Legal News

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[01/11] Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court vacating an administrative dismissal of respondent's Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) claim for benefits as a surviving spouse, judgment is affirmed where a claimant seeking benefits under the OCSLA must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf.

[12/13] In the Matter of Elrac, Inc. v. Exum
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division permitting arbitration of a claim by plaintiff-employee for uninsured motorist benefits, judgment is affirmed because a self-insured employer whose employee is involved in an automobile accident may be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law.

[10/31] County of Kern v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court affirming an administrative decision in a claim for worker's compensation, judgment is affirmed where a volunteer firefighter with a local nonprofit firefighting organization was a county employee for purposes of workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3361.1.

[09/13] Motheral v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In a petition for review of a judgment of the defendant-Board denying reconsideration of an administrative decision calculating petitioner's disability benefits based solely on his full-time employment at minimum wage, Lab. Code section 4653, judgment is reversed where section 4454 mandates the inclusion of the market value of petitioner's living quarters, utilities, and car allowance.

[08/11] Baker v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
In dispute involving the proper calculation of cost of living adjustments under Labor Code section 4659(c), judgment of the appeals court is reversed where through the operative language of Section 4659(c), the Legislature intended that such adjustments be calculated and applied prospectively commencing on the January 1 following the date on which the injured worker first becomes entitled to receive, and actually begins receiving, such benefit payments.

[04/20] Edward Carey Const. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In an action for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after denial of workers compensation benefits by defendant, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed because causes of action claimed by plaintiff are not barred by workers compensation exclusivity.

[04/18] U.S. Fidelity v. Lee Investments
In diversity action by plaintiff-insurance company seeking rescission of a workers compensation policy, judgment of the district court denying motion to dismiss is affirmed because court had subject matter jurisdiction where exclusive jurisdiction was not vested by state law in a compensation agency.

[04/11] Robidoux v. Muholland
In an injury and tort action arising from injuries plaintiff suffered while working at a construction site in Rhode Island, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed where Massachusetts Workers Compensation Act applies and does not bar claims.

[03/31] California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Ins. Fund
In an dispute arising from several state-law claims and involving the issue of whether the expectation of a federal defense, without more, is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over state-law claims, dismissal by district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where causes of action are based entirely on state claims, each of which does not, on its face, turn on a federal issue.

[03/17] Brown v. Desert Christian Center
In a tort and injury action arising out of injuries suffered by plaintiff while doing work at a worksite owned by defendant, denial of award of cost to defendant on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over action, Labor Code section 3706, is reversed where nothing in the wording of CCP section 1032 limits entitlement to award based on the means by which a party prevails.

[02/24] Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Co.
In a tort action alleging that defendant was liable to plaintiff for injuries suffered while rehearsing a stunt for a film, grant summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where plaintiff was held to be a special employee and thus precluded from recovery under the workers' compensation exclusivity rule since he was hired through a loan-out company.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

[01/30] Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.

[01/27] AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/26] Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper.

[01/26] Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Squires
In an action by an insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to pay uninsured motorist benefits to a policyholder, the district court's order granting the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing counterclaims is reversed, where in light of the insurer's concession for purposes of its motion that the accident giving rise to the claim was caused by a box dropped from an unidentified vehicle, the accident arose out of the maintenance, ownership, or use of an uninsured vehicle, so that it was covered under the insurance policy.

[01/26] Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc.
In a suit brought by a husband and wife based on injuries sustained after the husband, an independent contractor, was injured on a worksite on which the defendant was operating as the general contractor, judgment against the plaintiffs is reversed, where: 1) the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on a breach of regulatory duty theory of recovery, as the defendant delegated its obligation to comply with Cal-OSHA workplace regulations to the plaintiff; but 2) the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' retained control theory of direct liability, since the plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence of a triable issue on affirmative contribution.

[01/26] Fortin v. Titcomb
In a case in which a federal jury awarded the appellant $125,000 in damages against a police officer after finding that the officer negligently used force in arresting the appellant, which award the district court reduced to $10,000, the maximum set by the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) for the personal liability of government employees, the following questions are certified to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court: 1) where an insurance policy is available to cover a judgment against a government employee sued in his or her personal capacity, is the limit on the award of damages $10,000 as set by the MTCA at section 8104-D or is the limit set by reference to sections 8105(1) and 8116?; and 2) which interpretive principles should be applied to construe an insurance policy, procured by a governmental body to cover itself or its employees for MTCA damages liability, that contains an ambiguity affecting the scope of coverage?

