Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Peter Engilis, Jr. regularly used Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide manufactured by Monsanto, at his homes in Florida from 1990 to 2015. In 2014, he was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Engilis and his wife filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that his cancer was caused by exposure to Roundup. To support their claim, they relied on the expert opinion of Dr. Andrew Schneider, who conducted a differential etiology to determine the cause of Engilis’s cancer.The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as part of multidistrict litigation involving similar claims against Monsanto. Monsanto moved to exclude Dr. Schneider’s specific causation opinion, arguing it was unreliable. The district court initially granted the motion without a hearing, but later vacated that order in part and held a Daubert hearing. During the hearing, Dr. Schneider was unable to reliably rule out obesity as a potential cause of Engilis’s cancer, conceding he could not determine whether Engilis was obese and failing to provide a reasoned basis for dismissing obesity as a risk factor. The district court found that Dr. Schneider’s methodology did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and excluded his testimony. With no admissible evidence of specific causation, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion and its summary judgment order de novo. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Schneider’s opinion because it was not based on sufficient facts or data, as required by Rule 702. The court also clarified that there is no presumption in favor of admitting expert testimony under Rule 702. The summary judgment in favor of Monsanto was affirmed. View "ENGILIS V. MONSANTO COMPANY" on Justia Law

Gary Birdsall was stopped in traffic on the Bay Bridge when his van was rear-ended by Barton Helfet, resulting in serious injuries to Gary and a loss of consortium claim by his wife, Pamela. The Birdsalls’ attorney sent Helfet’s insurer a settlement demand for the $100,000 policy limit, specifying acceptance required delivery of a standard bodily injury release to be executed by both Gary and Pamela, a settlement check, and proof of policy limits by a set deadline. The insurer responded before the deadline with a letter accepting the offer, a release (which mistakenly listed Pamela as a releasee rather than a releasor), the check, and proof of policy limits. A corrected release was sent after the deadline. The Birdsalls’ attorney rejected the settlement, citing the release’s error and the late correction, and returned the check.The Birdsalls filed suit in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Helfet’s answer included affirmative defenses of settlement and comparative fault for Gary’s failure to wear a seat belt. The Birdsalls moved for summary adjudication on the settlement defense, which the law and motion judge granted. At trial, the assigned judge excluded evidence and jury instructions regarding Gary’s seat belt use. The jury found Helfet negligent, awarded substantial damages to both plaintiffs, and judgment was entered. Helfet’s post-trial motions were denied, and he appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that summary adjudication of the settlement defense was improper because there was a triable issue of material fact regarding mutual consent to the settlement. The court also found error in excluding seat belt evidence and instructions, holding that such evidence is admissible and, under the circumstances, expert testimony was not required. The judgment and amended judgment were reversed, with instructions for a new trial and denial of summary adjudication. View "Birdsall v. Helfet" on Justia Law

In October 2016, parents sought emergency medical care for their nineteen-month-old son, who was experiencing convulsions and seizures. The child was treated at three different medical facilities in Puerto Rico, including by Dr. Fernando Vega-Moral at HIMA San Pablo Bayamón hospital. After being transferred between hospitals, the child suffered cardiac arrest and died. The parents, along with other family members, initially filed a medical malpractice and negligence suit in Puerto Rico Commonwealth court against the medical centers and unnamed doctors, but did not specifically name Dr. Vega. That case was dismissed without prejudice in May 2018.Subsequently, in May 2019, the parents filed a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, this time naming Dr. Vega and others as defendants and asserting claims under Puerto Rico’s tort statutes. The district court dismissed some defendants and granted summary judgment to Dr. Vega, finding that the claims against him were time-barred. The court determined that, although the parents’ initial Commonwealth complaint was timely due to extensions following Hurricane María, the federal complaint did not toll the statute of limitations as to Dr. Vega because he was not named in the earlier suit. The court also denied the parents’ motion for reconsideration, holding that their new arguments and evidence should have been presented earlier.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The First Circuit held that Dr. Vega properly raised the statute of limitations defense and that, under Puerto Rico law, the burden shifted to the parents to show that the limitations period was tolled as to Dr. Vega. The parents failed to provide competent evidence to meet this burden. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration, as the parents’ new arguments and evidence were untimely. View "Cruz-Cedeno v. Vega-Moral" on Justia Law

