Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc. (Potomac), a residential behavioral health center in West Virginia, and two former residents, L.K. and D.S., who were represented by their guardian and conservator, Kelly Young. The plaintiffs alleged that they were abused and neglected by Potomac staff members while residing at the facility for approximately five months spanning the years 2013 and 2014. They asserted claims for negligence and unlawful discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act.The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court of Hardy County, where the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. Potomac appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in several ways, including denying its pre-trial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Potomac is a “place of public accommodations” under the Human Rights Act, and admitting evidence at trial pertaining to the abuse of other children who resided at Potomac and the results of a 2014 investigation of that abuse.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that Potomac is not a “place of public accommodations” under the Human Rights Act and that the lower court erred by not granting summary judgment to Potomac on this issue prior to trial. The court also found that the lower court committed reversible error by admitting the 2014 investigative reports in their entirety into evidence at trial. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court’s final order and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc.v. L.K., By Her Guardian and Conservator, Young" on Justia Law

Jake Johnson, an electrician, was injured while working on a construction project in a building owned by Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI) and managed by CBRE. Johnson was employed by PCF Electric, a subcontractor hired by Crew Builders, the general contractor for the project. Johnson filed a complaint against PRI, CBRE, Crew, and PCF for damages. PRI and CBRE moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which generally protects entities that hire independent contractors from liability for injuries sustained by the employees of the independent contractor. The trial court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact as to when PRI and CBRE hired Crew for the project.The trial court's decision was based on the execution date of the written contract between PRI, CBRE, and Crew. The court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to when PRI and CBRE hired Crew for the project. The court also granted Crew’s and PCF’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that the Privette doctrine barred Johnson’s claims against them.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, disagreed with the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that a written contract is not required to invoke the Privette doctrine, and the undisputed facts established that PRI and CBRE delegated control over the tenant improvements to Crew prior to Johnson’s injury. The court also found that no exception to the Privette doctrine applied. The court concluded that no triable issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and granted PRI and CBRE’s requested relief. View "CBRE v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This case involves a personal injury claim and the question of whether an adult child can claim loss of parental consortium when the parent has not died but has entered a persistent vegetative state and will not recover. The plaintiffs, including the adult child of the individual now in a persistent vegetative state, argued that a previous case, Masaki v. General Motors Co., allowed for a parent to recover damages for the loss of filial consortium of an injured adult child, and that this should extend to an adult child's claim for loss of parental consortium. The defendants, a group of healthcare providers, argued that a previous case, Halberg v. Young, held that no action exists in favor of a child for injuries sustained by the parent not resulting in the parent’s death.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the reasoning of Masaki would apply to the loss of parental consortium presented in this case. The court also found that the Halberg case was distinguishable factually from the current case, as it involved a parent who would recover from their injuries, unlike the parent in the current case who was in a persistent vegetative state.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i affirmed the lower court's decision, overruling Halberg to the extent that it held that a child cannot claim loss of parental consortium where a parent is severely injured but not killed. The court held that a child, whether a minor or an adult, may bring a loss of parental consortium claim for severe injury to a parent. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "HELG Administration Services, LLC v. Department of Health" on Justia Law

