Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a products-liability claim brought by Jennifer Parks, individually and as the guardian of Samuel Gama, against Ford Motor Company. Gama suffered serious injuries when his 2001 Ford Explorer Sport rolled over. Parks alleged that the Explorer's design made it unstable and prone to rollovers, and that the design of its roof and restraint system increased the risk of injury in a crash. Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that Parks’ suit is foreclosed by the statute of repose in Section 16.012(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which requires that a products liability action be brought within 15 years of the sale of a product.The trial court's proceedings were protracted and winding, with the court initially granting Ford’s summary-judgment motion, then vacating that order and granting Parks’ motion for new trial, then denying Ford’s renewed summary-judgment motion, then denying Ford’s motion for reconsideration of that order, before finally granting another summary-judgment motion by Ford. The evidence that Ford sold the Explorer to a dealership more than 15 years before Parks filed suit was overwhelming.On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Ford did not conclusively establish the 'date of the sale' from which section 16.012(b)’s claimed protection ran. The court reasoned that Ford was required to establish the specific date on which the dealership paid Ford for the Explorer in full and that Ford has not done so.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. The court held that the timing of a sale does not turn on the date of payment, and any inconsistency in Ford’s evidence regarding the timing of the dealership’s payment to Ford for the Explorer is immaterial and not a basis for denying or reversing summary judgment. The court concluded that Ford's evidence easily meets the test of proving that the sale must have occurred outside the statutory period, and thus, Ford is entitled to summary judgment. View "FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. PARKS" on Justia Law

The case involves a civil dispute arising from an automobile collision. The plaintiff, David Audish, and the defendant, David Macias, were both found negligent in the operation of their vehicles, which resulted in a collision. The jury found that each party's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Audish. Audish suffered damages amounting to $65,699.50, including past medical expenses, past non-economic losses, and future medical expenses. The jury assigned each party 50 percent of the responsibility for these losses.The case was initially filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County. The jury returned a special verdict finding both Audish and Macias negligent in the operation of their vehicles. The jury found that Audish had incurred past medical expenses, past non-economic losses, and would have future medical expenses, but did not award any damages for future non-economic losses. Audish moved for a partial new trial on the issue of damages, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings that he had no past or future lost earnings. The trial court denied the motion for a partial new trial and entered judgment in accordance with the verdict.The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California. Audish argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that he would have Medicare medical insurance at the age of 65. He also contended that the jury returned an impermissible compromise verdict and erred by failing to award him damages for future non-economic losses. The appellate court rejected these claims and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court found no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and concluded that the award of zero future non-economic damages was proper. The court also found that Audish had not established an impermissible compromise verdict. View "Audish v. Macias" on Justia Law

The case involves a personal injury action initiated by Torrey Kath against Michael Prochnow and Prochnow Farms. After the parties filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice," the district court dismissed the case. Kath then filed a separate declaratory judgment action against Agraria Insurance Company, doing business as Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company (FUMIC), seeking an order that FUMIC had a duty to indemnify Prochnow under an insurance policy. While FUMIC's motion in the declaratory judgment action was pending, Kath and Prochnow filed a "Joint Rule 60 Motion to Vacate Dismissal with Prejudice" in the original case, seeking an amended judgment.The district court had previously dismissed the case with prejudice. However, Kath and Prochnow filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, which the court granted. FUMIC then filed a motion to intervene, arguing that Kath and Prochnow were seeking to impair its rights. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on FUMIC's intervention motion because the case had been dismissed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota disagreed with the district court's decision. The court noted that Kath and Prochnow's motion to vacate the dismissal re-invoked the district court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, FUMIC's intervention motion initiated a special proceeding, which also invoked the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider FUMIC's motion to intervene. The case was remanded for the district court to decide on FUMIC's motion to intervene and, if necessary, to conduct additional proceedings consistent with its disposition of the motion. View "Kath v. Prochnow" on Justia Law

