Legal News

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

[08/19] Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a School District employee's suit for workers' compensation claims, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is affirmed as, the language of section 4660 permits reliance on the entire American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.

[08/12] Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a claimant's objection to a panel qualified medical evaluator's ex parte communication with defense counsel, and a request for a new panel qualified medical evaluator under section 4062.3(f), in a workers' compensation proceeding for death benefits, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of the petition is annulled and remanded as section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified evaluator, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for "administrative" matters. However, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.

[08/05] Casanova v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against American Airlines, claiming he was terminated in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits, jury verdict for plaintiff of more than $1 million, $112,000 for lost wages, $250,000 for emotional injury, and $724,000 for punitive damages, and district court's denial of defendant's post-judgment motions are reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 as plaintiff's dissembling and insubordination was sufficient cause for his discharge.

[07/15] Gacek v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against an airline for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for the airline is affirmed as no reasonable jury could find that the airline had fired plaintiff because its claims administrator had opened a file on an injury rather than because it believed that he had lied about having the flu and had disobeyed the doctor's orders to wear a splint on an injured finger and not lift anything with that hand.

[07/15] Milan v. City of Holtville
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer, a municipal water treatment plant, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), claiming that the city had failed to attempt to accommodate her disability and that she was capable of performing the essential functions of her job, trial court's judgment awarding the plaintiff back pay and emotional distress damages is reversed where: 1) the city did not have to offer plaintiff any accommodation as the record shows that almost one year after she was injured, the city's workers' compensation administrator advised her that its doctor did not believe she would be able to return to her job and offered her rehabilitation and retraining benefits; 2) the record shows that plaintiff was given ample opportunity to express interest in retaining her job and for more than 18 months she failed to do so; and 3) given these circumstances, where the employee failed to express any meaningful or definitive interest in retaining her job, FEHA did not require that her employer discuss with or offer her accommodations for her disability.

[07/14] US v. Lay
Conviction of defendant for investment adviser fraud and multiple mail and wire fraud, related to a hedge fund investment by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, is affirmed as, because a hedge fund investor can in some circumstances have a fiduciary relationship with an investor, the jury instructions were correct and sufficient evidence supports defendant's conviction. Furthermore, defendant's challenges to the district court's evidentiary rulings and its orders of restitution of $212 million and forfeiture of $590,526.23 are rejected.

[07/06] Koszdin v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In six class action suits brought by two attorneys against employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers, claiming that they failed to pay interest owed on attorney's fee awards issued by the WCAB, dismissal of the complaint following the sustaining of a demurrer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under the relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, plaintiffs have standing to seek interest on the attorney's fees awarded directly to them by the WCAB; but 2) the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims for unpaid interest where the WCAB did not expressly order the payment of interest in its attorney's fee awards.

[07/01] Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A. Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employers raising numerous causes of action, claiming that he was induced to come to the United States by the defendants who, within just a few months of his arrival from his home country of India, had his promised salary reduced and then pressured him to resign, judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) plaintiff has shown no prejudicial error in either the limiting instruction or the denial of his request for leave to amend the complaint; 2) the refusal of defendants' proposed jury instruction regarding the salary reduction was error; 3) defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on the count for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 4) the special verdict findings regarding alleged misrepresentations and promises made to plaintiff are inconsistent, and such inconsistency also extends to the finding of malice, oppression, or fraud; 5) defendants have shown no error in the award of damages for unpaid wages; 6) the award of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress is based on injuries suffered in the course and scope of employment, for which workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy; and 7) however, the workers' compensation exclusivity rule does not preclude this entire action.

[06/24] Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Fifth District's reversal of trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as workers' compensation retaliation claims brought against the state under section 440.205 are not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[09/01] Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[08/31] Mader v. US
In an action against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the Department of Veterans Affairs acted negligently in providing medical treatment to plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where a plaintiff meets the Act's jurisdictional prerequisites when she provides the relevant agency with: 1) sufficient information for the agency to investigate the claims; and 2) the amount of damages sought.

[08/30] Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).

[08/30] Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.

