Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the requirement for a witness affidavit under subsection 38-77-170(2) of the South Carolina Code should be considered a condition precedent to filing a "John Doe" civil action. The case arose from a car accident where the plaintiff, Peter Rice, filed a lawsuit against an unidentified driver, referred to as "John Doe." Rice alleged that Doe's vehicle crossed into his friend's lane, causing his friend to swerve and hit a tree. Under South Carolina law, it's possible to recover damages under an uninsured motorist policy for accidents caused by unidentified drivers. However, the law requires that the accident must have been witnessed by someone other than the owner or operator of the insured vehicle and that the witness must sign an affidavit attesting to the truth of the facts of the accident. Doe moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Rice had failed to comply with the requirement for a witness affidavit at the time of filing his complaint. The lower court initially denied Doe's motion, but later another judge ruled that the affidavit was a condition precedent to the right to bring an action and dismissed the case. The court of appeals reversed this decision, finding that the second judge did not have the authority to overrule the first judge's decision. On review, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that compliance with the witness affidavit requirement is not a condition precedent to filing a "John Doe" civil action. Rather, the court found that the witness affidavit may be produced after the commencement of the lawsuit. However, the court noted that the affidavit should be produced promptly upon request and if it is not, the action could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, albeit on different grounds, and remanded the case for trial. View "Rice v. Doe" on Justia Law

In August 2020, a joint federal task force between the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) attempted to arrest Mason Meyer. While fleeing from CPD officers, Meyer crashed into a restaurant, killing Gayle and Raymond Laible and severely injuring Steven and Maribeth Klein. The Laibles’ estate and the Kleins filed a lawsuit alleging that three CPD officers were negligent in their execution of the high-speed car chase. The officers claimed they were federal employees and therefore immune from common-law tort actions due to their participation in the federal task force. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that CPD Sergeant Donald Scalf was a federal employee acting within the scope of his employment during the chase and therefore immune under the Westfall Act. However, it affirmed the district court's denial of immunity for Sergeant Timothy Lanter and Officer Brett Thomas, as they were not federal employees at the time of the incident. View "Laible v. Lanter" on Justia Law

This case arises from an automobile accident involving Lauren Barnes and Nancy Hodys, where both parties sustained serious injuries and neither has any memory of the accident. A syringe was found in Barnes' car and her urine later tested positive for opioids and benzodiazepines. Barnes filed a complaint against Hodys alleging her negligence caused the collision, while Hodys filed a complaint against Barnes alleging her negligence and intoxication caused the accident.Barnes engaged Dr. David M. Benjamin as an expert witness, who concluded that it was "not possible to determine" whether Barnes' post-accident impairment was caused by head trauma, controlled substances, or medication. However, during deposition, Dr. Benjamin changed his previous opinion, stating that a combination of drugs and brain injury was the most likely explanation for Barnes' impairment. After the deposition, Barnes' counsel learned that Dr. Benjamin had a type of cancer, which along with the medication he was taking, caused him confusion, memory issues, and fatigue. Barnes then filed a motion to replace Dr. Benjamin due to his medical unavailability, which was denied by the lower court.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island found that the trial court erred by not providing a rationale for its decision denying Barnes' motion to modify the scheduling order and replace her expert witness. The Supreme Court held that a reasoned exercise of discretion requires some explanation, which was not provided in this case. Therefore, the court quashed the order of the lower court and remanded the case back to that tribunal with instructions to conduct a meaningful analysis of the issues raised, consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Barnes v. Hodys" on Justia Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court decision in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff's mother died in a nursing home. The plaintiff, Chappelle Gales, alleged that her mother died due to inadequate care provided by the nursing home, and she sought to support her claim with expert testimony. However, the district court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Edwin Polverino, due to his unfamiliarity with local medical standards in Memphis, Tennessee where the nursing home is located. