Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, Larissa Marland, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Norman Marland, filed a medical malpractice claim against the University of Connecticut Health Center and related entities. The decedent had been treated at the hospital and was later admitted to the intensive care unit, where he fell and subsequently died. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital staff breached the standard of care owed to the decedent.The plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the claims commissioner, including a physician’s opinion letter. The claims commissioner failed to resolve the claim within the statutory two-year period and an additional one-year extension granted by the General Assembly. Despite this, the commissioner eventually authorized the plaintiff to sue the state. The plaintiff then filed the present action in the Superior Court.The state moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity was invalid because it was issued after the expiration of the one-year extension. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the commissioner did not have the authority to grant the waiver beyond the extension period.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The court held that, once the claims commissioner authorizes suit and waives sovereign immunity, the state cannot challenge that decision in the Superior Court. The court emphasized that such challenges should be raised before the claims commissioner. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to deny the state’s motion to dismiss. View "Marland v. University of Connecticut Health Center" on Justia Law

Deborah Bradshaw and Chrystal Antao sued American Airlines and Mesa Airlines, alleging injuries and damages from the airlines' negligent handling of an in-flight emergency. During a June 2020 flight, the aircraft experienced a malfunction that led to a loss of cabin pressure, requiring an emergency descent. The plaintiffs claimed the pilot failed to properly inform passengers of the threat and descended too rapidly, while American Airlines failed to provide medical personnel upon landing.The case was initially filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the airlines, concluding that federal law preempted Oklahoma's common-carrier standard of care in aviation safety. The court allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a state negligence claim using the federal "reckless-or-careless manner" standard but found no evidence that the airlines violated this standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Federal Aviation Act and related regulations preempt state law in the field of aviation safety. The court agreed that the federal "careless or reckless manner" standard of care applies, preempting Oklahoma's common-carrier standard. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding a violation of federal regulations by the airlines and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Bradshaw v. American Airlines" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle on Lark Street in Albany, allegedly due to a road defect the City knew about but failed to repair. The case centers on whether reports submitted through the City's online system, SeeClickFix (SCF), constituted "written notice" of the defect and if those reports were "actually given" to the designated official.The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, holding that SCF reports might constitute prior written notice but that factual issues precluded summary judgment. These issues included whether the complaints were based on verbal or written communications, whether the defects described were related to the accident, and whether the City's actions created or exacerbated the defect. The court also rejected the City's claim of governmental immunity.The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, agreeing that SCF complaints could be considered written notice and rejecting the City's immunity argument. The Appellate Division granted the City leave to appeal and certified the question of whether it erred in affirming the denial of the City's motion.The New York Court of Appeals held that SCF reports could constitute written notice and that the City's implementation of SCF meant the reports were "actually given" to the Commissioner of General Services. The court also found that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on whether the City's negligence created a dangerous condition and rejected the City's claim of governmental immunity, as the repair of the road was a proprietary function. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order and answered the certified question in the negative. View "Calabrese v City of Albany" on Justia Law

A truck driver, Jarrod Newsome, was delivering chemicals to International Paper Company’s factory when he was overcome by a "rotten smell" and lost consciousness. He sued International Paper for negligence and gross negligence, claiming various injuries. The district court granted summary judgment to International Paper, finding that Newsome failed to establish general causation under Texas law and denied Newsome’s motion for additional time to designate another expert.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case and found that Newsome did not provide admissible expert testimony to establish that International Paper’s conduct caused his injuries. The court also denied Newsome’s motion for additional time to designate a new expert, citing a lack of good cause for the delay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Newsome failed to establish general causation as required by Texas law, which necessitates reliable expert testimony based on scientifically accepted methodologies. The court found that the experts relied upon by Newsome did not meet the necessary standards of reliability. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s denial of Newsome’s motion for additional time to designate another expert, noting that Newsome’s explanation for the delay was insufficient and that allowing the late designation would prejudice International Paper.The Fifth Circuit concluded that without reliable evidence of general causation, Newsome’s claims could not proceed. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of International Paper and the denial of Newsome’s motion for additional time to designate another expert. View "Newsome v. International Paper" on Justia Law

Martin B. Sturdivant, an employee of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, sustained a back injury while working as a corrections officer. The injury led to chronic back pain, and Sturdivant received temporary total disability payments through the workers' compensation system. As he approached the 500-week limit for these payments, he applied for extended compensation, claiming a total loss of wage-earning capacity.The North Carolina Industrial Commission denied Sturdivant's claim, concluding that he had not sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity. The Commission interpreted this phrase to mean a total loss of the ability to earn wages in any employment. Sturdivant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which rejected the Commission's interpretation. The Court of Appeals held that "total loss of wage-earning capacity" was synonymous with "total disability," incorporating a broader legal test.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the phrase "total loss of wage-earning capacity" means the complete elimination of the capacity to earn any wages. The Court clarified that this phrase does not share the same legal meaning as "total disability." The Court found that the Industrial Commission's interpretation was correct and that the Commission's findings were supported by competent evidence. The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' opinion to reject its statutory interpretation but otherwise affirmed the decision. View "Sturdivant v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Kristen Walker gave birth to her son Henry at Baptist St. Anthony’s Hospital under the care of Dr. Rhodesia Castillo. Henry required resuscitation after birth due to asphyxiation during labor and allegedly suffered a stroke. The Walkers sued the hospital and Dr. Castillo for negligence, claiming their actions caused Henry’s permanent neurologic injury. They provided expert reports from an obstetrician, a neonatologist, and a nurse to support their claims. The defendants challenged the qualifications of the experts and the sufficiency of the reports, arguing they did not adequately explain the standards of care, breaches, and causation.The trial court overruled the defendants’ objections and denied their motion to dismiss, finding the reports provided a fair summary of the experts’ opinions as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed this decision, holding that the reports contained conclusory and incomplete language that did not sufficiently explain the cause of Henry’s brain injury.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the expert reports sufficiently explained causation and that the trial court correctly rejected the defendants’ other challenges. The court found that the reports from Drs. Tappan and Null together explained how breaches of the standard of care by Dr. Castillo and the nurses caused Henry’s injury. The court also determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendants’ objections to the experts’ qualifications. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Walker v. Baptist St. Anthony's Hospital" on Justia Law