The case involves Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc. (Potomac), a residential behavioral health center in West Virginia, and two former residents, L.K. and D.S., who were represented by their guardian and conservator, Kelly Young. The plaintiffs alleged that they were abused and neglected by Potomac staff members while residing at the facility for approximately five months spanning the years 2013 and 2014. They asserted claims for negligence and unlawful discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act.The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court of Hardy County, where the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. Potomac appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in several ways, including denying its pre-trial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Potomac is a “place of public accommodations” under the Human Rights Act, and admitting evidence at trial pertaining to the abuse of other children who resided at Potomac and the results of a 2014 investigation of that abuse.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that Potomac is not a “place of public accommodations” under the Human Rights Act and that the lower court erred by not granting summary judgment to Potomac on this issue prior to trial. The court also found that the lower court committed reversible error by admitting the 2014 investigative reports in their entirety into evidence at trial. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court’s final order and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic & Guidance Center, Inc.v. L.K., By Her Guardian and Conservator, Young" on Justia Law

Michelle Oksman sued the City of Idaho Falls after slipping and falling on a wet surface in the lobby of the West Deist Aquatic Center, a facility owned and operated by the City. Oksman alleged negligence on the part of the City. The district court initially granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City had no actual notice of a dangerous condition and did not fail to take reasonable action to remedy potential hazards. However, the court later withdrew its grant of summary judgment after Oksman identified the person who had allegedly stated that people frequently fell in the area where she had fallen. The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the district court limited Oksman's testimony and declined to give a jury instruction Oksman requested regarding the reasonable value of necessary services. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City, and the district court dismissed Oksman's complaint with prejudice. Oksman appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in limiting Oksman's testimony about a statement made by the manager of the aquatic center, which was crucial to Oksman's case. The Supreme Court also provided guidance on issues likely to arise again on remand, including the use of depositions for impeachment and the use of leading questions. The Supreme Court further vacated the district court's award of costs to the City as the prevailing party. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Oksman v. City of Idaho Falls" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a medical malpractice claim filed by Jillyn M. Woodward, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Brian K. Woodward, deceased, against Saint Francis Medical Center and the doctors who treated Brian. Brian was admitted to the emergency room at Saint Francis Medical Center with a swollen tongue and difficulty swallowing. He was diagnosed with angioedema, a condition causing abnormal swelling of the tongue, mouth, and airway. Despite treatment, his condition worsened, and he had to be intubated. The intubation attempts were unsuccessful, leading to a delay in securing his airway. Brian later developed right-side semiparesis, including weakness and partial paralysis, which was attributed to an anoxic brain injury due to the delay in securing his airway.The District Court for Hall County granted summary judgment in favor of the doctors and Saint Francis Medical Center. The court also struck the affidavits of two expert witnesses provided by Woodward, citing inconsistencies with their earlier deposition testimonies. Woodward appealed the decision.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the change in testimony of nonparty witnesses is an issue of credibility for a fact finder to make, and that later testimony will normally not be struck by the trial court. The court also noted that the document provided by Saint Francis Medical Center did not conclusively establish that the doctors were not employees or agents of the hospital. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Woodward v. Saint Francis Medical Center" on Justia Law

In 2009, Leverne Brent was injured while working for the Mississippi Department of Human Services (DHS) in a building owned by Madated, LCC. The Mississippi State Agencies Workers’ Compensation Trust (Trust), the carrier for DHS, provided Brent with compensation and medical expenses for her injury. In 2012, Brent and her husband sued the building owner and reached a settlement of $750,000. The DHS and the Trust intervened, claiming $358,210.77 for compensation and medical expenses paid to Brent. Brent challenged this amount, arguing that it included expenses that were not legally recoverable, such as surveillance and investigation costs. The Intervenors reduced their demand to $335,216.27, and the disputed amount was held in escrow pending further order.The trial court ordered the Intervenors to produce invoices and checks for each claimed expenditure. Brent continued to dispute the accuracy of the reduced demand and filed a motion for contempt, arguing that the Intervenors had failed to provide legitimate costs and total amount requests for reimbursement. Brent specifically challenged the reimbursement of $2,887.50 for an Employer Medical Evaluation (EME) conducted by a non-treating medical provider, arguing that this was not medical treatment. The trial court granted the Intervenors' Motion to Establish and Settle Lien, finding that the EME was a medical expense within the meaning of the Act. Brent appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the statute. The court found that the EME was not a medical expense as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Law, which requires medical treatment to be necessary and reasonable. The court ruled that the EME, conducted by a non-treating medical provider for the purpose of obtaining a second opinion, did not meet this definition. Therefore, the court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and ruled in favor of Brent, finding that she was not required to repay the $2,887.50 for the EME. View "Brent v. Mississippi Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

