Case Summaries

Health Law

[01/30] Bernard v. City of Oakland
In a case in which retired firefighters or their surviving spouses contended that the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employee Medical Hospital Care Act, the trial court's denial of mandamus relief and dismissal of the actions are affirmed, where: 1) it was appropriate to defer to the health care plan administrator's interpretation of the statutory language in dispute; 2) there was no error in allowing a witness to testify as an expert, and even if there was error, it was harmless; and 3) there was no merit to an assertion that a contracting agency that elects to make increasing contributions under Government code section 22892(c) must also comply with the minimum contribution provisions of 22892(b).

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

[01/27] People v. Hughes
In a prosecution for several offenses involving marijuana, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, where it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to impose a condition of probation that prohibited the defendant from possessing marijuana, even for medical use.

[01/25] Walker v. Medtronic Inc.
In a suit alleging common-law tort claims arising out of the alleged failure of a medical device to operate in accordance with the terms of its premarket approval, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where the device was undisputedly designed, manufactured, and distributed in compliance with its FDA premarket approval, and the plaintiff's common-law claims exceeded or differed from, rather than paralleled, federal requirements, so that each of her specific claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty was preempted by the federal Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

[01/20] People v. Hartshorn
On appeal from an order granting a petition to extend the appellant's commitment to Porterville Developmental Center pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 following a jury finding that he is a "mentally retarded person, is a danger to himself or others, and has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior because of his mental retardation," the court dismissed the appeal as technically moot but exercised its discretion to hold that due process requires section 6500's phrase "danger to himself . . . or others" be construed as necessitating conduct presenting the likelihood of serious physical injury.

[01/20] National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In a challenge to a rule issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to claims for service-connected disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder, a petition to review the final rule is denied where, under a Chevron analysis: 1) no existing statute or regulation specifically addresses the issue raised in the rule so as to create a conflict or contradiction; 2) the court could not say that the rationale behind the rule is without a logical basis, or is otherwise arbitrary and capricious.

[01/19] People v. Gram
In a case concerning the appropriate procedure for challenging the administrative placement of a mentally disordered offender (MDO) who is recommitted to a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation rather than to Napa State Hospital, orders recommitting the MDO to California State Prison at Sacramento (CSP-Sacramento) are affirmed and an order directing that the MDO be housed in that prison's psychiatric services unit is vacated, where: 1) the trial court was statutorily compelled to order that the MDO be recommitted to CSP-Sacramento, and thus his constitutional challenge to Welfare and Institutions Code section 7301 is not cognizable on appeal; and 2) although the MDO made out a colorable claim that his continued confinement at CSP-Sacramento violated his liberty interest in safety and freedom from restraint under the Fourteenth Amendment, he was required to pursue such a claim in a petition for habeas corpus.

[01/13] US v. Rehlander
Conviction and sentencing of defendants for possessing firearms after having been "committed to a mental institution," 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(4), are reversed where a Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 34-B section 3863 hospitalization does not qualify as a "commitment" for federal purposes in light of District of Columbia v. Heller.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

[01/30] Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.

[01/27] AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/26] Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper.

[01/26] Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Squires
In an action by an insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to pay uninsured motorist benefits to a policyholder, the district court's order granting the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing counterclaims is reversed, where in light of the insurer's concession for purposes of its motion that the accident giving rise to the claim was caused by a box dropped from an unidentified vehicle, the accident arose out of the maintenance, ownership, or use of an uninsured vehicle, so that it was covered under the insurance policy.

More...