Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[09/10]
Broekelschen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv.
In plaintiff's petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1996, the United States Court of Federal Claims' affirmance of a special master's denial of the claim in concluding that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the flu vaccine caused his injury is affirmed as the special master's determination was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
[09/10]
UFCW Local 1776 v. Eli Lilly & Co.
In a putative class action against Eli Lilly, manufacturer of the drug Zyprexa, asserting a civil RICO violation predicated on mail fraud, conspiracy to violate RICO, violation of state consumer protection laws, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment based on Lilly's alleged misrepresentations about Zyprexa's efficacy and safety, the certification of a class and denial of summary judgment are vacated where: 1) because plaintiffs' excess price theory was not susceptible to generalized proof with respect to either but-for or proximate causation, class certification based on this theory was an abuse of discretion; and 2) the district court did not consider individual claims under plaintiffs' quantity effect theory when it ruled on Lilly's motion for summary judgment.
[09/09]
Kurns v. A.W. Chesterton Inc.
[09/09]
Correia v. Feeney
In plaintiff's suit against a police sergeant for violating his civil rights by means of false arrest and the use of excessive force, a denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for a new trial as it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the verdict was not clearly against the weight of the evidence; 2) the court's reply to the jury's question was not misleading, unduly complicating, or incorrect as a matter of law, nor did it adversely affect plaintiff's substantial rights; and 3) plaintiff cannot establish that any error in allowing a cross examination, or some portion of it, was sufficiently grave to satisfy plain error review.
[09/08]
Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against several manufacturers of welding supplies, claiming that the fumes from their products had caused his parkinsonism and that labels on the products had failed to warn of the danger, jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed as the district court exceeded its discretion in admitting an expert's opinion that the manufacturers' products triggered "manganese-induced parkinsonism" in plaintiff, because the "knowledge" requirement of Rule 702 requires more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.
[09/08]
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) in
the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.
[09/08]
Butler v. Yusem
In a dispute over an agreement to construct a commercial retail and office building, the Fourth District court's holding that failure to establish justifiable reliance is a bar to recovery based on fraudulent misrepresentation is quashed, as the district court failed to properly apply the tipsy coachman principle, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to reconsider whether plaintiff is entitled to relief based on his claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.
[09/08]
U.S. ex rel. Poteet v. Bahler Med., Inc.
In plaintiff's qui tam action against 120 spine surgeons and eighteen medical device distributors claiming that defendants defrauded the federal government by unlawfully promoting the medical products of plaintiff's former employer and its parent company, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that the False Claims Act's (FCA) public disclosure provision barred her claims against the doctor defendants; 2) as used in the statute, "hearing" is synonymous with "proceeding," and because a disclosure in a civil complaint is a disclosure in a civil proceeding, the disclosures emanate from a statutorily listed source; 3) plaintiff's qui tam action is "based upon" the prior disclosures of fraud; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice; and 5) district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.
[09/08]
Wilcox v. Homestake Mining Co.
In an action brought under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2210, claiming that plaintiffs suffered cancer due to exposure to radiation from defendants' uranium mill, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no basis in New Mexico law for extending the exception to the but-for causation requirement beyond the limited bounds the court described in interpreting the Restatement view under Colorado law in June; and 2) to the extent Tafoya altered the but-for test in situations where a defendant's actions aggravated but did not cause an injury, it was not applicable in this case.
[09/08]
Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
In an action alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), working in concert with other government agencies and officials of foreign governments, operated an extraordinary rendition program to gather intelligence by apprehending foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and transferring them in secret to foreign countries for detention and interrogation by U.S. or foreign officials, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Reynolds state secret privilege may be asserted at any time, even at the pleading stage; and 2) at least some of the matters the government sought to protect from disclosure in the litigation were valid state secrets, which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.
[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.
[09/03]
Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).
[09/03]
Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
[09/03]
Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.
[09/02]
Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.
Back to Main
