Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

An incarcerated individual developed a mass under his armpit and was referred to a surgeon who had a contract with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The surgeon performed a biopsy, which was then sent to the pathology department at the Cortland Regional Medical Center (CRMC) for examination. Dr. Jun Wang, the Medical Director of CRMC's pathology department and a member of Cortland Pathology, examined the specimen and determined that the mass was benign. A year later, the patient was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma.The patient initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against CRMC and others, alleging that they misdiagnosed his condition and failed to promptly diagnose or refer him for treatment. Dr. Wang sought defense and indemnification from the State, claiming that he was entitled to coverage under Public Officers Law § 17 and Correction Law § 24-a because his actions arose from treating an incarcerated individual at the request of DOCCS. The Attorney General rejected Dr. Wang's request, stating that he treated the patient through his employment arrangement with CRMC, not directly at the request of the State, and thus the State had no obligation to provide defense or indemnification.The New York Court of Appeals held that the State is not obligated to indemnify or defend Dr. Wang in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The court ruled that under the Correction Law § 24-a, the State's obligation to defend and indemnify only applies when there has been an explicit request by DOCCS for the services of a specific provider—an arrangement or understanding made in advance between DOCCS and the healthcare professional. In this case, no such express request or direct agreement existed between DOCCS and Dr. Wang, therefore, the State had no obligation to defend or indemnify him. The court also stated that the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Hence, the court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "In re Wang v James" on Justia Law

In the case of Clark Alave v. The City of Chicago, the plaintiff, Clark Alave, filed a complaint against the City of Chicago after he was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the city did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care under section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act. The court based this decision on the lack of any affirmative physical manifestations, such as signs or pavement markings, that the city intended for the roadway to be used for bicycling. The court also considered the Divvy bicycle rental station located nearby, but found that this station only indicated that the city permitted, not intended, bicycling on the roadway. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff was not both a permitted and intended user of the roadway, and thus the city owed him no duty of care. The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. View "Alave v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In a defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll against former President Donald Trump, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that presidential immunity can be waived and that Trump had waived his presidential immunity by failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in his original response to Carroll's complaint. Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he publicly denied her accusation of sexual assault in the mid-1990s. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Trump's motion for summary judgment and his request to amend his answer to include presidential immunity as a defense. The court also upheld the lower court's decision to strike Trump's presidential immunity defense from his answer to Carroll's amended complaint. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case concerns a firefighter, Matthew Vann, who was injured when a bus driver, Louis Yu, drove through an active emergency scene and over a fire hose, causing it to break off from a fire engine and strike Vann. Vann sued the City and County of San Francisco and Yu for negligence. The trial court dismissed the case, sustaining the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend. The court ruled that the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, as Vann was receiving workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained in the incident.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court rejected Vann's argument that the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which employed Vann and Yu respectively, were separate legal entities akin to separate businesses within a multi-unit corporate enterprise. The court reasoned that the SFFD and the SFMTA were not independent entities but were merely parts of the same entity, the City and County of San Francisco. Consequently, the City was the employer of both Vann and Yu. Therefore, under the Workers’ Compensation Act, workers' compensation was Vann's exclusive remedy against the City as his employer and against Yu as his coemployee. View "Vann v. City and County of S.F." on Justia Law

In a car accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist, the driver, Yvonne Patrice Kessel, was convicted of one count of aggravated vehicular homicide. The State of Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Kessel’s proposed jury instruction, which suggested that the jury could consider the victim’s actions when determining proximate cause, was not a proper theory of defense. The Court found that Kessel was essentially arguing that the State failed to prove the proximate cause element of the charged offense, which it deemed a "claim of innocence" or "failure of proof" defense not warranting a special theory of defense instruction. The Court also ruled that the jury had been adequately instructed on the concept of proximate cause and that the instructions allowed both parties to argue their respective theories of the case. Thus, the Court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kessel’s proposed instruction. View "Kessel v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit examined claims by Colleen M. Johnson against her former employer, Midwest Division-RBH, LLC (Belton Regional Medical Center), her supervisor Patrick Avila, and her replacement Nicole Pasley. Johnson had been on medical leave for nine months due to heart-related issues when she informed Belton Regional that she could not give a return date. The next day, the company terminated her employment. Johnson sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), claiming age and disability discrimination, and also brought common law claims for emotional distress, defamation, and property damage. The district court dismissed the common law claims and granted summary judgment on the MHRA claims.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that her common law claims were not preempted by the MHRA, ruling that the MHRA provided the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of an employment relationship and that she had fraudulently joined the Missouri defendants to prevent removal. The court also found that Johnson could not establish a prima facie case of age or disability discrimination under the MHRA because she did not provide evidence that her age or disability was the “determinative influence” on her termination. Instead, the court concluded that Johnson was fired due to her refusal to provide a date when she would return from medical leave, not because of her age or disability. Finally, the court ruled that Johnson had waived her argument of constructive discharge by failing to provide meaningful legal analysis in her opposition to summary judgment. View "Johnson v. Midwest Division - RBH, LLC" on Justia Law