In 2021, Grant and Sarah Palmquist, on behalf of their minor son, sued baby-food manufacturer Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and grocery retailer Whole Foods Market, Inc. in Texas state court. They sought damages for their son Ethan’s physical and mental decline, which they allege began when he was about thirty months old and had been consuming Hain’s Earth’s Best Organic Products, purchased from Whole Foods. The Palmquists attributed Ethan's health issues to heavy metal toxicity caused by the baby food. The case was removed to federal court, where Whole Foods was dismissed as improperly joined and judgment was granted in favor of Hain during trial.The district court dismissed Whole Foods on the grounds of improper joinder and denied the Palmquists’ motion to remand the case to state court. The court also granted Hain’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the Palmquists had presented no evidence of general causation. The Palmquists appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment denying the Palmquists’ motion to remand, vacated the final judgment of the district court, and remanded with instructions for the district court to remand the case to the state court. The court held that the Palmquists were entitled to a remand to state court because the allegations in their state-court complaint stated plausible claims against Whole Foods. The court did not address whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Hain. View "Palmquist v. Hain Celestial Group" on Justia Law

This case involves a wrongful death claim against San Antonio Regional Hospital, brought by Joseph Musharbash, following the death of his adult son, Michael, who was treated for a traumatic brain injury at the hospital. Musharbash alleges that the hospital provided inadequate care by failing to properly evaluate Michael's injuries and undertake appropriate courses of action. Specifically, he claims that surgical intervention was performed too late and that the nursing staff failed to adequately monitor Michael, inform his doctors of his status, and advocate for the need for earlier surgical intervention.The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that Musharbash's only expert, Rhona Wang, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, lacked the requisite skill or experience to opine on the standard of care or causation elements of the claim. The trial court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment, finding that Wang's declaration demonstrated triable issues about the standard of care and causation elements of Musharbash's claim. The hospital then petitioned for writ relief.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, granted the petition. The court found that Wang's qualifications did not establish that she had the specialized knowledge required to opine on the standard of care applicable to an intensive care unit neurosurgeon deciding whether a severe traumatic brain injury requires immediate surgical intervention, or whether that standard of care was breached. The court also found that Wang's declaration did not establish she was competent to opine on causation. As Wang was Musharbash's only proffered expert, her lack of competence to opine on the applicable standard of care and causation was fatal to his claim. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order denying the hospital's motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion for summary judgment. View "San Antonio Regional Hospital v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves four plaintiffs who took docetaxel, a chemotherapy drug, as part of their treatment for early-stage breast cancer and subsequently suffered permanent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (PCIA). The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of the drug, Hospira, Inc., Hospira Worldwide, LLC, and Accord Healthcare, Inc., violated state law by failing to warn them that docetaxel could cause PCIA.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs' state law failure-to-warn claims were preempted by federal law. The district court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was tasked with determining whether federal law preempts the plaintiffs' state law failure-to-warn claims against the defendant drug manufacturers. The court found that the district court had erred in its interpretation of what constitutes "newly acquired information" under the changes-being-effected (CBE) regulation, which allows manufacturers to file a supplemental application with the FDA and simultaneously implement a labeling change before obtaining FDA approval. The court held that the district court failed to enforce the requirement that newly acquired information must "reveal risks of a different type or greater severity or frequency than previously included in submissions to FDA."The court vacated the district court's judgment on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims and remanded the case for further consideration of one outstanding issue: whether the Bertrand Abstract, a scientific study, constituted "newly acquired information" that revealed a greater risk of PCIA than previously known. If the Bertrand Abstract does not meet this standard, the court held that the defendants would not be liable to the plaintiffs on their state law failure-to-warn claims. View "Hickey v. Hospira" on Justia Law