Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[09/27] Beaven v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
In a Federal Tort Claims Act and Privacy Act case brought by staff members at the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) claiming that defendants allowed an employee roster containing plaintiffs' sensitive personal information to be disclosed to improper persons, including prison inmates and other BOP staff, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court did not clearly err in finding that the agency's "inadvertent" final act was willful within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. section 522a(g)(4) because a court may consider the entire course of conduct that resulted in the Privacy Act violation in making its required finding under section 552a(g)(4); 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a non-rebuttable adverse evidentiary inference of disclosure as a sanction for the defendants' destruction of relevant evidence with the knowledge that the evidence would be necessary for known potential claims; 3) district court did not commit clear error in its alternative finding that the plaintiffs did prove disclosure by a preponderance of the evidence; and 4) district court was correct in finding that "future protective measures" damages are unavailable, but the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' "lost time" damages on the ground that their failure to assert valid FTCA claims precluded them from recovering damages for their valid Privacy Act claims.

[09/24] Henry v. Purnell
In plaintiff's section 1983 suit against a deputy sheriff claiming that the sheriff used excessive force in effecting his arrest by mistakenly drawing his firearm to shoot the plaintiff instead of his taser, district court's conclusion that sheriff's mistake was reasonable in granting his motion for summary judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in limiting the scope of its Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis to the adequacy of the sheriff's weapons training, instead of examining the totality of the circumstances; 2) district court's determination that the sheriff's conduct was reasonable as a matter of law was in error as, at this stage of the proceedings, there remain material factual issues in dispute on the failure to warn, to utilize the laser sight, and to distinguish the different safety locks, all of which are relevant to a decision on the objective reasonableness of the seizure; 3) the sheriff is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on plaintiff's section 1983 claim as, although it cannot be determined whether the sheriff's mistaken use of his firearm was objectionably reasonable under the circumstances, it can be said that he lacked "fair notice" regarding the potential unlawfulness of his actions; and 4) district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's state-law claim is reversed and remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

[09/24] In re Ethan C.
Juvenile court's finding that petitioner's minor children were dependents of the court within the meaning of section 300(b), (f) and (j), and that there were no reasonable means to protect the children short of removal in placing them in Department of Children and Family Service's custody, arising from the death of petitioner's toddler daughter in a traffic accident due to petitioner's failure to secure the daughter in a car seat, is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the juvenile court properly sustained allegations premised on petitioner's failure to secure his daughter in a car seat, and there is no support for petitioner's assertion that criminal negligence must be shown to sustain an allegation under section 300(f); 2) there is sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings sustaining the allegations under section 300(b) regarding the risk of harm to the children due to historical domestic violence between their parents and the mother's cognitive limitations; but 3) the juvenile court erred by dismissing the allegations under section 300(b) regarding the petitioner's neglect of his daughter which resulted in her death as these allegations are a necessary predicate to sustain identical allegations under section 300(j), which the juvenile court sustained.

[09/24] Shelton v. Kennedy Funding, Inc.
In a breach-of-contract and fraud action arising out of the sale of an Arkansas cemetery and involving the alleged breach of a loan agreement, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the Estoppel Certificate at issue did not fall within the surety prong of the Arkansas Statute of Frauds; 2) a reasonable jury could find the certificate's terms were sufficiently definite to impose an obligation upon defendant to place $675,000 in an escrow account for plaintiff's benefit in the event of a default on the loan; and 3) projections of future events or conduct could not support a fraud claim as a matter of law.

[09/24] Swarna v. Al-Awadi
In defendants' appeal from interlocutory orders and cross-appeal from a final judgment, granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment based on various claims based on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and New York labor laws, dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant-Kuwait on sovereign immunity grounds, and denying plaintiff's and defendants' motions for reconsideration, the orders are affirmed in part where, while residual diplomatic immunity applied to the "acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission," Vienna Convention art. 39(2), it did not apply to actions that pertained to his household or personal life and that may provide, at best, "an indirect" rather than a "direct . . . benefit to" diplomatic functions. However, the judgment is vacated in part where plaintiff's ATCA claims "arose from personal motives" and were outside the diplomats' scope of employment with Kuwait.

[09/23] Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit for injunctive relief, fraud, false advertising, and compensatory damages against defendant company for alleged unauthorized use of plaintiff's image or likeness and violation of the Lanham Act, the Fourth District's reversal of the trial court's award of prejudgment interest for the plaintiff is quashed as prejudgment interest is a matter of right under the prevailing "loss theory" of recovery for pecuniary damages, such as damages for economic or tangible losses.

[09/22] RK Co. v. See
In plaintiff's suit against Harvard Scientific Corporation (HSC) and its founder for inducing plaintiff to buy HSC stock through its misleading and false press releases, SEC filings and reports, in connection with defendant's claim of a new product to treat male and female sexual dysfunction, district court's judgment that defendant violated federal and state securities law, state deceptive practices law, and committed common law fraud, are affirmed where: 1) defendant waived the defense that plaintiff was not the "real party in interest" by failing to object during the more than seven years between the complaint and the beginning of trial; 2) defendant's constitutional and prudential standing arguments lack merit; 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion of liability against the defendant as, based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented, the district court did not err in determining that HSC, under the control and direction of its founder, released misleading statements of material fact upon which plaintiff had relied in making its investment; 4) defendant has failed to include the transcript of the relevant motion hearing that led to the admitting of the deposition testimony; and 5) awarding prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees was reasonable.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[09/22] American Int'l. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Rentech Steel LLC
In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that plaintiff had no duty to either defend defendant in an underlying state-court personal injury lawsuit or to indemnify defendant for the judgment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the Texas Workers' Compensation Act imposed no obligation on a nonsubscriber to compensate an employee for injuries sustained due to the employer's own negligence, and thus the exclusion was not applicable.

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

[08/19] Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a School District employee's suit for workers' compensation claims, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is affirmed as, the language of section 4660 permits reliance on the entire American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.

[08/12] Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a claimant's objection to a panel qualified medical evaluator's ex parte communication with defense counsel, and a request for a new panel qualified medical evaluator under section 4062.3(f), in a workers' compensation proceeding for death benefits, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of the petition is annulled and remanded as section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified evaluator, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for "administrative" matters. However, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.

[08/05] Casanova v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against American Airlines, claiming he was terminated in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits, jury verdict for plaintiff of more than $1 million, $112,000 for lost wages, $250,000 for emotional injury, and $724,000 for punitive damages, and district court's denial of defendant's post-judgment motions are reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 as plaintiff's dissembling and insubordination was sufficient cause for his discharge.

[07/15] Gacek v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against an airline for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for the airline is affirmed as no reasonable jury could find that the airline had fired plaintiff because its claims administrator had opened a file on an injury rather than because it believed that he had lied about having the flu and had disobeyed the doctor's orders to wear a splint on an injured finger and not lift anything with that hand.

Read More