Michelle Oksman sued the City of Idaho Falls after slipping and falling on a wet surface in the lobby of the West Deist Aquatic Center, a facility owned and operated by the City. Oksman alleged negligence on the part of the City. The district court initially granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City had no actual notice of a dangerous condition and did not fail to take reasonable action to remedy potential hazards. However, the court later withdrew its grant of summary judgment after Oksman identified the person who had allegedly stated that people frequently fell in the area where she had fallen. The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the district court limited Oksman's testimony and declined to give a jury instruction Oksman requested regarding the reasonable value of necessary services. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City, and the district court dismissed Oksman's complaint with prejudice. Oksman appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in limiting Oksman's testimony about a statement made by the manager of the aquatic center, which was crucial to Oksman's case. The Supreme Court also provided guidance on issues likely to arise again on remand, including the use of depositions for impeachment and the use of leading questions. The Supreme Court further vacated the district court's award of costs to the City as the prevailing party. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Oksman v. City of Idaho Falls" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a medical malpractice claim filed by Jillyn M. Woodward, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Brian K. Woodward, deceased, against Saint Francis Medical Center and the doctors who treated Brian. Brian was admitted to the emergency room at Saint Francis Medical Center with a swollen tongue and difficulty swallowing. He was diagnosed with angioedema, a condition causing abnormal swelling of the tongue, mouth, and airway. Despite treatment, his condition worsened, and he had to be intubated. The intubation attempts were unsuccessful, leading to a delay in securing his airway. Brian later developed right-side semiparesis, including weakness and partial paralysis, which was attributed to an anoxic brain injury due to the delay in securing his airway.The District Court for Hall County granted summary judgment in favor of the doctors and Saint Francis Medical Center. The court also struck the affidavits of two expert witnesses provided by Woodward, citing inconsistencies with their earlier deposition testimonies. Woodward appealed the decision.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the change in testimony of nonparty witnesses is an issue of credibility for a fact finder to make, and that later testimony will normally not be struck by the trial court. The court also noted that the document provided by Saint Francis Medical Center did not conclusively establish that the doctors were not employees or agents of the hospital. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Woodward v. Saint Francis Medical Center" on Justia Law

In 2009, Leverne Brent was injured while working for the Mississippi Department of Human Services (DHS) in a building owned by Madated, LCC. The Mississippi State Agencies Workers’ Compensation Trust (Trust), the carrier for DHS, provided Brent with compensation and medical expenses for her injury. In 2012, Brent and her husband sued the building owner and reached a settlement of $750,000. The DHS and the Trust intervened, claiming $358,210.77 for compensation and medical expenses paid to Brent. Brent challenged this amount, arguing that it included expenses that were not legally recoverable, such as surveillance and investigation costs. The Intervenors reduced their demand to $335,216.27, and the disputed amount was held in escrow pending further order.The trial court ordered the Intervenors to produce invoices and checks for each claimed expenditure. Brent continued to dispute the accuracy of the reduced demand and filed a motion for contempt, arguing that the Intervenors had failed to provide legitimate costs and total amount requests for reimbursement. Brent specifically challenged the reimbursement of $2,887.50 for an Employer Medical Evaluation (EME) conducted by a non-treating medical provider, arguing that this was not medical treatment. The trial court granted the Intervenors' Motion to Establish and Settle Lien, finding that the EME was a medical expense within the meaning of the Act. Brent appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the statute. The court found that the EME was not a medical expense as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Law, which requires medical treatment to be necessary and reasonable. The court ruled that the EME, conducted by a non-treating medical provider for the purpose of obtaining a second opinion, did not meet this definition. Therefore, the court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and ruled in favor of Brent, finding that she was not required to repay the $2,887.50 for the EME. View "Brent v. Mississippi Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

A fire broke out at Victor Young's property in Yazoo City, Mississippi, and spread to Kenneth Hampton's property. The Yazoo City Fire Department struggled to extinguish the fire due to a lack of tank water and difficulty connecting to a nearby fire hydrant. As a result, Young's property was completely destroyed, and Hampton's property was significantly damaged. Hampton, who was not physically injured during the fire, suffered a cardiac event and subsequent stroke three days later. Hampton and Young sued Yazoo City, alleging negligence and reckless disregard in failing to provide the necessary knowledge and equipment to fight fires, failing to properly train and supervise its firefighters, and failing to adequately maintain its fire hydrant system.The Yazoo County Circuit Court denied Yazoo City's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the questions of the city's immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) for property damage and personal injury liability could not be answered without additional discovery. The city appealed this decision, arguing that it was immune from both property damage and personal injury liability under the MTCA.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the lower court's decision. The court found that Yazoo City was immune from property damage liability because the plaintiffs did not allege that the city acted with reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of any person, as required by the MTCA. The court also found that the city was immune from personal injury liability because Hampton's claim linked the property damage to his personal injury, but did not argue that the fire department acted in reckless disregard of his safety and well-being. The court concluded that Yazoo City was immune from both property damage and personal injury liability under the MTCA, and therefore, the lower court improperly denied the city's motion for summary judgment. View "Yazoo City v. Hampton" on Justia Law

