Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[01/05] California Teachers Ass'n v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd.
Public Employment Relations Board erred in dismissing a complaint against a charter school for terminating teachers in violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act. The Board incorrectly found that the Act did not protect the teachers' actions in sending a letter to parents criticizing the school's financial management, and because the teachers had been fired for sending the letter, the terminations violated the Act.

[01/05] C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.
Trial court erred in sustaining demurrer to complaint against medical center for sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9 and for the negligent hiring, supervision and retention of nursing assistant who sexually assaulted and harassed plaintiff. Court holds that: 1) the judicially-noticed documents offered by defendant do not negate plaintiff's allegations that defendant directly or indirectly employed nursing assistant who sexually harassed plaintiff; 2) plaintiff was not required to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and the medical center to state a viable claim for sexual harassment under section 51.9; and 3) complaint contains adequate allegations to hold the defendant corporation liable under section 51.9 for the sexual abuse of plaintiff by its employee.

[01/05] Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd.
Terminated employee's retaliation claim was improperly dismissed by the district court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff is excused from exhausting her retaliation claim, which alleges ongoing retaliation for the filing of her previous EEOC claim, because the alleged retaliatory termination was merely the predictable culmination of the employer's alleged retaliatory conduct.

[12/15] 520 S. Michigan Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. Shannon
Illinois statute purporting to set required break periods for hotel restroom attendants is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The statute is not a true minimum labor standard statute of general application because it purports to give specific protections to a narrow group of employees (hotel room attendants working in a single county in Illinois) and therefore its protections are akin to benefits that should be sought through collective bargaining rather than legislation.

[12/15] Ketelboeter v. Astrue
Denial of application for disability insurance benefits is affirmed. ALJ's decision to give greater weight to the state-agency doctors' opinions is supported by substantial evidence, where the treating physician's conclusion was internally inconsistent and there was scant objective evidence in support of the alleged severity of Plaintiff's self-reported symptoms.

[12/15] Hasan v. Foley & Lardner LLP
Summary judgment for Plaintiff's former employer is reversed. The circumstantial evidence is such that a jury could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff was terminated because he is Muslim and of Indian descent.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[01/05] Cibula v. US
In a medical malpractice suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the district court erred by applying Virginia law and deciding not to place damages for future medical expenses into a reversionary trust. On remand, the court must apply California law, that being the state in which Plaintiffs were domiciled at the time of the underlying incidents, and determine whether the creation of a reversionary trust would impose liability on the government in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual.

[01/05] Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund
In a case arising from a medical malpractice action which had been settled, denial of attorney's application for attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application based on a finding that attorney engaged in misconduct with respect to the fees and expenses in the case and that he failed to represent his client adequately with respect to the post-settlement proceedings in the district court; and 2) the record did not support his claim of bias.

[06/13] Leland v. Brandal
In the context of health care liability claims and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 74.351(c), when elements of a timely filed expert report are found deficient, either by the trial court or on appeal, one thirty-day extension to cure the report may be granted.

[06/12] Florida Bar v. Dove
A referee's recommendation that respondent be disciplined by a public reprimand, receive two years probation, and forfeit fees of eight-thousand dollars for her actions during an adoption case is rejected and respondent's cross-appeal for rejection of disgorgement of fees is approved where: 1) although disbarment is the presumptive sanction in a case in which candor and material misrepresentations to the court are at issue, a three year suspension is proper given the mitigating factors; 2) disgorgement is only permitted to the Client Security Fund of the Florida Bar and not to the Florida Bar Foundation since it is not mentioned in the rule; 3) disgorgement does not apply since the fee was not prohibited, illegal, or excessive; 4) fines are not permitted in disciplinary cases; and 5) the award of costs to the complainant was proper since the members should not unnecessarily bear the costs of prosecuting misdeeds of unethical members.

[05/30] Petre v. Cardiovascular Consultants, SC
Judgment for the plaintiff in a malpractice action arising from coronary bypass surgery which resulted in a postoperative would infection which ultimately led to the removal of plaintiff's sternum is reversed and remanded where: 1) the only expert offered by the plaintiff to testify regarding the standard of care for non-physician employees of the defendant was not qualified to render such an opinion; 2) the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was no competent testimony regarding the standard of care; and 3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

[05/25] Kunz v. Little Co. of Mary Hosptial and Health Care Centers
Judgment for the plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there is sufficient evidence for a jury to hold that their employee's misreading of the medical plan was the cause in fact of plaintiff's injury so that the defendant-appellee is not entitled to a new trial; and 2) the trial court erred by failing to admit testimony regarding past and future medical expenses and unpaid medical bills into evidence.

More...