Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

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

The case revolves around Delanna Garey, who was employed as the director of operations of an apartment building managed by Stanford Management until her termination in January 2023. In February 2023, Stanford and its current director of operations, Eve Dunham, requested the Rumford Police to serve Garey with a criminal trespass notice, barring her from entering the building for a year. In March 2023, Stanford and Dunham posted copies of the criminal trespass notice on the building and sent a letter to the residents stating that former employees were not permitted on the premises. Garey filed a complaint against Stanford alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.The Superior Court granted Stanford’s motion to dismiss Garey’s complaint in its entirety, concluding that Garey failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The court reasoned that Stanford’s statements were not provably false; they were statements of opinion, not of fact; the statements were subject to multiple interpretations and should not be attributed their worst possible meaning; and in the alternative, even if the statements were defamatory, they were conditionally privileged.Upon review, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Garey met her burden and vacated the Superior Court judgment with respect to her claims for defamation per se and false light invasion of privacy. The court affirmed the dismissal of her claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as moot. The court found that Garey’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Stanford published statements that falsely imply that Garey engaged in dangerous conduct such that the community needs protection. The court also concluded that Garey has sufficiently alleged a claim for false light invasion of privacy. However, Garey’s declaratory judgment and injunctive relief claims were moot because she is no longer precluded from entering the building property. View "Garey v. Stanford Management, LLC" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case, Bobbi Ann Mertis filed a lawsuit against Dr. Dong-Joon Oh, North American Partners in Anesthesia (Pennsylvania), LLC (NAPA), Wilkes-Barre Hospital, and Commonwealth Health. Mertis alleged that Dr. Oh negligently administered a femoral nerve block, causing her a femoral nerve injury. Dr. Oh retained a law firm, Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, to represent him. Later, Dr. Eugene Kim, the orthopedic surgeon who performed Mertis’s knee surgery and was not named as a defendant, also retained the same law firm after receiving a subpoena to appear at a discovery deposition.The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denied Mertis's motion for sanctions to disqualify the law firm from representing Dr. Oh and to bar the firm's further ex parte communication with Dr. Kim. The court found no violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.6, which regulates obtaining information from a party's treating physician. Mertis appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case. The Superior Court found that Rule 4003.6 was violated and that the law firm's concurrent representation of Dr. Oh and Dr. Kim was tantamount to ex parte communication.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court concluded that a law firm representing a defendant treating physician cannot obtain information from a nonparty treating physician without the patient's written consent or through an authorized method of discovery. The court found that the client exception in Rule 4003.6(1) does not permit a law firm to obtain information from a nonparty treating physician by entering into an attorney-client relationship with that physician when the law firm's attorneys were already prohibited from obtaining information from that physician under Rule 4003.6 prior to entering such attorney-client relationship. View "Mertis v. Oh" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Maria Chavez, the widow of Leodegario Chavez Alvarado, who was employed by Alco Harvesting, LLC as a foreman and bus driver. Alco provided housing for Alvarado and other workers at the Hotel Santa Maria, where a COVID-19 outbreak occurred. Chavez alleged that Alco was aware of the outbreak but failed to report it to the health department, notify its employees, or implement adequate safety measures. Alvarado contracted COVID-19 and died from complications related to the disease. Chavez claimed that Alco's concealment of the outbreak and the nature of Alvarado's illness resulted in the aggravation of his condition, leading to his death.The trial court sustained Alco's demurrer to Chavez's second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to Chavez's appeal. The trial court found that Chavez failed to plead sufficient facts under the fraudulent concealment exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six reviewed the case. The court construed the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as a final judgment. The court found that Chavez's second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded all elements of the fraudulent concealment exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. The court held that Alco knew that Alvarado had contracted COVID-19 from his employment and concealed that knowledge from him, thereby aggravating his illness. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order granting Alco's demurrer and enter a new order overruling that demurrer. View "Chavez v. Alco Harvesting, LLC" on Justia Law

Roel Canales sued Pay and Save, a grocery store, for injuries he sustained after his foot got stuck in a wooden pallet used to display watermelons, causing him to fall and fracture his elbow. Canales had visited the store hundreds of times before and had purchased watermelons without incident. The wooden pallets, which have open sides to facilitate transport by forklifts and pallet jacks, are a common and necessary tool used by grocery stores to transport and display watermelons due to their size, weight, and shape.The trial court awarded Canales over $6 million in damages. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas found the evidence legally but not factually sufficient to support the jury's findings regarding premises liability, reversed the decision, and remanded for a new trial. The court also ruled that Canales take nothing on his gross negligence claim.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support both claims because the wooden pallet was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. The court noted that there was no evidence of prior complaints, reports, or injuries from similar pallets, not just at Pay and Save’s 150 stores, but also at other grocery stores. The court also found no evidence of any code, law, or regulation prohibiting or restricting the use of wooden pallets. The court concluded that the wooden pallet was a common condition, a type of hazard that people encounter and avoid every day by exercising common sense, prudence, and caution. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and rendered judgment for Pay and Save. View "Pay and Save, Inc. v. Canales" on Justia Law

Sally Splittgerber suffered a fall while walking on a city sidewalk, leading to a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the adjacent property, the lessee of that property (Bankers Trust), and the City of Des Moines. The plaintiffs alleged that these parties were negligent in maintaining the uneven sidewalk. After settling the claims, Bankers Trust sought contribution from the City for the settlement payment, arguing that the City, not the property owner or lessee, was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk.The district court, relying on the precedent set in Madden v. City of Iowa City, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court held that the City could impose liability on abutting landowners for damages resulting from other types of failures to maintain sidewalks, beyond just snow and ice removal. Bankers Trust appealed this decision, asking the Supreme Court of Iowa to overrule the Madden decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with Bankers Trust, stating that the Madden decision was wrongly decided. The court found that the City's attempt to shift costs and liability to abutting landowners for sidewalk maintenance and accidents beyond what the state statute allows was in direct conflict with the legislature's express determination about where such burdens reside. The court noted that the statute only permits cities to require abutting landowners to repair sidewalks if the city first notifies the landowners by certified mail that a repair is necessary, and only permits cities to hold abutting landowners liable for damages if they fail to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk.The court overruled the Madden decision, reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bankers Trust Company v. City Of Des Moines" on Justia Law