FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Elder Law

[11/12] James v. Richman
In a suit seeking Medicaid benefits, an injunction preventing defendant-Department of Public Welfare from denying benefits is affirmed where: 1) equitable relief was appropriate where plaintiff would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from seeking monetary damages from the state; 2) plaintiff was not required to exhaust his state-level administrative remedies before seeking federal relief; and 3) a non-revocable, non-transferable annuity purchased by plaintiff's wife did not fit the statutory definition of an "available resource" for purposes of calculating Medicaid eligibility.

[10/23] People v. Slattery
Sentence of time in state prison and payment of restitution to the hospital that treated defendant's mother, for elder abuse, is stricken where the hospital is not a direct victim of the offense, as required by section 1202.4(k)(2).

[09/30] Wood v. Jamison
In a malpractice action brought by the trustee of 78-year old decedent for defendant-attorney's role in performing legal services for client who convinced decedent that he was her nephew, judgment for damages, attorney's fees and costs based on legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and financial abuse of an elder is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to advise decedent of a conflict of interest; 2) defendant failed to advise decedent the investment was not appropriate for her, or at least to refer her to an independent investment advisor; and 3) defendant obtained an undisclosed profit from the transaction.

[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

[03/10] Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC
In an action brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify defendants against claims in an Arkansas state court action, summary judgment determining such duties is affirmed where the district court did not err by deciding that: 1) the only claim in the underlying lawsuit covered under insurer's policy was an estate's breach of contract claim against nursing home facility owner; 2) insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify owner on that claim and therefore also a duty to defend it on all of the estate's claims against it; and 3) insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify appellant-employee of the nursing home's management company.

[02/15] Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Crocker
Under Texas law, an insurer has no extra-contractual duty to notify an additional insured of available liability coverage and provide an unsought, uninvited, unrequested, unsolicited defense. Further, an insurer's actual knowledge that an additional insured has been served with process does not establish as a matter of law that the insurer has not been prejudiced by the additional insured's failure to notify the insurer of the receipt of process.

[02/08] Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc.
In an action claiming, inter alia, unlawful retaliation when 62-year-old plaintiff was fired three months after he filed a charge with the EEOC that alleged both age and national-origin discrimination, a judgment and an award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest for plaintiff are affirmed over claims that: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or prove that defendant's proffered reason for terminating him was a pretext to hide retaliation; 2) a paralegal's fees and expenses to attend certain depositions were unnecessary and unreasonable; 3) billing descriptions were insufficient; and 4) plaintiff had only limited success on his various claims.

[01/25] Living Ctrs. of Texas, Inc. v. Penalver
In a wrongful death suit, a court of appeals judgment affirming a ruling in favor of plaintiff is reversed where a jury argument that compared defendant's lawyer's attempts to minimize damages to a World War II Nazi program, in which elderly and infirm persons were used for medical experimentation and killed, was improper and incurable.

More...

Probate Trusts

[11/06] Aguilar v. Aguilar
Denial of petition to undo a wife's withdrawal of trust property brought by a remainder beneficiary of the trust is reversed and remanded where: 1) even though the property the wife sought to withdraw was her share of the community property, it was too late for her to withdraw it; 2) irrevocable trusts are binding, even on their trustors; and 3) as the life beneficiary, the wife could continue to enjoy the property as held by the trust.

[10/16] Schwartz v. Schwartz
Denial of petition for order directing distribution of trust property and granting respondent's petition to invoke the no-contest clause of the trust is affirmed where the trial court had jurisdiction to deny appellant's petition following his alleged withdrawal of the pleading.

[10/09] Estate of Felder
In a property matter in which objector sought the deposit he paid as a defaulting purchaser of real property owned in part by the estate, probate court order is affirmed where the probate court properly allowed the estate to retain the entirety of objector's $48,000 deposit as damages under Probate Code section 10350 subdivision (e).

[10/01] Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
Grant of defendant's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint did not relate to contemplated litigation but attempted at persuasion and negotiation between co-owners of property regarding how best to manage their property; 2) because the communications at issue were not covered by the litigation privilege, the anti-SLAPP motion should not have been granted; and 3) plaintiffs failed to develop an argument regarding entitlement to attorney's fees based on finding that anti-SLAPP motion was "frivolous" or "intended to cause unnecessary delay".

[10/01] Gustafson v. zumBrunnen
In a suit alleging negligence and tortious interference against a bank and an attorney for allowing the withdrawal of funds from a bank account that should have been part of a decedent's estate, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(2), the legal representative of an estate suing on its behalf is a citizen of the same state as the decedent; 2) more than one person may be considered a legal representative of an estate for 1332(c)(2) purposes; and 3) under the applicable state law, a suit to bring property into an estate by someone other than the estate's representative was permissible only if the representative had failed to act to secure the property for the estate.

[09/14] Dummar v. Lummis
In a case involving the estate of the late billionaire Howard Hughes alleging that defendants deprived plaintiff of his inheritance by conspiring to cause a jury to reject a Holographic Will in 1978, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) fraud and federal RICO claims were each time-barred; 2) a Nevada RICO claim failed to state a claim; and 3) an unjust-enrichment claim was barred by issue preclusion.

[09/12] Estate of Kievernagel
In a suit by widow for use of her late husband's frozen sperm to attempt to conceive a child despite signed agreement by late husband to discard sperm upon his death, judgment denying distribution of sperm to widow is affirmed where determining the disposition of gamete material, to which no other party contributed and thus another party's right to procreational autonomy is not implicated, the intent of the donor must control.