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the nursing home, Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, on the basis that without expert testimony, the plaintiff could not establish the essential elements of a state law medical malpractice claim.The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert's testimony. According to Tennessee's Healthcare Liability Act, for a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish the "recognized standard of acceptable professional practice" in the community where the defendant practices or in a similar community. However, the plaintiff's expert witness, who practiced in Virginia, admitted that he had not looked into the standard of care in Memphis. The court held that a national standard of care could not be substituted for a local standard of care under Tennessee law. The court further held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the expert was familiar with the standard of care in a community similar to Memphis. As a result, without admissible medical expert testimony regarding the recognized standard of professional care in Memphis or a similar community, the nursing home was entitled to summary judgment. View "Gales v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves a medical malpractice suit against Hospital San Cristobal (HSC), Dr. Iris Vélez García, and Dr. Zacarías A. Mateo Minaya by the children of Ramona Rodríguez Rivera, who passed away while in the care of HSC. The plaintiffs alleged that their mother received negligent care at HSC during and following an abdominal surgery performed by Dr. Vélez and Dr. Mateo, leading to her death. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in excluding the plaintiffs' expert witness's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The expert's report failed to identify the standard of care that HSC staff should have adhered to in their management of the patient's diabetes and how the staff deviated from that standard. Without this expert testimony, the plaintiffs could not establish a breach of the defendants' duty of care, a necessary element of a negligence claim. The appellate court also found no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants as there was no evidence in the record that could show the defendants' negligence. View "Rivera Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, plaintiff Carla J. Kappel, acting on behalf of her deceased ex-husband's estate and as mother to their minor children, sued LL Flooring, Inc., alleging that the company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring caused her ex-husband's death due to exposure to formaldehyde.The district court dismissed Kappel's wrongful death lawsuit, arguing that her claim was barred by a settlement agreement that had been reached in connection with two multidistrict litigation (MDL) actions related to LL Flooring's products. The court maintained that the deceased, Mr. Tarabus, was a class member subject to that settlement agreement and thus his claims, including any claims involving bodily injuries or death caused by the subject flooring, had been settled.On appeal, Kappel argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make the dismissal order and that the MDL settlement agreement did not bar her wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the children. The Court of Appeals agreed with Kappel's latter argument and held that the settlement agreement failed to resolve Kappel’s wrongful death lawsuit.The Court found that the claims in Kappel's lawsuit, which concerned the bodily injuries Mr. Tarabus experienced and the alleged causal connection between the laminate flooring and his cancer diagnosis, were materially distinct from the claims in the MDL proceedings. Notably, the settlement class representatives had twice made clear that they were not pursuing personal injury claims on a class-wide basis, and at no point did any class representative ever allege or pursue a wrongful death lawsuit.Therefore, the Court vacated the lower court's dismissal of Kappel's lawsuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kappel v. LL Flooring, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas considered a medical negligence case where a 13-year-old girl, Raynee Dunnick, was bitten by a rattlesnake and was treated by Dr. Kristy Marsillo at a local hospital. The hospital had a specific guideline for snakebite treatment, which was followed by Dr. Marsillo. This guideline recommends administering antivenom, a treatment for snakebite, only when certain clinical parameters are met. According to the guideline, the risk of side effects from the antivenom should also be considered.Raynee and her parents sued Dr. Marsillo, claiming that her adherence to the guidelines and her decision not to immediately administer the antivenom upon Raynee's arrival at the hospital was negligent and resulted in Raynee's pain, suffering, impairment, and disfigurement. The trial court granted Dr. Marsillo's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of no-evidence of breach of duty and causation. The court of appeals reversed this decision, but Dr. Marsillo appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.In its decision, the Supreme Court of Texas held that under section 74.153(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a heightened standard of proof is required for a patient's negligence claim against a physician for injuries arising out of the provision of emergency medical care. The claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician acted with willful and wanton negligence, which is at least equivalent to gross negligence.The court found that the evidence presented by Raynee did not meet this standard. Specifically, the court found that the expert affidavit provided by Raynee was conclusory and did not adequately explain why the guidelines should have been disregarded or why doing so would have posed an extreme degree of risk to Raynee. Therefore, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Dr. Marsillo. View "MARSILLO v. DUNNICK" on Justia Law

