Case Summaries
[02/04]
Elam v. Menzies
In plaintiff's suit claiming negligence in a heart operation that defendant-doctor performed, summary judgment for doctor on the ground that Kentucky's one year statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits had run is reversed and remanded as there is a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff knew or should have known he had a claim after the conversation with a second doctor, and thus, this issue should be referred to the jury.
[02/02]
Clark v. Baka
In an action for damages for physical and neurological injuries plaintiffs' grandchild allegedly sustained during his birth, plaintiffs' appeal from summary judgment for defendant-hospital management company is dismissed where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the action for appeal because the court of appeals was unable to discern how or why plaintiffs would face hardship or injustice by waiting to appeal until their claims against all defendants were fully resolved by the district court.
[01/25]
Stein v. York
In plaintiff's legal malpractice action against her attorney, trial court's entry judgment of $2.65 million in favor of the plaintiff is reversed where: 1) a default judgment for an amount greater than that stated in the complaint is void; 2) constructive notice of potential liability does not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 580; 3) the judgment is void and vacated as plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirement; and 4) plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
[01/21]
Truong v. Glasser
In plaintiffs' legal malpractice action against his former attorney arising out of his purported negligent advice in a real estate transaction, grant of attorney's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) under prior case law, the trial court correctly found plaintiffs first sustained actual injury when they obtained and obligated to pay new counsel to file a lawsuit seeking to escape the consequences of their signing the lease, and therefore sustained actual injury more than one year before the malpractice action was filed; 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reject the summary judgment motion based on the absence of headings within the Separate Statement of Material Facts; and 3) under the circumstances, plaintiffs have demonstrated neither that the trial court abused its discretion in considering the evidence submitted by defendant nor that any alleged error was prejudicial.
[01/14]
Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Admin. Hearings
In a consolidated medical malpractice action, involving the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan established by the legislature, the decision by the Second District is quashed and remanded where, in order to satisfy the notice requirement of section 766.316, Florida Statutes, both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff must provide obstetrical patients with notice of their participating in the plan.
More...
[02/08]
Johnson v. Weld County
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action based on defendant's failure to hire plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's evidence suggesting that the male candidate it hired as Fiscal Officer had superior qualifications to plaintiff's, as well as its evidence that she was not, at the time of the hiring decision, disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
[02/08]
Crandall v. Denver
In an action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to prohibit full-plane deicing at an airport concourse and also require other precautionary steps relating to airplane deicing fluid (ADF), judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that ADF at the airport (whether it degraded inside or outside the concourse) may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.
[02/08]
Hall v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Boston
In plaintiff's suit seeking reinstatement of her long-term disability benefits, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment with respect to benefit plan's termination of plaintiff's benefits and its claim for partial reimbursement is affirmed; and 2) district court's imposition of an equitable lien on plaintiff's Social Security benefits and its denial of attorney fees to the benefits plan are vacated and remanded.
[02/08]
Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In a class action lawsuit against multiple insurance companies alleging that defendants violated a contractual promise under insurance policies to pay policyholders the "actual charges" of cancer treatments, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) under the three-step retroactivity analysis, the presumption against retroactivity operates to bar the application of the South Carolina statute to the claims in this case; and 2) defendants' remaining arguments are meritless.
[02/08]
Bolmer v. Oliveira
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on plaintiff's involuntary commitment, denial of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the medical-standards test set forth in Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 1995), for determining whether an involuntary commitment violates substantive due process, was not inconsistent with County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998); and 2) denying defendant-county summary judgment based on sovereign immunity did not require a showing that it acted with discriminatory animus or ill will toward plaintiff.
More...
[02/03]
In re: Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.
In a drug defect product liability litigation, appellant-law firm's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order finding that all of appellant-law firm's cases that were pending in the district court were subject to certain attorney compensation strictures and that appellant was prohibited from making any disbursements from a fund that it maintained until a fund administrator had certified that the protocols had been adhered to, is dismissed where the injunction did not give or aid in giving substantive relief sought in the lawsuit, and thus there was no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(a).
[02/02]
Smith v. Johnson & Johnson
In plaintiff's suit seeking overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act against a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, district court's order granting defendant summary judgment is affirmed as the administrative employee exemption applies to plaintiff, and defendant's cross-appeal is dismissed.
[01/27]
Wilkerson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv.
Decision of the Court of Federal Claims affirming its Special Master's rejection of a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is affirmed where: 1) Markovich controls this case and under it the Chief Special Master correctly dismissed the petition as untimely; and 2) the grounds upon which plaintiff seeks to distinguish or avoid Markovich are unpersuasive, as plaintiff's petition was filed more than thirty-six months after the occurrence of the first symptom of the child's injury.
[01/27]
Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Resources
In a product liability action based on injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained by taking defendant's drug, the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims against certain defendants and denying plaintiff's motion to remand is reversed where there was sufficient compliance with the Mississippi Tort Claims Act's pre-suit notice requirements to state a claim against the hospital that administered the drug and its physician-employees.
[01/25]
Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GMBH v. Barr Lab, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit involving claims for certain tetrahydrobenzthiazole compounds for treatment of signs and symptoms of idiopathic Parkinson's disease, district court's judgment of invalidity is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff's terminal disclaimer cannot overcome obviousness-type double patenting based on the '086 patent because the terminal disclaimer was filed after the expiration of the '086 patent; but 2) the district court incorrectly concluded that the safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. section 121 is inapplicable in this case.
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
