Legal News

Case Summaries

Elder Law

[02/05] Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against a convalescent hospital claiming she was admitted without her consent, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where, although a stipulated judgment is appealable, plaintiff cannot show that allegedly erroneous rulings were prejudicial.

[12/22] Massey v. Mercy Med. Center Redding
In plaintiff's negligence action against a nurse and the hospital that employed the nurse alleging that he sustained injury after falling from a walker because the nurse placed the plaintiff on the walker and left him unattended, judgment of the trial court is reversed in part where: 1) the question of nurse's alleged negligence for the fall poses a question of common knowledge, and therefore does not require expert opinion testimony; and 2) trial court's judgment that denied plaintiff's attempt to amend his complaint to add causes of action for battery, fraud and elder abuse is affirmed.

[12/21] Grace Healthcare of Benton v. US Dept. of Health & Hum. Servs.
In a petition for review of a civil monetary penalty imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services on petitioner nursing home for an "immediate jeopardy" violation of 42 C.F.R. section 483.13(c), which required nursing homes to thoroughly investigate all allegations of resident neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown sources, the petition is granted where the Secretary's finding of the likely harm necessary to warrant an immediate-jeopardy-level finding was based on pure speculation and not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

More...