Legal News

Case Summaries

Health Law

[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.

[09/02] Conservatorship of the Person & Estate of Carol K.
Trial court's judgment ordering a 62-year-old woman to be placed in a locked skilled nursing facility as the least restrictive placement, after the jury found the woman gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt, is affirmed where: 1) the issue is not moot because "collateral consequences remain even after the conservatorship has been terminated"; and 2) substantial evidence supports a finding that the woman is gravely disabled and cannot obtain food, clothing, or shelter.

[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Mangat
Judgment of the circuit court, finding that the ballot summary for Amendment 9, for creating a new section related to health care services in article I of the Florida Constitution, does not meet the requirements of section 101.161 and therefore may not be included on the November 2010 ballot is affirmed as, the ballot language put forth by the party proposing the constitutional amendment contains misleading and ambiguous language and the only recourse is to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.

[08/31] Jones v. Astrue
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, the order is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ had no need to contact plaintiff's treating physician because there was no ambiguity to resolve in her report, and the report contained all the necessary information, including the results of diagnostic testing; 2) the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain under Polaski; and 3) substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's decision.

[08/30] Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).

[08/30] In re R.R.
In dependency proceedings, juvenile court's order declaring petitioner-father's daughter a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b) based on the father's past and current drug use, is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court did not err in denying father's motion to quash subpoena of his hospitalization; 2) any error in not hearing the motion to quash was harmless because as a matter of substantive law the motion would have been denied as father's hospital records were admissible; 3) father's claim that his right to privacy was violated by dissemination of his medical records is rejected; 4) substantial evidence supported the finding that the daughter was a person described by section 300; and 5) juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering monitored visits.

[08/27] County of Butte v. California Emergency Med. Serv. Auth., Inc.
In a county's suit against the Emergency Medical Services Authority (Authority), seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate, arising from the county's designation of a local EMS agency to administer some of the requirements of the EMS Act, while reserving for another local agency all of the remaining statutory powers and duties not covered by the agreement, trial court's grant of Authority's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the plain language of the EMS Act precluded Butte County from creating a bifurcated local agency system; 2) the Authority has the statutory authority to review a local EMS agency's creation of an exclusive operating area (EOA) as part of the transportation portion of the local EMS plan, regardless of whether the EOA was created through a competitive process or grandfathering, and then to reject the local EMS plan if it is not "concordant and consistent with applicable guidelines or regulations, or both the guidelines and regulations, established by the Authority"; 3) the Authority's interpretation of the "manner and scope" language of section 1797.224 is a generally applicable policy subject to the rulemaking procedures of the APA, and because the Authority did not comply with those procedures, this interpretative regulation is void and not entitled to any deference; and 4) the fact that the Authority relied on an invalid regulation in rejecting the EOAs does not require reversal as the Authority did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the designation of EOAs based on lack of information provided by Nor-Cal EMS.

[08/27] Garcia v. Gomez
In plaintiff's suit against a hospital and a treating physician for the death of plaintiff's mother from a pulmonary embolism following surgery, court of appeals' affirmance of trial court's dismissal of the suit and denial of defendants' motion for attorney's fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) there is some evidence of reasonable attorney's fees and some evidence that the physician incurred attorney's fees; 2) section 74.351(b) mandates an award of attorney's fees and costs, when expert reports are not served timely.

[08/27] Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp.
In plaintiff's suit against a hospital, claiming that its negligence contributed to cause his fall from a hospital bed, court of appeals' affirmance of trial court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) because the provision of a safe hospital bed was an inseparable part of the health care services provided during plaintiff's convalescence from back surgery, his cause of action for injuries allegedly caused by the unsafe bed is a health care liability claim under article 4590i; and 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing plaintiff's request for additional time to file the requisite expert report.

[08/27] EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Sols.
In an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that UPS Supply Chain Solutions failed to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee's deafness because UPS did not provide him with a sign language interpreter for certain staff meetings, disciplinary sessions, and training, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the agendas, contemporaneous notes, and written summaries contained information sufficient to enable a person reading those documents to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of attending and participating in the weekly meetings as other employees; and 2) there was an issue of fact regarding whether UPS was aware or should have been aware that certain modifications were ineffective as to the employee.

[08/27] Cedillo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv.
In plaintiff's suit brought under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, claiming a link between childhood vaccines and autism, Court of Federal Claims' affirmance of a Special Master's denial of petitioners' claim for compensation on behalf of their daughter is affirmed as, after careful review of the Special Master's decision, the court finds that it is rationally supported by the evidence, well-articulated, and reasonable.

[08/27] Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pac. Rwy.
In an action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging that defendant-employer discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his disabilities and retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to show that any restrictions resulting from his monocular vision substantially limited his major life activities; and 2) plaintiff failed to present a submissible case that he was "regarded as" disabled.

[08/27] In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys. , LP
In plaintiffs' medical malpractice suit, defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel because of its employment of a legal assistant, is conditionally granted as, because the legal assistant's employer did not take effective reasonable steps to shield the assistant from working on this case, and the assistant actually worked on the case at her employer's directive, disqualification is required and the trial court is directed to grant the defendant's motion to disqualify and recuse plaintiffs' counsel.

[08/26] US v. Prince
Conviction of defendant for conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of money laundering, in connection with fraudulent claims for payment for physical therapy services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, is affirmed where: 1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant committed, or conspired to commit, money laundering by conducting, or aiding and abetting another in conducting, the specified financial transactions knowing that they involved the proceeds of Medicare fraud; 2) a reasonable person would not question the judge's impartiality toward defendant because a government witness was represented by an attorney who previously represented the judge in a prior unrelated matter; and 3) district court did no abuse its discretion by refusing to require the government to provide a pretrial disclosure of its exhibit list.

[08/26] Mark H. v. Hamamoto
In an action seeking damages for the Hawaii Department of Education's (DOE) alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the evidence supported plaintiffs' allegation that because of their autism, they could not access the benefits of a public education without receiving autism-specific services; and 2) plaintiffs raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hawaii DOE knew that plaintiffs needed autism-specific services to access the benefits of a public education, and as to whether the DOE failed to adequately investigate whether those services were available as a reasonable accommodation.

Back to Main