A defamation lawsuit was filed by Janet Palmtag, a real estate agent and general candidate for the Nebraska Legislature, against The Republican Party of Nebraska. The case stems from political mailers, sent by the Party, which stated that Palmtag had been disciplined by the Iowa Real Estate Commission for illegal activities and had lost her Iowa real estate license. Palmtag claims these statements are false and defamatory. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Party, finding a genuine issue that the statements were false but no genuine issue that the Party acted with actual malice. Palmtag appealed this decision, and the Party cross-appealed the district court’s conclusion that Palmtag did not have to plead and prove special damages.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court found that when the facts presented by Palmtag are viewed in the light most favorable to her, those facts are sufficient for a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that the Party acted with actual malice. The court also rejected the Party's argument that in all public libel cases the plaintiff must prove special damages, finding that Palmtag's action involves defamation per se, for which no proof of actual harm is necessary. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Palmtag v. Republican Party of Nebraska" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, John GM Roe, a childhood sexual assault victim, filed an action against three "Doe" defendants, including his former Boy Scout leader. The Superior Court of Fresno County dismissed his complaint with prejudice, citing failure to timely file certificates of merit as required by California's Code of Civil Procedure, section 340.1, subdivisions (f) and (g). The court also claimed that the statute of limitations had expired by the time Roe filed compliant certificates.Roe appealed, arguing that Emergency rule 9, enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, tolled the statute of limitations governing his claims. This rule, he contended, meant that when the court dismissed his complaint, the limitations period had not yet expired. Therefore, he insisted that the dismissal should have been without prejudice so he could refile his complaint and certificates of merit before the limitations period ended.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District agreed with Roe. The court ruled that section 340.1, subdivision (q), which created a three-year revival period for all civil claims arising from childhood sexual assault that were barred as of January 1, 2020, is part of a statute of limitations. Consequently, Emergency rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitations for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days, also tolled section 340.1, subdivision (q)’s three-year revival period. This interpretation extended the deadline to file childhood sexual assault claims to June 27, 2023. As such, the court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing Roe's claims with prejudice, allowing him to refile his complaint and certificates of merit. View "Roe v. Doe 1" on Justia Law

The appellant, Hdeel Abdelhady, filed a suit against George Washington University ("the University") after being injured on the university's property. During the proceedings, the University submitted several exhibits that contained references to Abdelhady's private medical treatments and diagnoses. Abdelhady filed a motion to seal these exhibits to protect her medical privacy, but the District Court partially denied her motion. Abdelhady appealed this decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The appeals court first established its jurisdiction over the appeal by applying the "collateral order doctrine," which allows for immediate appeal of certain orders that are crucial and unreviewable after the final judgment. The court noted the high value of maintaining privacy in medical treatments and diagnoses and affirmed that an order denying a motion to seal records containing such information is immediately appealable.Turning to the merits of the appeal, the appeals court found that the District Court had erred in denying Abdelhady's motion to seal. It noted a lack of clarity in the District Court's decision and found that the lower court had relied on the incorrect assumption that Abdelhady had already disclosed in her redacted complaint all of the same information she sought to have sealed. The appeals court also found that the District Court did not adequately consider several factors that should guide such a decision, including the need for public access to the documents, Abdelhady's interest in medical privacy, and the extent of previous public access to the records.Consequently, the appeals court found that the District Court had abused its discretion and vacated the lower court's decision. The case was remanded back to the District Court for further consideration of all relevant factors and a more detailed explanation of its decision. The appeals court underscored that this remand did not imply that Abdelhady's motion to seal should have been granted in full, noting several ambiguities in her request. View "Abdelhady v. George Washington University" on Justia Law