Hemphill Construction Company, Inc. (Hemphill) entered into a contract with the City of Jackson and subsequently subcontracted Interstate Carbonic Enterprises (ICE) for a project. Gay Lynn Harris, Jr., an owner and officer of ICE, was severely injured while working on the project in September 2020. Harris sought workers’ compensation benefits from Hemphill, but an Administrative Judge (AJ) ruled that Harris was not entitled to these benefits because he had voluntarily opted out of ICE’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Neither party appealed the AJ’s decision.In March 2022, Harris filed a negligence complaint against Hemphill in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. Hemphill moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming tort immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA). The trial court agreed and granted Hemphill’s motion to dismiss. Harris appealed, arguing that tort immunity did not apply and that judicial estoppel should apply. Hemphill contended that Harris had not exhausted his administrative remedies.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that Harris was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his negligence suit. The court held that Hemphill was entitled to tort immunity because it had contractually required ICE to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, thus satisfying the statutory requirement to secure payment under the MWCA. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss Harris’s negligence claim against Hemphill. View "Harris v. Hemphill Construction Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Angel Matta was hired by Dakota Provisions in February 2020 as a production worker. Matta had attendance issues documented by his employer and was injured at work on March 23, 2020, leading to several weeks of missed work. He filed a workers' compensation claim and was terminated by Dakota Provisions one month later. Matta then filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and violation of public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. Matta appealed the decision.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dakota Provisions, concluding that Matta was an at-will employee and could be terminated for any lawful reason. The court also found that Matta failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his disability discrimination claim and did not recognize a common law tort for retaliatory discharge based on a disability.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision in part, agreeing that Matta was an at-will employee and that his termination did not violate public policy based on disability discrimination. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding Matta's claim of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Matta's termination was pretextual and retaliatory, given the proximity of his termination to his workers' compensation claim and the inconsistent reasons provided by Dakota Provisions for his termination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "Matta v. Dakota Provisions" on Justia Law

Dionicio Rodriguez, an employee of SIR Electric LLC (SIR), was injured while working and filed for workers' compensation benefits under SIR's policy with Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (Hartford). After receiving benefits, Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against SIR, alleging negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional wrongdoing. SIR requested Hartford to defend against the lawsuit, but Hartford refused, citing policy exclusions. SIR then filed a third-party complaint against Hartford, claiming wrongful disclaimer of defense coverage.The trial court granted Hartford's motion to dismiss SIR's complaint, ruling that the policy excluded intent-based claims. SIR's motion for reconsideration and to amend its complaint, arguing that the policy's enhanced intentional injury exclusion (EII exclusion) violated public policy, was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that Hartford has no duty to defend SIR. The court determined that Rodriguez's claims of negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness are subject to the workers' compensation exclusivity bar and are not covered under Part One of the policy. These claims are also excluded from coverage under Part Two of the policy. Additionally, Rodriguez's claims of intentional wrongdoing are excluded under the policy's EII exclusion.The court concluded that the trial judge properly denied SIR's motion to amend its third-party complaint, as the EII exclusion does not violate public policy. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, upholding the dismissal of SIR's third-party complaint against Hartford. View "Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC" on Justia Law

Matthew Cartia and Autumn Adams were arrested by officers when they attempted to interfere with a police investigation at Cartia's parents' house. The officers claimed that Cartia and Adams were interfering with their work, leading to a confrontation where Cartia was handcuffed and taken down using a "hip-toss" maneuver. Adams was also arrested after she tried to intervene. Both Cartia and Adams alleged that the officers used excessive force during and after their arrests, including claims that Cartia was struck and choked by the officers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including the officers and Lincoln County. The magistrate judge concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Lincoln County was not liable under Monell for the officers' actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for some claims but reversed it for others. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for most of their actions, including the initial takedown and restraint of Cartia, as well as the force used against Adams. However, the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the excessive force claims against Officers Beeman and Gugliano for allegedly striking and choking Cartia after he was subdued. These claims were remanded for further proceedings. The court also found that the state law claims of assault and battery and negligence against these officers should proceed to trial, as there was sufficient evidence to suggest they may have acted with malice or bad faith. The court affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims. View "Cartia v. Beeman" on Justia Law