Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

John Doe initiated this action on behalf of his daughter, Jane Doe, after she was sexually assaulted on a Rankin County School District (RCSD) school bus, parked on the campus of Richland High School (RHS). After nineteen months of discovery, the circuit court granted RCSD’s motion for summary judgment against Doe based on governmental immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Doe moved for reconsideration, arguing RCSD had waived immunity through active participation in the litigation. The circuit court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals (COA) reversed the circuit court’s ruling. Applying the then-applicable, two-part, public-function test, the COA found that RCSD was entitled to discretionary-function immunity because: (1) RCSD’s duty to oversee student conduct and school safety involved an element of choice and/or judgment and (2) RCSD’s actions regarding implementation of school-safety measures and student discipline involved social and economic policy considerations. The COA, however, found that RCSD had waived immunity in this instance by actively participating in the litigation process and unreasonably delaying pursuit of its immunity defense for sixteen months. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted RCSD’s request certiorari review. Based on its recent decision in “Brantley v. City of Horn Lake,” (152 So.3d 1106 (Miss. 2014)), which established a new test for determining the application of discretionary-function immunity, the Supreme Court reversed both the COA’s and the trial court’s decisions and remanded to the trial court for the parties to present evidence in light of the new standard. View "Doe v. Rankin County School District" on Justia Law

Chand was treated for his injuries at San Francisco General Hospital and subsequently sued the driver of the car that struck him, among others. Chand settled with the driver for $100,000 and filed a notice of partial settlement. The City of San Francisco Bureau of Delinquent Revenue Collections filed a medical reimbursement lien for approximately $370,000 in Chand’s personal injury case to recover the cost of the medical care it provided to him. Chand moved to expunge the City’s lien. The trial court concluded the City had a valid lien pursuant to section 124 of the San Francisco Health Code, which authorizes it to place a lien on a patient’s recovery from a third party tortfeasor, and rejected Chand’s claims that section 124 is preempted by state law and alternatively determined that the City may rely on section 124 because it is a charter city and its ordinance regulates a municipal affair. The court rejected Chand’s claim that the City waived section 124 when it adopted a subsequent resolution that expanded its options for pursuing medical reimbursement from patients and third parties.The court of appeal affirmed View "Chand v. Bolanos" on Justia Law

Petitioner-claimant Jeanette Ball sought permanent total disability benefits from the Multiple Injury Trust Fund. The Workers' Compensation Court held that a "Crumby" finding of preexisting disability made simultaneously with the adjudication of an on-the-job injury could be combined with the adjudicated injury to render the Claimant a physically impaired person under 85 O.S. Supp. 2005 sec. 171 and awarded Petitioner permanent total disability benefits. The Fund appealed, and a three-judge panel reversed. Claimant then appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the panel. After its review, the Supreme Court held that an employee must be a physically impaired person as defined by the applicable statute before he or she can seek benefits from the Fund. A "Crumby" finding of preexisting disability made simultaneously with an adjudication of an on-the-job injury could not be combined with such adjudicated injury to render the Claimant a physically impaired person under 85 O.S. Supp 2005 sec. 171. The Court of Appeals' decision was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Ball v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund" on Justia Law

On September 17, 2011, Martin Hayes was seriously injured after stumbling on uneven ground hidden by grass while attending his grandson’s Pop Warner football game at the Plummer School Park, which was owned by the City of Plummer. Hayes did not pay any fee or admission to enter the Park. Hayes filed a premises liability claim against the City for his injuries. In turn, the City filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the City was entitled to a limit on liability under Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute. The district court granted the City’s motion. Hayes appealed. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court's analysis that the Recreational Use Statute provided limited liability protection because the City did not receive "compensation" or "charge" for use of the land upon which Hayes was injured. View "Hayes v. City of Plummer" on Justia Law

The Gallatin Gateway County Water & Sewer District sought a permit for a proposed wastewater treatment system. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) granted a wastewater discharge permit. Gateway Village, LLC, which owns land adjacent to and down-gradient from the proposed activities, requested judicial review of DEQ’s issuance of the permit and alleged that the discharge of wastewater into groundwater extending under its surface property would constitute a common law trespass. The district court determined that further environmental analysis was necessary and remanded the case to DEQ. The court also denied DEQ’s and the District’s motions for summary judgment or dismissal of Gateway Village’s trespass claim and denied Gateway Village’s request for attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the portion of the district court’s order addressing the trespass claim, holding that, having remanded the case, the district court should have declined to address the trespass claim; and (2) affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Gateway Village’s request for attorney’s fees. View "Gateway Village, LLC v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

