Jump to Navigation

Injury Cases in the News

Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[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.

[08/17] Kerrigan v. MSPB
In an appeal of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, his claim that his workers' compensation benefits were improperly terminated in retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity, the Board's decision is affirmed where, although the Board incorrectly held that 5 U.S.C. section 8128(b) bars its review of petitioner's appeal, petitioner failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that his protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's action.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/22] Doe v. United States Youth Soccer
In a suit for negligence and willful misconduct against soccer league defendants, arising out of the sexual abuse of plaintiff by her former soccer coach, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrers to the fourth amended complaint on the ground that they had no duty to protect plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party and dismissing the defendants is reversed where defendants had a duty to conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in their programs.

[02/15] Argentieri v. Zuckerberg
In a defamation suit brought by an attorney for Paul Ceglia throughout Ceglia's lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, the trial court's grant of defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under the anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where: 1) although the statement underlying plaintiff's defamation claim was not subject to the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47(b), it was subject to the fair and true reporting privilege of Civil Code section 47(d); and, thus 2) plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on his claim.

[02/15] Secci v. United Independent Taxi Drivers
In a suit for damages suffered after a motorcycle crash with a driver who was driving a taxi marked defendant's insignia, in which the jury found driver to be defendant's agent, but not an employee, the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) under Code of Civil Procedure section 629, finding the evidence insufficient to support the jury's finding that driver was defendant's agent, is reversed and the verdict reinstated where California law does not preclude consideration of controls required by public regulations in finding an agency relationship.

[02/15] Doe v. State of California
In their lawsuit, allege civil rights violations, Civ. Code section 52.1 (Bane Act), negligence, false/wrongful arrest, defamation, and loss of consortium, against the State and City and County of San Diego, because of defendants' causing plaintiff to register as a sex offender through threats of enforcement, maintaining him on California's sex offender registry, and publicly disseminating his name as a registered sex offender, including via the Megan's Law Web site, the trial court's order granting defendants' special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' causes of action arose from protected activity under section 425.16; and 2) plaintiffs did not show a probability of prevailing on their causes of action.

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.