News
Health Care
[05/11]
16th Annual Komen Pittsburgh Race for the Cure(R) Winners Announced
[05/11]
NEWSWEEK: Media Lead Sheet/May 19, 2008 Issue (on newsstands Monday, May 12, 2008)
[05/11]
Crisis in Myanmar Relief Camps: Mass Exodus Sets Stage for Public Health Emergency
[05/11]
UNICEF REPORT: Desperate Conditions for Children in Camps Without Clean Water as Cyclone Aftermath Worsens
[05/11]
CeraLyte Lifesaving Oral Rehydration (ORS) Donated for Myanmar Victims
More...
Tort
[05/09]
Drugs, teens, pot are dangerous mix
[05/09]
77 more hepatitis cases may trace to clinic, officials say
[05/09]
Tornado knocks vehicles around in N. Carolina, kills 1
[05/09]
Retailers can use DNA tracing to track meat
[05/09]
Plame seeks to resurrect lawsuit in CIA leak case
More...
Case Summaries
Health Law
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/07]
Trujillo v. PacifiCorp
In an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ERISA, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiffs raised the necessary inference of discriminatory motive to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination through evidence that defendant monitored plaintiffs' son's health care costs, and that defendant was concerned to cut down on overall health care costs; 2) there was temporal proximity between the relapse of the plaintiff's son's cancer and the investigation by defendant for time theft; 3) defendant was not able to present a legitimate business reason since it treated similarly-situated employees differently; and 4) there were several irregularities in defendant's investigation of plaintiffs for time theft.
[05/07]
B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.
[05/06]
Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.
[05/02]
Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
In a suit against 7-Eleven under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), summary judgment for 7-Eleven is affirmed in part, but vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the district court properly granted summary judgment to 7-Eleven on the issues of whether the store's aisle width and the store's refusal to allow him to access the employees-only restroom violated the ADA; but 2) contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff had standing to challenge the barriers to his wheelchair access in the 7-Eleven store that he learned about through his expert's site inspections. (Superseding opinion)
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[05/09]
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc.
In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/07]
Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.
[05/07]
Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.
[05/06]
Hadley v. Gutierrez
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving excessive force claims against defendants-police officers, an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity is reversed in part where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to grant one defendant qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 2) refusing to grant qualified immunity to both defendants on plaintiff's conspiracy claim.
More...
Professional Malpractice
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[04/29]
Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.
[04/29]
Gibson v. Moskowitz
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law action brought by the estate of a mentally disabled inmate who died from severe dehydration, a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the estate is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to show deliberate indifference on the part of defendant-psychiatrist; 2) the evidence supported the compensatory and punitive damages awards; 3) the punitive damages award was not constitutionally excessive; 4) claims of evidentiary errors are rejected; 5) there was no error in applying Michigan's "high tier cap" on non-economic damages for medical malpractice; but 6) a remand was required as the district court failed to state a reason as to how it allocated the award between the statutorily capped malpractice claim and the deliberate indifference claims.
[04/24]
Rodriguez v. Bank of the West
In a case wherein a lawyer filed negligence claims against several banks after the lawyer's office manager opened bank accounts in the lawyer's name with a forged signature, deposited client funds, and stole from those accounts, dismissal of lawyer's action is affirmed where the lawyer was not deemed a "customer" to which the banks owed a duty of care.
[11/30]
Leatherbury v. Greenspun
In a medical malpractice suit wherein plaintiff's complaint was deemed time barred for failing to comply with Title 18 section 6856(3) of Delaware Code, the Supreme Court upholds the judgment and rules that: 1) section 6856(3) certified mail provision is not reasonably susceptible to different conclusions or interpretations and explicitly provides that plaintiff may toll the running of the 2-year limitations period for 90 days by sending a Notice of Intent to investigate "only" by "certified mail", return receipt requested; and 2) the term "certified mail" does not include delivery through private carriers, such as delivery by Federal Express.
More...
