FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

[08/19] Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a School District employee's suit for workers' compensation claims, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is affirmed as, the language of section 4660 permits reliance on the entire American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.

[08/12] Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a claimant's objection to a panel qualified medical evaluator's ex parte communication with defense counsel, and a request for a new panel qualified medical evaluator under section 4062.3(f), in a workers' compensation proceeding for death benefits, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of the petition is annulled and remanded as section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified evaluator, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for "administrative" matters. However, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/03] US v. Blitch
Convictions of defendants for conspiring to distribute 15 kilograms of cocaine are vacated and remanded as the court's failure to individually voir dire the second panel regarding its safety concerns, and her instructions to keep deliberating after the jury poll, when the jury had specifically requested to leave for the day, leads to the conclusion that the defendants should receive a new trial.

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/03] Socha v. Pollard
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas corpus as untimely, in concluding that another district judge's order extending the limitations period was an impermissible advisory opinion and thus of no effect because the court issued the order before defendant had filed his petition, is vacated and remanded where: 1) an order accepting a filing after the limitations period has run is not beyond the power of the district court, and it is effective if it can meet the standards for equitable tolling that the Supreme Court described in Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010); and 2) the district court erred by focusing too closely on the fact that defendant had not already filed something that he had labeled as his petition as, not only does the motion anticipate an imminent action in which defendant and the state will be adverse, but also the parties have opposing interests on the immediate question of whether to toll the statute of limitations.

[09/03] US v. Munoz-Camarena
A sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which casts doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence in this case.

Read More

Injury & Tort 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.

[09/03] 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] 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.

Read More