Case Summaries

[07/02] Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P
In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[06/26] Florida Bar v. Glueck
Upon review of a referee's report recommending that respondent be found guilty of professional misconduct and be suspended from the practice of law for three years, the court affirms the recommendation of guilt and changes the punishment to disbarment over claims of error regarding: 1) a finding that respondent formed a partnership with a non-lawyer; 2) whether the partnership's activities did not conduct constitute the practice of law; 3) findings of fact that respondent made misrepresentations to the Bar during its investigation; 4) findings of fact to support the recommendation of misconduct with regard to clients; and 5) the referee's failure to find mitigating factors.

[06/25] Ellis v. Grant Thornton LLP
In a suit for negligent misrepresentation arising from plaintiff's acceptance of a job as president of a small community bank based on audit reports made by defendant, judgment against defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff was not the member of a limited group for whose benefit the report was prepared; 2) defendant was hired for the benefit of the company and not for the benefit of potential employees; 3) more than tenuous awareness is required in order to impose liability since it would turn the Restatement rule relied upon by the court into a foreseeability approach that has been rejected; 4) defendant was not assuming the risk that third parties would rely on its report; and 5) the report stated that it was not intended to be used by third parties, and as such, plaintiff could not rely on statements made based on the report.

[06/24] Black v. Shultz
In an attorney malpractice suit arising from a law firm's negligent representation of a client's sexual harassment claims against her employer, judgment in favor of client and amount of damages awarded by the jury is affirmed where: 1) law firm failed to show how it was prejudiced or denied of a fair trial by client's violation of an in limine order; and 2) the district court did not err in submitting separate jury instructions for client's sexual harassment claim and counsel's negligent misrepresentation, as the record suggested that counsel failed to render competent legal advice in other instances as well.

More...

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

[07/02] Conservatorship of David L.
A prospective conservatee who requests substitute appointed counsel must be given a full opportunity to state the reasons for his request in accordance with People v. Marsden 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970), and a trial court's failure in this case to afford defendant a full opportunity to state his reasons for requesting substitute counsel here violated his right to due process of law.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[07/02] Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In the context of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure-to-accommodate claims and the general rule that it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed, the circuit court rules that an employer has a duty reasonably to accommodate an employee's disability if the disability is obvious?which is to say, if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled.

More...

[06/23] Planned Parenthood v. Strickland
In a suit over the constitutionality of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 2919.123(A), which prohibits the off label use of RU-486 (mifepristone), the circuit court certifies two questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Ohio inquiring whether: 1) the law mandates that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the 49 day gestational limit described in the FDA approval letter; and 2) the law mandates that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage indications described in the drug's final printed labeling.

[06/17] California Physicians' Serv. v. Aoki Diabetes Research Inst.
In an action for breach of contract wherein a medical health care provider sued a health care service plan for reimbursement of medical services provided to the plan's members, judgment in favor of medical provider is affirmed over claims that: 1) the contract in dispute was unenforceable because the provider was illegally organized as a non-profit organization instead of a professional medical corporation or partnership; 2) medical providers cannot dispute a health care service plan's coverage determinations; and 3) principles of collateral estoppel did not bar the health care plan from litigating the issue of whether certain types of therapy was experimental, and thus not covered by the plan.

[05/27] Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc.
A ruling, which found that a policy issued by third-party insurer to its insured provided no coverage to third-party plaintiff and that the insurer had no obligation to defend and indemnify it, is vacated and remanded where: 1) third-party plaintiff qualified as an additional insured under the policy with respect to plaintiff's claim under the Louisiana Product Liability Act; 2) an exclusion for alternating and relabeling the product does not apply since it had no nexus to the harm alleged; and 3) another exclusion was inapplicable since the formula for a product is not an "ingredient" for purposes of making that product.

[05/14] Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.
In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert.

[05/01] Amerisource Corp. v. U.S.
A ruling that there was no compensable taking in the seizure of an innocent third party's property, which was never introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding and was rendered worthless over the course of the proceedings, is affirmed where: 1) the government seized the goods pursuant to the police power and not for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment; and 2) the innocence of the third party did not make the seizure of property under the police power a compensable taking.

More...