Jump to Navigation

Injury Cases in the News

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[03/23] People v. Riddles
Conviction of workers' compensation insurance fraud in violation of Insurance Code section 11760(a) and restitution order are affirmed where: 1) a workers' compensation insurer may recover, as restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, the premiums it would have earned in the absence of misrepresentations by an insurance applicant; and 2) the court did not err in imposing a fine.

[01/20] Metro Machine Corporation v. DOWCP
In a petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board affirming decisions of an ALJ granting a claim for medical benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. section 907, the petition is denied where: 1) the only error the ALJ committed was in failing to apply the 'naturally or unavoidably results' standard to the fracture claim; and 2) remand for application of that standard would be a futile exercise, given that there was no issue presented regarding avoidability.

[11/22] Gage v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In a workers' compensation action brought by petitioner, a deputy sheriff who sustained a job-related injury, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision denying penalties for the unreasonable delay of advance disability pension payments is annulled and remanded where: 1) such payments qualify as compensation under Labor Code section 3207; 2) such penalties available under Labor Code section 5814 are available for unreasonable delay or denial of the payment of compensation; and 3) no other provision of the Labor Code excludes such payments from the penalty provisions of section 5814.

[11/15] Lee v. West Kern Water Dist.
In a case involving the applicability of the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, which governs the matter of when an injured worker can bring a civil action against the employer and when he or she is instead limited to the remedy of a workers' compensation award, brought by a former employee against a water district and four coemployees, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the coemployees staged a mock robbery with plaintiff as the victim, the trial court's judgment is: 1) reversed as to the grant of defendants' motion for a new trial where the jury instructions were not erroneous, and alternative grounds for affirmance proposed by defendants lack merit; and 2) affirmed as to the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/24] Minda v. US
In a case in which the IRS sent a report containing plaintiffs' names, social security numbers, and financial information, to the wrong person --- an unauthorized unrelated third party -- brought under 26 U.S.C. section 7431, which permits a taxpayer whose return or return information has been unlawfully disclosed to bring a civil action against the United States for damages, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Government is affirmed where, plaintiffs are only entitled to 1,000 each in statutory damages for the disclosure of the report, not $1000 for the disclosure of each item of information contained in the report.

[03/24] Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd.
In an action alleging violations of federal and state warranty law and other claims, brought by appellants who purchased allegedly defective outboard motors that defendant designed and manufactured in Japan and that defendant imported and marketed in California, the district court's dismissal of defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed where: 1) the district court lacked general jurisdiction over defendant because defendant itself did not have sufficient contacts with California for the exercise of general jurisdiction, and plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case that related entities were 'alter egos'; 2) the district court lacked specific jurisdiction over non-resident defendant, and plaintiffs did not allege any action that defendant 'purposefully directed' at California; and 3) plaintiffs failed to plead a prima facie case of consumer fraud.

[03/23] Bluewave Healthcare v. US
In a challenge to the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motions to quash writs of attachment against real and personal property and writs of garnishment against two bank accounts, in underlying qui tam actions involving Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claim Act claims, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the denial is an unreviewable interlocutory order.

[03/22] In Re: Fosamax Products Liability Litig.
In consolidated personal-injury suits against a drug manufacturer, averring that the osteoporosis drug Fosamax caused plaintiffs to suffer serious thigh bone fractures, and bringing state-law tort claim alleging that defendant failed to add an adequate warning of the risk of thigh fractures to Fosamax's FDA-approved drug label, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine, which holds that state-law failure-to-warn claims are preempted when there is 'clear evidence' that the FDA would not have approved the warning that a plaintiff claims was necessary, is vacated where: 1) preemption is an affirmative defense, and defendant has not carried its burden to prove that it is entitled to that defense as a matter of law; and 2) plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the FDA would have approved a properly-worded warning about the risk of thigh fractures--or at the very least, to conclude that the odds of FDA rejection were less than highly probable.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Review Us

Burge & Burge, PC | 2001 Park Pl., Suite 850 | Birmingham, AL 35203 | Toll Free: 877-388-3749 | Phone: 205-545-8291 | Fax: 205-323-0512 | Birmingham Law Office Map

Burge & Burge, PC, is located in Birmingham, Alabama, and serves clients from cities such as Montgomery, Mobile, Huntsville, Decatur, Tuscaloosa, Dothan, Gadsden and Anniston, as well as the counties of Jefferson, Montgomery, Madison, Shelby, Baldwin, Walker, Mobile, Tuscaloosa, St. Clair, Talladega, Etowah, Calhoun, Winston, Houston, Greene, Blount, Cullman, Morgan and Limestone, AL.
 

Privacy Policy | Legal Marketing by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.