An elderly man with significant medical needs was admitted to a skilled nursing facility, where a physician provided in-facility care. The physician was responsible for evaluating the patient, making treatment orders, and recording medical information. The complaint alleged that the physician performed only cursory examinations, failed to follow up on necessary tests, did not adequately address serious medical issues, and maintained illegible records. The patient’s condition deteriorated, leading to hospitalization and eventual death.The patient’s brother, acting as successor in interest and on behalf of the heirs, filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against the facility, its operators, and the physician. The complaint included claims for elder neglect and financial abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, as well as negligence and wrongful death. After settling with all defendants except the physician, the plaintiff proceeded against him alone. The physician demurred to the elder abuse claims, arguing that he did not have the requisite caretaking or custodial relationship with the patient and that the financial abuse claim was not viable. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding the allegations amounted only to professional negligence, which is excluded from the Act’s heightened remedies.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that a physician’s negligent provision of medical services to an elder in a skilled nursing facility, without more, does not constitute “neglect” under the Act because the physician lacks the necessary robust caretaking or custodial relationship. The court also held that a financial abuse claim based solely on alleged professional negligence is not actionable under the Act. The judgment in favor of the physician was affirmed. View "Frankland v. Etehad" on Justia Law

A 93-year-old woman with dysphagia was discharged from the hospital with a recommendation to consume puree-based meals and liquid additives produced by a food company. For about a month, her caretakers provided her with six of these meals and four servings of the additive daily. The product labels disclosed their sodium content. The woman suffered multiple cardiac arrests and was diagnosed with hypernatremia before passing away. Her estate, represented by her daughter, alleged that the company’s products caused her death and brought claims including strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and wrongful death.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas excluded one of the estate’s expert reports for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), finding it lacked an opinion and was merely a recitation of facts. The court denied the estate’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the company on all claims, concluding that the estate failed to provide sufficient evidence or expert testimony to support its claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s exclusion of the expert report for abuse of discretion and its grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert report, as the estate failed to comply with disclosure requirements and did not show the failure was justified or harmless. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the company, finding the estate did not present evidence that the products were defective or unreasonably dangerous, nor did it provide necessary expert testimony for its claims. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Howard v. Hormel Foods Corporation" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff brought a defamation claim against Donald J. Trump, based on statements he made in June 2019 during his first term as President. The suit was initially filed in New York state court. In September 2020, the Department of Justice, acting under the Westfall Act, certified that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment and removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied substitution, finding Trump was not acting within the scope of his employment. Trump appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and certified a question to the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding the scope of employment under D.C. law. The D.C. Court of Appeals clarified the law but did not resolve whether Trump’s conduct was within the scope of employment. The Second Circuit remanded for the District Court to apply the clarified law.On remand, the Department of Justice declined to certify that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment, and neither Trump nor the government sought substitution before trial. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. Trump appealed. After the appeal was fully briefed, and after Trump began his second term as President, Trump and the government jointly moved in the Second Circuit to substitute the United States as a party under the Westfall Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion to substitute. The court held that the motion was statutorily barred by the Westfall Act because it was not made before trial, that both Trump and the government had waived any right to seek substitution by failing to timely petition the District Court, and that equitable considerations also warranted denial of the belated motion. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

