News

Case Summaries

Health Law

[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.

[09/02] Conservatorship of the Person & Estate of Carol K.
Trial court's judgment ordering a 62-year-old woman to be placed in a locked skilled nursing facility as the least restrictive placement, after the jury found the woman gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt, is affirmed where: 1) the issue is not moot because "collateral consequences remain even after the conservatorship has been terminated"; and 2) substantial evidence supports a finding that the woman is gravely disabled and cannot obtain food, clothing, or shelter.

[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Mangat
Judgment of the circuit court, finding that the ballot summary for Amendment 9, for creating a new section related to health care services in article I of the Florida Constitution, does not meet the requirements of section 101.161 and therefore may not be included on the November 2010 ballot is affirmed as, the ballot language put forth by the party proposing the constitutional amendment contains misleading and ambiguous language and the only recourse is to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.

[08/31] Jones v. Astrue
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, the order is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ had no need to contact plaintiff's treating physician because there was no ambiguity to resolve in her report, and the report contained all the necessary information, including the results of diagnostic testing; 2) the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain under Polaski; and 3) substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's decision.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.

[09/03] Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).

[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.

[09/02] Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.

Read More

Insurance Law

[09/03] Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams
In an interpleader action to determine the rights to life insurance proceeds, district court's grant of decedent's sister's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly admitted the affidavits as, under Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 207 S.W. 3d 442 (Ark. 2005), a deceased insured's oral statements to several people concerning that insured's future intentions to change the beneficiary in an insurance contract in favor of another are admissible to resolve disputes as to who is the proper beneficiary; and 2) the decedent's sister rebutted the presumption of undue influence with the affidavits in support of her motion for summary judgment.

[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.

[09/02] Atlantic Nat'l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
In an action seeking insurance proceeds arising from a fire, defendants' appeal from the grant of plaintiff's motion to remand is dismissed where the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a federal district court order remanding a case to state court based on a ground colorably characterized as a "defect" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).

[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.

Read More