Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Health Law

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/09] Redd v. Wright
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of plaintiff inmate's confinement in tuberculosis hold following his refusal to submit to tuberculosis testing, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) prior precedent did not "clearly foreshadow" a holding that the testing policy, as applied in this case, violated plaintiff's Free Exercise rights; 2) it could not reasonably be said that defendants acted in violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law by implementing the policy; and 3) it was not clearly established that plaintiff was entitled to some kind of notice that religious objectors could be exempt from the policy.

[03/08] Wildman v. Astrue
In a petition for review of the denial of social security disability benefits, the petition is denied where: 1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in discounting a physician's opinion because it was conclusory and failed to account for petitioner's unjustified noncompliance; 2) the ALJ did not err when he discounted petitioner's testimony regarding her limitations due to her noncompliance; and 3) the ALJ properly considered and weighed the available medical evidence and petitioner's testimony.

[03/08] People v. Cobb
Following defendant's completion of sentence for assault with a deadly weapon and commitment to a state hospital for treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO), judgment of the court of appeals finding that defendant was not denied due process in extension of his commitment is affirmed as, without a time waiver or good cause, section 2972 does not permit continued confinement when an extension trial does not begin before the scheduled release date.

[03/08] People v. Lara
Following defendant's prosecution for false imprisonment of a child, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, and commitment to a state hospital, judgment of the court of appeal directing that the trial court grant defendant's motion to dismiss the petition for an extension of his commitment is reversed where: 1) the statutory deadline for filing an extension petition is directory, not mandatory, as long as the petition is filed before the expiration of the current commitment; 2) defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the petition on due process grounds; and 3) upon motion, defendant would have been entitled under due process to release pending trial, subject to possible proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. However, defendant is not now eligible for release because the court retained jurisdiction to try him and he received a fair trial.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/04] Coito v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the State of California and various other defendants for the drowning death of her 13-year old son, superior court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel production of certain recorded witness statements is reversed and plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus granted where: 1) written and recorded witness statements, including not only those produced by the witness and turned over to counsel but also those taken by counsel, are not attorney work-product, and thus neither is a list of witnesses from whom statements have been obtained; and 2) the state failed to show that the recorded statements of the four juvenile witnesses were protected work product.

More...