[01/25] Pearson v. Superior Court (Nicholson)
In a suit by a minor through his guardian ad litem to recover damages for personal injuries, which was settled by the defendants' insurance carrier but not approved by the court because the minor died before the court could rule on the petition for approval, the guardian ad litem's petition for writ of mandate to compel the superior court to grant a motion for approval of the settlement and for its enforcement is granted, as: 1) an agreement compromising the claims of a minor, while the petition for its approval is pending, is voidable only at the election of the minor or his or her guardian; and 2) a defendant or its carrier has no right to object to the petition.

Read More

Professional Malpractice

[12/08] Creekmore v. Maryview Hospital
Medical malpractice judgment is affirmed where the plaintiff's expert witness is found to be qualified to testify as to the standard of care under state law because he performs the same procedure in the same context at issue.

[11/15] Khodayari v. Mashburn
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing appellant's tort complaint against his former counsel in postconviction proceedings, judgment is affirmed where the complaints sounds in legal malpractice such that appellant's failure to show actual innocence of the concerned probation violations and to obtain post-violation exoneration of those violations support the trial court's dismissal.

[10/20] Simon v. Usher
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division reversing the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to change venue in a medical malpractice action, judgment is reversed where the five-day extension under CPLR 2103(b)(2) applies to the 15-day time period prescribed by CPLR 511(b) when a defendant serves its demand for change of venue by mail.

[10/18] Smith v. Cimmet
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing a legal malpractice action brought by a successive estate representative on the ground that the representative lacked standing because he was never a client of the defendant-attorneys, judgment is reversed where: 1) an Oregon representative lacks capacity to sue in California because his authority does not extend beyond Oregon but may seek relief through an ancillary appointment by the California courts; and 2) under both California and Oregon statutory law, plaintiff has standing to sue attorneys who were retained by his predecessor to act on the estate's behalf.

[10/04] Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman
In a suit by pro se plaintiff alleging that defendant committed legal malpractice while representing her in a medical malpractice case in state court by failing to retain an expert, the District Court's dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3, requiring the filing of a Certificate of Merit in malpractice cases, is substantive law that federal courts must apply under Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); and 2) appellant did comply with this substantive law.

[09/22] Shugart v. Regents of U.C.
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court granting summary adjudication in favor of the defendants in an action for medical negligence, judgment is affirmed where trial court correctly entered judgment in favor of the Regents because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the claims against these defendants, but reversed with respect to defendant-doctor because plaintiffs' expert declaration was admissible and raised triable issues as to defendant's alleged medical negligence.

[06/02] Collins v. Sutter Memorial Hospital
In an action for medical malpractice, judgment of the trial court granting plaintiff a new trial after vacating a defense summary judgment is affirmed, where order was timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 660 and based on proper grounds.

[05/26] Simke, Chodos, Silberfeld and Anteau, Inc. v. Athans
In a dispute arising from an action for breach of a contingency fee agreement, judgment of the trial court awarding attorney fees after entry of a default judgment for discovery violations is affirmed because a complaint does not have to specify, by dollar amount, the attorney fees that will be incurred and sought in a case ultimately resolved by a default judgment entered as a discovery sanction.

[05/05] In Re: Teligent, Incorporated
In a dispute arising from an action for legal malpractice, judgment of the district court denying motion to lift bankruptcy protective orders and cross-motion for injunctive relief barring defendant from attacking the validity of a settlement agreement on the grounds of waiver is affirmed where: 1) defendant-law firm failed to make the requisite showing to lift orders; and 2) it was not a party in interest with standing such that its failure to contest the validity of settlement agreement constituted waiver.

[04/19] Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
In a dispute alleging professional malpractice arising from the drafting of a deficient partnership agreement by the defendant, summary judgment on the ground that action was time-barred is reversed because placement of actual injury upon the execution of the defective agreement was erroneous where CCP section 340.6 (a)(1), tolled the limitations period until plaintiff could establish a cause of action for legal malpractice.

[03/22] In re. Paul E. Warburgh
In an attorney disciplinary matter, the recommendation of discipline by Committee of Admissions and Grievances is adopted where an attorney who is the subject of a disciplinary proceeding may only resign from the bar upon obtaining leave of the Court.

Read More