[08/30] Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l

[08/30] Lechoslaw v. Bank of America
In plaintiff's suit against a bank for damages, claiming that a four-and-a-half month delay in receiving his $31,787.34 disrupted the construction of a motel and restaurant in Poland and caused him severe emotional distress, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the Bank in Poland met the requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Bank did not waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; 2) there was no abuse of discretion on the facts in the court's exclusion of the statement as offered against Bank of America (BoA); 3) there was no evidence that BoA violated chapter 93A in any of its dealings with plaintiff, and the district court properly entered judgment in its favor; and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion for the courts not to reopen discovery according to the Hague Convention.

[08/30] Miranda v. Bomel Constr. Co., Inc.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a general subcontractor and a subcontractor, claiming that defendants negligently, carelessly and unlawfully allowed excavated dirt, located in a vacant lot next to his office, to be in a dangerous, defective, and unlawful condition so as to cause plaintiff to suffer severe injuries and damages when he breathed the particles from the excavated dirt, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants met their burden of proof it was only a possibility, not a reasonable medical probability, plaintiff contracted Valley Fever by inhaling an airborne Cocci spore that originated from the soil at the site; and 2) trial court properly sustained the evidentiary objections to plaintiff's experts' speculative conclusions about causation.

[08/30] Critzer v. Enos
In plaintiffs' suit against a homeowners association (HOA), and a property owner and its successor in interest, involving a dispute concerning a window installed in defendant-property owner's upstairs bathroom, trial court's order enforcing the parties' settlement is reversed where: 1) the order enforcing the settlement finally determined the rights of the parties, and therefore, the order is amended to include an appealable judgment; and 2) because there was neither an oral settlement all parties personally agreed upon, nor a written settlement signed by all of the parties, the court lacked authority under the summary procedure of section 664.6 to enforce any settlement.

[08/30] Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for award of reasonable royalties is reversed and remanded where: 1) given the jury's finding that E*Trade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not "provable" within the meaning of section 3426.3; 2) since E*Trade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff's actual losses are not provable, E*Trade is estopped from arguing otherwise now; and 3) because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.

[08/27] Ellerbee v. County of Los Angeles
In plaintiff's suit against the County of Los Angeles and a sheriff for negligence, claiming that the sheriff breached an unspecified statutory duty of care by failing to promptly serve a writ of execution on Sony BMG and MTV, arising from the death of plaintiff's son, for which an entertainer known as "Too Short" was responsible, trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) no mandatory statutory duty was alleged or violated, and the trial court erred when it denied the county's motion for judgment on the pleadings and allowed the action to proceed to trial on a theory of common law negligence; 2) the county and its attorney have not shown that the trial court abused its discretion with regard to making an award of sanctions, and have made no effort to demonstrate any abuse of discretion as to the amount of sanctions; and 3) plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal and to impose sanctions is denied.

Read More

Professional Malpractice

[08/27] Garcia v. Gomez
In plaintiff's suit against a hospital and a treating physician for the death of plaintiff's mother from a pulmonary embolism following surgery, court of appeals' affirmance of trial court's dismissal of the suit and denial of defendants' motion for attorney's fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) there is some evidence of reasonable attorney's fees and some evidence that the physician incurred attorney's fees; 2) section 74.351(b) mandates an award of attorney's fees and costs, when expert reports are not served timely.

[08/27] In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys. , LP
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit, defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel because of its employment of a legal assistant, is conditionally granted as, because the legal assistant's employer did not take effective reasonable steps to shield the assistant from working on this case, and the assistant actually worked on the case at her employer's directive, disqualification is required and the trial court is directed to grant the defendant's motion to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs' counsel.