In 2004 when he was sixteen years old, claimant Terence Fairchild worked for Kentucky Fried Chicken as a cook. While carrying garbage to a dumpster, he slipped on ice and fell onto a concrete barrier, striking his knees. The impact caused his knees to bleed. He went inside the building, bandaged his knees, and informed his supervisor of the accident. Claimant sought medical care. The physician diagnosed his condition as patellofemoral pain following bilateral patella contusions and prescribed knee braces, stretching exercises, Naprosyn, and ice. He saw the physician one week later and continued to suffer pain in both knees. The physician prescribed physical therapy, which failed to alleviate Claimant’s symptoms. The physician ordered an MRI of Claimant’s left knee a few weeks later. The MRI did not reveal any abnormality. After reviewing the results of the MRI with an orthopedist, the physician continued Claimant on physical therapy and anti-inflammatory medication. Approximately one month following the accident, Claimant filed a complaint seeking benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Law. Claimant sought a second, third and fourth opinions, including one from an orthopedic surgeon. These opinions spanned approximately seven years following the initial fall. In 2007, the orthopedic surgeon suspected claimant suffered a partial posterior cruciate ligament injury to his right knee and concluded that Claimant was entitled to a permanent partial impairment of 3%. In 2011, an examining physician agreed Claimant suffered a partial posterior cruciate ligament injury, but estimated the permanent partial impairment of 7%. In a 2012 hearing, the Industrial Commission found Claimant was not a credible witness based upon its observation of him during the hearing and the differences between his hearing testimony and his prior statements in depositions, interviews, and appointments with medical providers. The Commission concluded that it regarded Claimant’s testimony as suspect where it was not supported by other evidence in the record. The Commission found that Claimant had suffered a right posterior cruciate ligament injury in the accident and that as a result of that injury he had a permanent partial impairment rating of 3%. Finally, the Commission found that Claimant had failed to prove that he had a disability in excess of his impairment. Claimant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Commission denied. Claimant then appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's judgment. View "Fairchild v. Kentucky Fried Chicken" on Justia Law

In 2010, O’Toole tripped and fell on a paved pathway at Brookfield Zoo and sustained injuries. In 2012, she filed a single-count negligence complaint against the Chicago Zoological Society, alleging that it breached its duty to inspect and maintain the pathway, proximately causing her damages. The Society sought dismissal, arguing that the one-year limitations period of section 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/8-101(a)), rather than the two-year limitations period of section 13-202 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/13-202), applied and time-barred O’Toole’s complaint. The trial court dismissed, finding that the Society fell under the Act’s definition of “[l]ocal public entity” as a “not-for-profit corporation organized for the purpose of conducting public business.” The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the Society conceded that it was not a department or agency of any government; that it received less than half of its funding from tax proceeds; that its employees were not appointed or paid by the Forest Preserve District and were not covered by any public pension or workers compensation funds; and that the vast majority of its trustees were not District officials. View "O'Toole v. Chicago Zoological Soc'y" on Justia Law

A 21-year-old intoxicated Hooper Bay resident, Louis Bunyan, committed suicide while he was detained in a holding cell by the City of Hooper Bay. His mother filed a wrongful death action against the City, alleging that the City’s negligence led to her son’s death. She sought damages in her individual capacity and on behalf of her son’s estate and her son’s minor children. The case proceeded to a jury trial and the jury returned a million-dollar judgment against the City. The City appealed, raising a number of issues. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rulings in many respects. But the Court vacated the jury’s damages award and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of allocation of fault between the City and the deceased under AS 09.17.080. View "City of Hooper Bay v. Bunyan" on Justia Law

This negligence suit arose out of a single-car accident that allegedly occurred due to an improperly performed bridge repair. In 2011, the Logans were traveling south on Highway 49 in Tallahatchie County when they drove over a bridge that recently had undergone repairs. Both lanes were open, and no warning signs were present indicating ongoing repairs or a dangerous condition. Two protruding crisscrossed metal plates caught the undercarriage of their car, causing the car to spin out of control and to come to rest facing south in the northbound lane. According to MDOT, flat metal plates routinely are bolted to bridge decks during structural repairs temporarily to cover fresh concrete while the concrete cures, with the bolt head and steel plate not extending more than two inches above the bridge deck. The Logans alleged that these particular metal plates were not properly attached to the bridge, had bent upward and were projecting dangerously above the road surface. The Logans sued MDOT and the Mississippi Transportation Commission. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under multiple provisions of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the maintenance of the bridge is a discretionary function under Mississippi Code Section 11-46-9(1)(d) and that the defendants therefore were entitled to immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the failure-to-maintain claim, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the failure-to-warn claim. The Supreme Court also affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in concluding that no disputed fact existed regarding the Logan’s failure-to-warn claim. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to perform a more detailed summary-judgment immunity analysis of the Logan’s failure-to-warn claim. View "Logan v. Miss. Dept. of Transp." on Justia Law

While riding on a school bus, Morgan Graveline was involved in an altercation with a another student, A.M. A.M. punched Morgan in the face. The bus driver reported the incident three days later. The school principal, Barry Albert, downloaded the bus driver’s report on February 8 and met with Morgan the next day. Morgan minimized the incident, told Albert she did not know the name of the other student involved in the altercation, and asked Albert not to notify her mother. Although Albert informed Morgan that he would have to notify her mother, he did not do so. Albert met with A.M. ten days after the incident whereby A.M. admitted to hitting Morgan. A.M. received a three-day suspension. Meanwhile, Morgan received threatening Facebook messages from another student, A.A., days before A.M.'s suspension. On the day Albert learned about the messages, he went to the cafeteria to ask A.A. to see him after lunch. After Albert left the cafeteria, a fight broke out. Morgan was hit several times, sustaining injuries to her head, face, and mouth. She was transported to the emergency room. Albert met with Morgan’s mother, plaintiff Danielle (Graveline) Gauthier, in the emergency room and, for the first time, told her about the bus incident and the threatening Facebook messages. Plaintiff brought suit to recover for Morgan's injuries. The trial court granted Albert's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiff argued that Albert was negligent for failing to notify plaintiff on the alleged bullying. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gauthier v. Manchester School District, SAU #37" on Justia Law