued Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, Inc. and Dr. José Báez Córdova for medical malpractice related to the treatment of their mother, Gloria Rodríguez González, who died after being treated for COVID-19. They alleged negligence in her care, particularly in failing to provide timely prophylactic medication for deep vein thrombosis, which they claimed led to her death.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any genuine issue of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also found that Dr. Báez was immune from suit under Puerto Rico law, as he was acting within his duties as a faculty member of the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) at the time of the alleged malpractice. Consequently, Encompass could not be held vicariously liable for his actions. The plaintiffs' remaining claims were deemed waived for lack of development.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Dr. Báez was immune from suit under Puerto Rico law, as he was acting in his capacity as a UPR faculty member supervising medical residents. The court also upheld the district court's application of the local anti-ferret rule, which disregarded certain facts not adequately supported by specific citations to the record. The plaintiffs' argument that Encompass was vicariously liable for the actions of other non-immune personnel was deemed waived, as it was not raised in the lower court. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing. View "Rodriguez v. Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, Inc." on Justia Law