Media

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[12/03] Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against an insurer for denying her claims for workers' compensation for sustaining serious injuries in a car accident, the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is reversed where: 1) consistent with the historical development of the "coming and going" and "dual purpose" rules, their application in the cases, and the reasonable results they were designed to achieve, 401.011(12)(A) applies to travel to and from the place of employment, and 401.011(12)(B) applies to other dual-purpose travel; and 2) there was evidence to support the verdict that plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of employment as, besides the fact that plaintiff worked out of her home and intended to some paperwork there at night, she was also on her way from an employer-sponsored dinner with clients to an employer-provided storage facility to empty her car of business supplies, which was a work related activity.

[11/16] San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a school district's petition for writ of review of an ALJ's conclusion that the claimant suffered a psychiatric injury caused predominantly by industrial factors, arising from the claimant's claim for workers' compensation benefits for work-related stress, is denied as, when read together, the plain meaning of section 3208.3(b)(3) and section 3208.3(h) is that the entire set of industrial and nonindustrial causal factors must be taken into consideration in determining whether or not a psychiatric injury was substantially caused by "good faith personnel actions."

[11/10] Roberts v. Director, OWCP
In a petition for review of an Office of Workers Compensation Programs' order partially granting petitioner's request for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, the petition is granted in part where the ALJ erred by applying the national average weekly wage with respect to fiscal year 2002, rather than fiscal year 2005, in calculating the applicable maximum rate. However, the petition is denied in part where, because petitioner became newly entitled to compensation in fiscal year 2002, the ALJ properly applied the 2002 fiscal year maximum to his compensation for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability.

[11/09] Cumbre, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In plaintiff's suit against the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), for breach of contract, a common law cause of action for violation of fair procedure, and a cause of action for unfair competition, jury verdict in favor of SCIF on all causes of action is affirmed as the jury instructions and special verdict form pertaining to the claim for violation of fair procedure were correct as the instruction given specifically instructed the jury on the first element, that if SCIF owed a duty of fair procedure, plaintiff must establish the elements of fair procedure, i.e. that it was not substantively rational, or that it failed to provide adequate notice of the reasons for termination and opportunity to respond.

[10/29] Ellis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
In a tort action based on plaintiff's injury in Mississippi while working on a construction site for an Alabama employer who was a subcontractor for defendant, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where Alabama's workers compensation scheme, not Mississippi's, applied.

[10/15] Sunline Transit Agency v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer, trial court's denial of defendant employer's petition to vacate a contractual arbitration award, and grant of a petition to confirm the award are affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award and appropriately confirmed the award as the award neither invades the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board nor was entered in excess of the arbitrator's powers under the memorandum of understanding (MOU); and 2) insertion in the judgment of language declaring that plaintiff "is judicially estopped later to claim continuing permanent disability benefits in the pending Workers' Compensation case," is stricken from the judgment as the trial court did not have the authority to issue a judgment containing this additional language, which was not in conformity with the arbitration award.

Injury & Tort Law

[12/13] Harmston v. City and Cty. of San Francisco
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order sanctioning plaintiff and his attorney for violating the court's discovery protective order, the appeal is dismissed where, because the district court's remand order constituted a final order, plaintiff's last day to appeal came 180 days later, on April 17, 2009, and thus the appeal was untimely.

[12/10] Katzenmeier v. Blackpowder Prods., Inc.
In a personal injury action arising out of an alleged defect in a muzzleloader rifle manufactured and distributed by defendants, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) certain prior incidents of which plaintiff sought to introduce evidence were not "substantially similar" to plaintiff's accident, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the evidence; 2) defendant did not offer certain alleged hearsay testimony for the truth of what a proof house said, but rather to demonstrate the reasons for the company's marking procedures; and 3) certain witnesses' testimony was not so fundamentally unsupported that it could offer no assistance to the jury.

[12/10] Melendez-Garcia v. Sanchez
In plaintiff's suit against various university officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Puerto Rican state laws, claiming that they failed to protect him from injury during a student protest at a university, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal-law claims and dismissal of the state-law claims are affirmed where: 1) district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for Rule 37 sanction was proper; 2) plaintiff's claim that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside its summary judgment given the defendants' failure to produce certain documents is rejected; 3) defendants were entitled to grant of qualified immunity on plaintiff's due process claim as it would not have been clear to a reasonable university official that the conduct at issue was unlawful; 3) plaintiff's right to equal protection was not violated and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the equal protection claim as plaintiff has failed to show that the defendants acted with discriminatory intent; 4) because plaintiff was not deprived of any benefit of employment within the meaning of the USERRA, as a ROTC officer, he cannot predicate his section 1983 claims on a USERRA violation; and 5) district court's dismissal of the state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction was proper as its determination that plaintiff was domiciled in Puerto Rico in April 2002 was not clearly erroneous.

[12/09] Junk v. Terminix Int'l. Co.
In an action alleging that plaintiff's son's 's multiple medical conditions were caused by exposure to Dursban, an insecticide manufactured by Dow Chemical Co., summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court determined that plaintiff's expert had not used a "scientifically valid" method to estimate that plaintiff's son's exposure exceeded a safe level. However, the judgment is reversed in part where there was arguably a reasonable basis for predicting that the state law might impose liability based upon the facts involved against an allegedly fraudulently joined individual defendant.

[12/08] Harris v. J.B. Robinson Jewelers
In plaintiff's suit against a jeweler arising from a claim that when she brought her diamond ring into defendant's store for resizing, her large, pink center diamond was replaced with a smaller, colorless stone, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the jeweler on the basis that plaintiff failed to submit any admissible evidence in support of her allegation that her center diamond had been replaced is reversed and remanded as, because the deposition of plaintiff and the affidavits of her three lay witnesses constitute admissible evidence supporting the claim of diamond replacement, there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding this issue.

[12/08] Norex Petro. Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc.
In a RICO action alleging various injuries to plaintiff arising from the activities of defendants' alleged international criminal enterprise, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the question of the justiciability of the RICO claims is properly one of whether the complaint adequately states a claim for relief; and 2) because the RICO statute lacked a clear statement of extraterritorial reach, plaintiff’s claims are barred.