[08/26] Florida Bar v. Hall
In an attorney's disciplinary proceedings, arising from forgery and fraudulent recording of a lease agreement and agreement for sale between the attorney and property owners, a referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is approved in part and disapproved in part where: 1) referee's finding of fact, recommendations of guilt, and award of costs are affirmed; 2) referee's reliance on Standard 7.0 is disapproved and instead Standard 5.0 should be applied; and 3) referee's recommendation of a ninety-day suspension is unsupported, as after considering the factual findings, the totality of misconduct, case law, and the Standards, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

[08/25] Giacometti v. Aulla, LLC
In employees' suit for professional negligence against an accounting firm, claiming that the firm negligently or fraudulently over-reported income on their W-2 forms by including tip money taken by the restaurant managers as income to the employees, trial court's order sustaining the demurrer to the employees' second amended complaint against the firm for professional negligence without leave to amend is affirmed where: 1) there are no allegations in the charging complaint that the accountants knew that the restaurant's representation of employees' income was wrong at the time they prepared these documents, and there are no allegations that the accountants were hired to calculate, or in fact did calculate, employees' income for purposes of year-end reporting; and 2) the accountants did not owe the employees a duty of care under the negligence theory alleged in the second amended complaint.

[08/23] Ruiz v. Podolsky
In a medical malpractice and wrongful death suit brought by decedent's wife and children against an orthopedic surgeon and other health care providers, judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and remanded as, in accordance with the intent of the Legislature that enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 and related statutes, all wrongful death claimants are bound by arbitration agreements entered into pursuant to section 1295, at least when, as here, the language of the agreement manifests an intent to bind these claimants.

[08/23] Morton v. Thousand Oaks Surgical Hosp.
In plaintiffs' suit against a hospital and physicians alleging a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NEID), arising from their mother's surgery for a sigmoid colon resection, trial court's dismissal after sustaining a demurrer to plaintiffs' cause of action for NIED is affirmed as plaintiffs' allegation, that they were "experienced in the medical field and understood and appreciated the dangers faced by their mother" in the event remedial action was not taken, is insufficient to establish that plaintiffs knew and appreciated the medical circumstances affecting their mother.

[08/13] Abcarian v. McDonald
In plaintiff's suit against a university and number of its employees, claiming that defendants' reporting of a settlement of a medical malpractice claim against him to state and national professional authorities violated his constitutional rights, district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to reconsider its judgment of dismissal of the case is affirmed as plaintiff's own complaint shows that the defendants merely complied with legal requirements for filing notices of medical malpractice settlements with federal and state authorities, and by filing those notices, defendants did not violate plaintiff's free speech rights or his rights to equal protection of the law and due process of law.

[08/06] Csiszer v. Wren
In an action against the hospital and obstetrician that provided care to a mother during the birth of their daughter, claiming that negligent care during the delivery was the proximate cause of the daughter's cerebral palsy, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the objectionable portions of defense counsel's argument, as well as any evidence presented concerning the financial aspects of the daughter's care and treatment, were rendered irrelevant by the jury's verdict in the defendants' favor on liability; and 2) the Arkansas statute setting forth the elements that a medical malpractice a plaintiff must prove through expert testimony did not burden plaintiffs' fundamental rights.

[08/02] Haworth v. Superior Court
In a female patient's suit against her physician for negligence in performing plastic surgery on her lip, court of appeal's affirmance of the superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in favor of the physician on the ground that the neutral arbitrator had failed to disclose a matter "that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably to entertain a doubt that the...neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial," is reversed as the neutral arbitrator, a former judge of the superior court, was not required to disclose to the parties the circumstances that 10 years earlier, he received a public censure based upon his conduct toward and statements to court employees, which together created "an overall courtroom environment where discussion of sex and improper ethnic and racial comments were customary."

[07/30] Baker v. Simpson
In plaintiff's appeal from the denial of his motion to remand his legal malpractice action from a bankruptcy court to state court, the order is affirmed where claims of professional malpractice, based on services rendered pursuant to a Title 11 petition, "arise in" a bankruptcy case because they implicate the integrity of the bankruptcy process and are inseparable from that proceeding.

[07/26] Cruz-Vazquez v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff''s suit filed pursuant to the Puerto Rico's medical malpractice law and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated as the district court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert witness, as considerations such as an expert witness's pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case, or his status as an expert witness only for one side of an issue, or the extent to which a doctor currently sees patients, go to the probative weight of testimony, not its admissibility.

Read More