[09/04] Masry v. Masry
In a probate matter, judgment finding that husband's revocation from joint trust was valid is affirmed where: 1) the revocation provision in the trust was not explicitly exclusive; and 2) husband's method of revocation complied with Probate Code section 15401, subdivision (a)(2).

[08/27] Estate of Clementi
Denial of petition to revoke probate is affirmed where: 1) the deceased manifested a sufficient intent to create a charitable trust through his will, although his will does not identify a specific charity; and 2) the deceased's stated intent to "give the balance of my assets to a charitable foundation or trust" is sufficient to create the trust.

[08/27] Estate of Heath
Probate court order appointing niece of the deceased as administrator is reversed where the appointed administrator did not "succeed" to a portion of the decedent's estate, as required by Probate Code section 8462(a), by virtue of her mother's assignment of a portion of her interest in the estate to niece. Succession occurs only by operation of law.

More...

Health Law

[11/19] Mission Hosp. Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Shewry
In an action brought by over 100 state hospitals alleging section 32 of Senate Bill No. 1103, which froze reimbursement rates paid to noncontract hospitals for inpatient services during the state's 2004-2005 fiscal year, violated the Medicaid Act and that the Department of Health Care Services violated federal Medicaid regulation and state and federal protections, judgment rejecting most of plaintiffs' claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) the federal statute requiring notice and comment procedures applied to the state's action; 2) the state's process did not satisfy the federal statute; and 3) the trial court erred in its ruling under section (13)(A).

[11/19] Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist.
Denial of writ of mandate is reversed and defendant is ordered to complete an assessment on the public health impacts of the rule 4570, which requires large confined animal facilities to choose from a variety of mitigation measures with the goal of reducing VOC emissions, where: 1) rule 4570 was adopted without conducting an adequate assessment of its impact on public health, as mandated by Health and Safety Code section 40724.6; 2) section 40724.6 was intended to address the district's failure to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards for ozone and does not regulate ammonia emissions produced by large confined animal facilities; and 3) the district's findings were not arbitrary and capricious.

[11/18] Phillips v. Mathews
In a suit alleging interference and retaliation by a state-government employer in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had given proper notice to her employer that she required FMLA leave, but this disputed fact was not material since plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her termination was related to her FMLA leave; and 2) plaintiff had exercised rights under FMLA sufficient to subsequently bring a retaliation claim when she was terminated, but defendant demonstrated that she had been terminated for non-FMLA reasons.

[11/18] IMS Health Inc. and Verispan, LLC v. Ayotte, New Hampshire Attorney Gen.
A district court's finding that a state law, which prohibits certain transfers of physicians' prescribing histories for use in detailing, unconstitutionally abridged free speech, is reversed and the injunction against enforcement of the Prescription Information Law is vacated where: 1) regulated data transfers did not embody restrictions on protected speech under the First Amendment; 2) the state law regulated conduct, not speech; and 3) even if the Prescription Information Law amounted to a regulation of protected speech, it passed constitutional muster.

[11/17] Rhode Island Hosp. v. Leavitt
Grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-hospital regarding calculation of full time equivalent (FTE) residents for purposes of determining the indirect medical education (IME) adjustment owed to the defendant-hospital, is reversed and remanded where the the Secretary of Health and Human Services' finding that the IME payment was only intended to reimburse teaching hospitals for increased patient care costs and that residents performing educational research were not assigned to an eligible area of the hospital under the governing FTE regulation was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

[11/14] Island View Resident Treatment Ctr. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
In an appeal by plaintiff-treatment center to recover from defendant-insurance company the cost of in-patient care furnished to a patient, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed over claim that the district court erred in transferring the case to another state's district court.

[11/13] Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp.
In a medical malpractice action against hospital and doctor, petition for writ of supersedeas directing the trial court to reduce the amount of its appeal bond is denied where: 1) the lump sum present value of the judgment against defendant-hospital was the "amount of the judgment" for the purpose of calculating the undertaking required to stay the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1; and 2) the trial court properly set the amount of defendant-hospital's appeal bond at 1.5 times the lump sum present value of plaintiff's judgment against it.

[11/13] Finnerty v. Bd. or Registered Nursing
Denial of petition for writ of mandate to review disciplinary board's decision finding that nurse-petitioner's conduct constituted both incompetence and gross negligence is affirmed where the trial court's judgment: 1) was supported by substantial evidence; and 2) properly applied the law to the facts.

[11/13] Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.

[11/12] US v. Kaufman
In a criminal matter involving defendants who had directed severely mentally ill residents of their treatment center to perform sexually explicit acts and farm labor in the nude, allegedly as psychotherapy, their convictions for forced labor and involuntary servitude are affirmed where: 1) even if the trial court plainly erred in ordering defendants to avoid eye contact with former residents who testified against them at trial, they failed to establish that the error affected their substantial rights; 2) there was no plain error in instructing the jury on the meaning of "labor" and "services" under statutes of conviction; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for involuntary servitude. However, on cross-appeal, defendant-wife's sentence is remanded for resentencing where it was procedurally unreasonable because: 1) the evidence supported applying certain enhancements, and the district court failed to make findings sufficient to justify its refusal to apply them; and 2) an obstruction of justice enhancement was supported by the record as well.

More...