News and Cases

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[09/04] Merritt v. United Parcel Serv.
Decision of Industrial Accident Board to terminate disability plaintiffs paid to claimant by employer is reversed where an admission by employer that claimant's disability was "on-going" was the equivalent of a judicial admission and should have been given conclusive effect.

[09/03] Padilla v. Pomona College
In an action for personal injury and premises liability arising from a worksite injury during the remodel of a dormitory at defendant Pomona College, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendants had delegated the task of making the worksite safe to others, and that they did not exercise any retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to plaintiff's injuries; 2) California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Cal-OSHA) regulations did not establish defendants' negligence per se or impose a non-delegable duty on defendants; and 3) that plaintiff's expert testimony lacked foundation.

[08/29] In Re: Poly-America, L.P.
In a retaliatory-discharge case in which plaintiff challenged the grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration, petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted where: 1) provisions of the arbitration agreement prohibiting punitive damages or reinstatement undermined the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act and were void as unconscionable; 2) provisions requiring splitting of arbitration fees between employer and employee and placing limits on discovery were not unconscionable; and 3) the unconscionable provisions of the agreement were severable and the agreement was otherwise enforceable.

[08/22] Craft v. Astrue
Denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment that plaintiff did not qualify for Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) there was not an "accurate and logical bridge" between the ALJ's recitation of the mental medical evidence and a decision to account for plaintiff's mental impairments by limiting him to unskilled work; and 2) the stated reasons of the ALJ for finding that plaintiff lacked credibility were contradicted by the objective evidence.

[08/18] US v. Simpson
A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

[08/29] Trammell Crow Cent. Tex., Ltd. v. Gutierrez
In a negligence suit alleging that the property manager of a shopping mall failed to provide adequate security, resulting in a criminal attack in which the victim was killed, affirmation of judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where the criminal attack was not foreseeable, and defendants had no duty to protect invitees on their property from third-party criminal acts.

[08/29] Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss
In a personal-injury suit, jury finding that defendant-employer was negligent is reversed and judgment rendered that plaintiff-employee take nothing where: 1) plaintiff's injury was caused by attempting to step around a loaded cart; 2) the potential danger of doing which was commonly known; and 3) defendant therefore had no duty to warn plaintiff of any risk.

More...