The case involves a developmentally disabled woman, referred to as A.L., who was sexually assaulted by an employee of a transportation service. The transportation service was contracted by Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation, a regional center under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. The regional center's role is to assess the needs of developmentally disabled individuals and contract with service providers to meet those needs. A.L. sued the employee, the transportation service, and the regional center, arguing that the regional center had a duty to protect her from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the regional center, concluding that the regional center did not have a duty to protect A.L. from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees unless the regional center had actual knowledge of the employee's propensity to engage in such conduct. The trial court's decision was based on the fact that the regional center had no such knowledge in this case.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the regional center had a duty to protect A.L. from sexual assault by the transportation service's employees only if the regional center had actual knowledge of the employee's propensity to engage in such conduct. The court concluded that imposing a broader duty on the regional center would effectively convert regional centers into insurers of all harm to consumers, which could potentially shut down these centers and deny essential services to the entire population of developmentally disabled persons. View "A.L. v. Harbor Developmental Disabilities Foundation" on Justia Law

The case involves an employee, Daniel Johnson, who had previously injured his back in 2005 while working for Furniture & Things, Inc. He continued to work for the company until 2011, managing his persistent back and leg pain with self-care treatments. In 2016, Johnson started working for Concrete Treatments, Inc., where he sustained another back injury in October 2018. He sought medical treatment for his worsening condition, which was diagnosed as a lumbar strain. In 2021, Johnson underwent surgery for severe spinal canal stenosis. He filed a workers’ compensation claim, seeking benefits for his 2005 and 2018 injuries and payment of outstanding medical expenses.The compensation judge found that Johnson had sustained a permanent work-related injury in October 2018 and that both the 2005 and 2018 injuries were substantial contributing factors to his need for medical care and surgery. The judge also concluded that Johnson was entitled to make a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses owed to his medical providers, who had not intervened in the proceedings. Concrete Treatments appealed the judge's findings on liability and conclusion regarding Johnson’s right to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses.The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed the compensation judge’s determination that Johnson sustained a permanent work-related injury in October 2018 and that the injury was a substantial contributing factor to his permanent low back condition and need for surgery. However, the WCCA held that Johnson could not assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses because his medical providers had not intervened in the proceedings.The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed in part and reversed in part the WCCA’s decision. The court held that Johnson is entitled to assert a direct claim for unpaid medical expenses and that the compensation judge’s findings regarding the October 2018 injury are not manifestly contrary to the evidence. The case was remanded to the WCCA to determine whether further factual findings are necessary regarding Johnson’s direct claim for unpaid medical expenses. View "Johnson vs. Concrete Treatments" on Justia Law

Arasely Soto, a public school teacher, was injured during a routine medical procedure and had to retire. She sued her medical providers for malpractice and also sought disability retirement benefits from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). She and her husband, Raul Soto, settled with several of the medical malpractice defendants. CalSTRS brought an action against the Sotos, seeking to enforce its right to subrogation or reimbursement from the Sotos' settlement with the malpractice defendants.The trial court granted CalSTRS’s motion for summary adjudication on its declaratory relief cause of action and denied the Sotos’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that CalSTRS was entitled to seek reimbursement from the Sotos and rejected the Sotos’ defense that Civil Code section 3333.1 bars any subrogation claim that CalSTRS would have asserted against the malpractice defendants. The Sotos filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two to vacate the trial court’s orders.The appellate court agreed with CalSTRS’s argument that it has a statutory reimbursement claim against the Sotos, and the evidence in this case does not support application of section 3333.1 to bar CalSTRS’s claim. The court denied the Sotos' petition for writ of mandate. View "Soto v. Superior Court" on Justia Law