News
Health Care
[11/06]
Osteotech Reports Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results
[11/06]
Mindray Medical to Exhibit at MEDICA 2009 in Dusseldorf, Germany
[11/06]
EUCODIS Bioscience to Explore Novel Enzymatic Activities in Antarctic Bacteria Library From Bio Sidus
[11/06]
Derma Sciences Announces Date of Its Third Quarter 2009 Earnings Release and Conference Call
[11/06]
Details on health care bills in House, Senate
More...
Tort
[11/06]
Health care issues: Age and sex rating
[11/06]
Airplane part falls onto NY home's front lawn
[11/06]
Exonerated man seeks cash for 27-year sentence
[11/06]
Salmonella victims upset no prosecutions yet
[11/05]
Fla. baby missing for 5 days found alive under bed
More...
Case Summaries
Health Law
[11/06]
Sell v. US Dep't. of Justice
In an action alleging that plaintiff was the victim of medical malpractice that occurred while he was in federal custody awaiting trial, dismissal of the action on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's mental illness did not prevent him from discovering the alleged injury; and 2) the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the statute.
[11/04]
Crawford v. Astrue
In consolidated appeals from fee awards to attorneys who successfully represented Social Security Disability Insurance claimants in federal court under contingent-fee contracts, the awards are vacated where the district court failed to follow the mandate of Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), in determining the fee awards.
[11/04]
Petersen v. Reisch
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner alleging inadequate medical treatment, defendants' appeal from a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is dismissed where the district court's order did not in fact resolve the qualified immunity issue and was purely administrative in nature, and therefore was not appealable.
[11/04]
Miller v. Nichols
In plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the state's removal of their child after termination proceedings and motion for injunctive relief to prevent a foster family's adoption of the child, district court's dismissal of the case is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief to prevent the child's adoption pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) the factual issues underlying plaintiffs' claims were addressed by the state court and are barred by issue preclusion.
[11/02]
People v. McRoberts
Trial court's order committing defendant to a state hospital for an indeterminate term of treatment and confinement is affirmed where: 1) trial court was correct in applying section 6600.1, of the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), to defendant's juvenile adjudication for child molestation, as the government satisfied this element of an SVPA commitment; 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of his lay witnesses; and 3) court did not err in refusing defendant's request for an instruction requiring the jury to find it was necessary to keep him in a secure facility for the protection of the health and safety of others.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[11/06]
Sell v. US Dep't. of Justice
In an action alleging that plaintiff was the victim of medical malpractice that occurred while he was in federal custody awaiting trial, dismissal of the action on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's mental illness did not prevent him from discovering the alleged injury; and 2) the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the statute.
[11/02]
Robinson v. US
In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[11/02]
In re: Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.
In a product liability action against hormone therapy manufacturers, partial judgment for plaintiff and for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's Arkansas law claims were not preempted because there was no evidence that the FDA would not have permitted the strengthening of the labels of the drugs at issue in a manner consistent with Arkansas law; 2) plaintiff's expert testimony on causation was properly admitted because the expert ruled out other possible causes of plaintiff's disease; 3) the district court's instruction on proximate cause was correct; and 4) judgment for defendants on punitive damages was correct because defendants did not act with recklessness or malice.
[10/30]
Groover v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In a wrongful death action based on a construction accident, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff's remedy was limited to workers' compensation under Louisiana law.
[10/30]
Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.
In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR.
More...
Professional Malpractice
[10/28]
James River Ins. Co. v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurer's case seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify two lawyers who were sued for malpractice, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-insurer is reversed with instructions to enter the declaratory judgment requested by plaintiff as its policy does not apply since it excludes coverage of conduct covered by a prior insurer, and all the wrongful acts alleged in the malpractice suit arose from events that took place in defendant's policy period.
[10/23]
Kamelgard v. Macura
In plaintiff-surgeon's case against defendant, another surgeon, for defamation, district court's dismissal of the case without prejudice is affirmed, but the judgment is modified to make the dismissal with prejudice, as the suit was time-barred.
[10/21]
Walsh v. Chez
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit against their deceased son's doctor and his clinic, district court's dismissal and rejection of their Rule 59(e) motion and a motion for leave to file a new set of supplemental reports is reversed and remanded as the district court erred in concluding that whatever flaws existed in the expert reports that the plaintiffs submitted went to their admissibility, as opposed to their weight.
[10/16]
Nordwind v. Rowland
In an action for legal malpractice, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to show actual injury because, under German law, they would have only been entitled to 50% of the subject inheritance regardless of any malpractice on the part of their counsel.
[10/15]
Executive Risk Indemn. Inc. v. Pepper Hamilton LLP
In an action by insurers seeking a declaration that the policy at issue did not cover certain legal malpractice claims, the appellate division's order denying summary judgment is affirmed in part where one plaintiff was not entitled to judgment on the basis of rescission. However, the order is modified in part where the prior knowledge exclusion did not require the known act, error, omission or circumstance to be "wrongful conduct on the part of the insured."
More...