In a defamation case involving a cosmetic surgeon and a former patient who posted negative and false reviews on Yelp, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the district court's judgment that the surgeon failed to show any actual damage to his reputation. The court held that defamation requires proof of harm to reputation, and mere speculation about reputational harm is not sufficient. Reputational harm may be indicated by reasonable inferences such as declining revenue or decreased professional opportunities, but these inferences must be tied to a fact in the real world. The court clarified that defamation per se and presumed damages have been abolished in Kansas, and thus, a plaintiff must show injury to reputation to establish a valid claim for defamation. The court found that the surgeon failed to prove reputational harm caused by the defamatory statements, and rejected the argument that the jury's finding of malice relieved him from proof of reputational harm. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to set aside the defamation judgment. View "Marcus v. Swanson" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington was asked to determine whether a landowner could delegate its duty to protect invitees on its premises from known or obvious dangers to an independent contractor. The case arose from the death of Jeffry Eylander, an employee of an independent contractor, Commercial Industrial Roofing Inc. (CIR), who fell through a skylight while cleaning the roof of a warehouse owned by Prologis Targeted U.S. Logistics Fund and Prologis Management LLC (collectively, Prologis). Eylander's daughter, as personal representative of his estate, sued Prologis for wrongful death, alleging that Prologis had breached its duty of reasonable care to protect Eylander from harm.The Court held that Prologis had reasonably delegated its duty of reasonable care to protect invitees from known or obvious dangers to CIR. The Court found that Prologis had fulfilled its duty by selecting a professional and experienced contractor, CIR, and by requiring CIR to follow all applicable laws, be solely responsible for the health and safety of its employees, and create and post a site-specific safety plan before starting work. Therefore, the Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Prologis. View "Eylander v. Prologis Targeted U.S. Logistics Fund" on Justia Law

In the case presented, plaintiff Bette Bennett alleged that she suffered a traumatic brain injury due to medical negligence by the defendant, the United States. However, the cause of her injury was not diagnosed until after the eight-year statute of repose for medical malpractice actions under Washington law had expired, making it impossible for her to timely commence her lawsuit. The United States moved to dismiss her complaint as time-barred.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington was asked to decide whether the statute of repose violates certain provisions of the Washington Constitution. The court held that while the legislature has broad authority to set time limits for commencing an action, the eight-year statute of repose for medical malpractice actions under RCW 4.16.350(3) violates the privileges and immunities clause of article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution. The court reasoned that the statute implicates the fundamental right of state citizenship by limiting the pursuit of common law claims against certain defendants, but it does not satisfy the "reasonable ground" test under the state constitution. Therefore, the court concluded that the statute of repose is unconstitutional under independent state law. The court declined to reach the second certified question regarding whether the statute of repose unconstitutionally restricts a plaintiff's right to access the courts in violation of the Washington Constitution. View "Bennett v. United States" on Justia Law

In November 2020, Autumn Hilger visited the Mount Rushmore National Memorial and slipped on a temporary access mat that was installed due to renovations, which resulted in her breaking her wrist. Hilger filed a negligence claim against the United States Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking $2 million for her injuries. The Government denied her claim, leading her to sue and allege that the National Park Service (NPS), a government agency, negligently installed and maintained the access mat and failed to warn of its danger. The district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA. Hilger appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court used a two-step test to determine whether the discretionary-function exception applies, first asking whether the challenged conduct or omission is discretionary, meaning it involves judgment or choice and is not controlled by mandatory statutes or regulations. Hilger had conceded in her appeal that there were no such controlling statutes or regulations, leading the court to agree with the district court that the challenged conduct was discretionary. The second inquiry was whether the judgment or choice was based on considerations of social, economic, and political policy. The court found that Hilger's complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to rebut the presumption that the discretion was grounded in policy considerations. The court concluded that the decisions regarding the mat were susceptible to policy analysis and that safety concerns, which Hilger argued were key in this case, are a typical policy consideration when applying the discretionary-function exception. As such, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Hilger's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Hilger v. United States" on Justia Law