Legal News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Stolberg
In a suit by an insurer to obtain a declaration that its policy did not obligate it either to defend a personal injury suit or to indemnify the insured, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed, where: 1) the contract excluded coverage for injuries arising out of operations performed for insured by contractors; and 2) other exclusions in the policy did not create ambiguity so as to provide coverage.

[05/11] Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.
In suits by former prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, alleging that the defendant prison contractors and certain of their employees were liable in common law tort and under the Alien Tort Statute for torturing and abusing them during their incarceration, consolidated appeals by the defendants are dismissed, where: 1) there was no independent basis for appellate jurisdiction premised on the law-of-war defense, Saleh preemption, or Mangold immunity, so the Fourth Circuit was without pendent jurisdiction to further consider the appellants' contentions that the plaintiffs' claims presented nonjusticiable political questions; and 2) the exercise of jurisdiction was precluded regardless of whether the appellants' political question defense was inextricably intertwined with any of the three proffered bases for jurisdiction, or whether those bases were similarly interdependent with one another.

[05/07] Bettencourt v. Hennessey Industries, Inc.
In a suit claiming that the use of the defendant's machines to grind asbestos-containing brake linings resulted in exposure to airborne asbestos fibers that caused injury, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant on all causes of action is reversed in part, where it was error to grant judgment on the pleadings to the defendant and an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints with respect to their causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

Read More

Legal Malpractice

[05/04] Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C.
In a suit alleging that a law firm committed legal malpractice in prosecuting a patent application, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the law firm is affirmed, where the plaintiff did not carry its burden on causation, since: 1) the plaintiff failed to raise any material fact in dispute as to the nonobviousness of the proposed alternate claims, and failed to provide evidence demonstrating that its alternate claims were nonobvious; and 2) no inference could be drawn that an examiner would have allowed alternate claims of greater scope just because a more narrow patent was issued after an in-person interview.

[04/23] Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP
In a state-law fraud suit stemming from alleged acts of malpractice committed by a lawyer and his firm in connection with a patent application: 1) the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants is reversed, where a) patent jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1338 was proper because the underlying question was whether the plaintiff would have been able to achieve patent protection for its invention absent the alleged malpractice, and b) the district court erred in not tolling California's three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims during the time the case was pending in the state courts; and 2) the district court's damages order is vacated, where the record did not support the district court's manner of summarily limiting damages.

[04/17] USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp.
In a suit for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud arising out of a licensee's and law firm's alleged failure to secure a patent on the licensed product, the district court's order dismissing the complaint is affirmed, where it was not brought within the four-year limitations period, and neither the discovery rule nor the fraudulent concealment doctrine served to toll the limitations period.

[02/28] In re Coudert Bros. LLP
In a law firm's bankruptcy proceedings in federal district court in New York, in which a corporation filed a claim based on a pending legal malpractice action against the firm in Connecticut: 1) the portion of the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order disallowing the claim for failure to comply with a statute of limitations under New York choice-of-law rules is vacated; and 2) the portion of the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of the corporation’s motion for reconsideration is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to remand in part to the bankruptcy court with instructions to apply Connecticut’s choice-of-law rules in deciding the corporation's motion to reconsider.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/15] DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (Zurich Services Corp.)
In a suit by a provider of commercial janitorial services against the third-party administrator for its workers' compensation insurance claims, a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration is granted, where: 1) none of the plaintiffs' agreements with their administrator contained an arbitration clause; and 2) the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs' claims against the administrator were not founded in, or inextricably intertwined with, the deductible agreement with the insurer, which contained the arbitration clause.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

Read More