Injury & Tort Law
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza
Dismissal of a complaint in an action brought to recover a masterpiece French impressionist painting that was allegedly taken from the plaintiffs' ancestors by the Nazi regime, is: 1) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court erred in concluding that California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(c)(3), the applicable statute of limitations, intruded on foreign affairs and therefore erred in striking section 338 down as unconstitutional on the basis of field preemption; but 2) affirmed in part, where defendant's due process challenge to section 338(c)(3) could not be resolved on defendant's motion to dismiss, and section 338(c)(3) does not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights.
American Petroleum and Transport v. City of New York
Judgment dismissing a complaint by plaintiff vessel owner alleging economic losses for a maritime tort is affirmed, where, although the rule barring damages for economic loss in the absence of an owner’s property damage has been overextended, the rule has been so consistently applied in admiralty that it should continue to be applied unless and until altered by Congress or the Supreme Court.
Sachs v. Republic of Austria
Dismissal of plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a fall when she attempted to board a train in Austria, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) a foreign-state owned common carrier engages in commercial activity in the United States, and thus is not immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), when it sells tickets in the United States through a travel agent, regardless of whether the travel agent is a direct agent or subagent of the common carrier; and 2) under the FSIA, federal courts of the United States will have subject-matter jurisdiction over actions against a foreign sovereign common carrier that engages in commercial activity of this kind as long as the plaintiff's claims are based upon that activity, as they were here.
US ex rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Dismissal of two qui tam actions alleging that defendant failed to disclose adequately the risks associated with four of its drugs and generally that this failure resulted in the submission of false claims by various third-party patients and physicians for government payment through, for example, Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement, is affirmed, where: 1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's requests to amend her complaints.
Federal Insurance Company v. WCAB
In a workers' compensation claim brought by a professional basketball player who was not employed by a California team, has never resided in California, has played one professional game in California out of 34 games played during the 2003 season, and has suffered no specific injury in California, who seeks an award against her former non-California team and its insurer for a disability based on a cumulative injury, California does not have a sufficient interest in this matter to apply its workers' compensation law and to retain jurisdiction over the case.
Valdez v. WCAB
The Court of Appeals' decision permitting the admission of a medical report from claimant's doctor who was not part of the medical provider network (MPN) as defined under the workers' compensation statutory scheme, is affirmed, where: 1) Labor Code section 4616.6 does not bar the admission of reports from non- MPN doctors in proceedings to determine disability benefits; and 2) section 4616.6 restricts the admission of medical reports only in proceedings under article 2.3 to resolve disputes over diagnosis and treatment within an MPN.
Hroncich v. Con Edison
The Workers' Compensation Law does not require apportionment of death benefits between work-related and nonwork-related causes.
Petitt v. Sause Brothers
Under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, scheduled wage increases given by a non-union employer to all employees in a certain class based solely upon seniority were a general increase in wages and did not increase a claimant's wage-earning capacity, and therefore, should not be calculated into petitioner's wage-earning capacity for the purposes of calculating disability benefits.
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.