A woman, acting individually and as the special administrator of her late husband’s estate, filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit against a hospital and an emergency room physician. She alleged that the physician negligently failed to diagnose and treat her husband’s condition after he presented to the emergency room with head and neck pain following a blow to the head. The physician diagnosed abrasions and a closed head injury, but did not order cardiac tests. The patient was discharged and died that night from an apparent heart attack.The case was filed in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska. Over several years, the parties engaged in discovery, and the court issued multiple progression orders setting deadlines for, among other things, the disclosure of expert witnesses. The plaintiff did not disclose a medical expert by the required deadline. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that without expert testimony, the plaintiff could not prove her malpractice claim. Shortly before the summary judgment hearing, the plaintiff disclosed a new medical expert. The district court excluded the expert’s affidavit, both as a discovery sanction and under its inherent authority to enforce its progression orders, and granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert’s affidavit as a discovery sanction and remanded for further proceedings. On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the late-disclosed expert under its inherent authority to enforce progression orders. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded with directions to affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants. View "Ricker v. Nebraska Methodist Health System" on Justia Law

A citizen of the United Kingdom, who currently resides in Japan, underwent surgery in the United Kingdom to have a medical device implanted. The device was manufactured by a Minnesota-based company, which is a subsidiary of a New Jersey-based parent company. After the device allegedly failed, the plaintiff traveled to Colorado for removal and replacement of the device, but continued to experience problems. He later received additional medical care in Thailand. Dissatisfied with the device’s performance, he filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserting negligence and strict liability claims against both the manufacturer and its parent company.The defendants did not contest jurisdiction or venue in Minnesota, but moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that the United Kingdom was a more appropriate forum. The district court agreed, reasoning that most relevant events and evidence were outside Minnesota, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint to add more facts connecting the case to Minnesota, concluding that such an amendment would be futile. The plaintiff’s subsequent request to file a motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court abused its discretion. The appellate court held that the district court failed to properly hold the defendants to their burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis and erred by automatically weighing all contacts outside Minnesota in favor of the United Kingdom, rather than considering contacts with the entire United States. The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for a new forum non conveniens analysis, instructing the district court to apply the correct legal standards and properly weigh the relevant factors. View "Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2020, Salve Chipola attended a high school basketball game where Sean Flannery made statements to a school official accusing Chipola of being a drug dealer and providing drugs and alcohol to students. As a result, Chipola was later banned from school grounds and questioned by a police officer about these allegations, which he denied. Flannery admitted to making the statements. Nearly two years after the incident, Chipola filed a lawsuit against Flannery for false light invasion of privacy, alleging that the false statements harmed his reputation and caused emotional distress.The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, granted Flannery’s motion to dismiss, finding that Chipola’s claim was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations for defamation, as established in Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, reasoning that false light claims are essentially akin to defamation and thus subject to the same one-year limitations period. The court relied on prior case law, including Rumbauskas v. Cantor, which recognized the similarities between false light and defamation claims.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to resolve whether the statute of limitations for false light invasion of privacy should be one year, as for defamation, or two years, as for personal injury. The Court held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims also applies to false light claims. The Court reasoned that the conduct and injuries underlying both torts are closely aligned, and applying a longer limitations period to false light would undermine legislative intent and free speech protections. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Chipola v. Flannery" on Justia Law

After experiencing shortness of breath and chest pain, Jorge Armenta lost consciousness and his wife called 911. Emergency medical technicians from Unified Fire Authority (UFA) responded, evaluated Armenta, and told him that everything appeared normal, suggesting he had an anxiety attack and did not need to go to the emergency room. A week later, Armenta was hospitalized for a massive heart attack, which resulted in significant and potentially life-shortening heart damage. Armenta filed a negligence suit against UFA, alleging that their failure to properly diagnose and treat him caused his injuries.The Third District Court, Salt Lake County, reviewed UFA’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) shielded UFA from liability. The district court applied a three-part test, found that UFA’s actions were a governmental function, that immunity was generally waived for such activities, but that an exception for “providing emergency medical assistance” restored immunity. The court dismissed Armenta’s claims against UFA and entered judgment under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the district court’s statutory interpretation and dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the “providing emergency medical assistance” exception under the UGIA. The Court determined that, when read in context with related statutory provisions, the exception applies only to medical assistance provided in response to certain types of emergencies, such as disasters or catastrophic events, not to routine emergency medical responses like the one at issue. Therefore, the UGIA does not immunize UFA from Armenta’s suit. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ARMENTA v. UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY" on Justia Law