Both before and during World War II, the Nazi government obtained vast quantities of Jewish-owned art and artifacts – mostly by outright expropriation, sometimes by coerced sale at a deep discount. Today, 77 years after the end of the war, heirs of the original owners are still seeking to recover wrongfully acquired artworks, by informal negotiation if possible, otherwise by lawsuits. Two such cases were decided by the U.S.
The defendants had a 5-foot rubber raft in their swimming pool. One of their guests at a holiday party dove off a diving board onto the raft, bounced off the raft and was propelled into the water, where he struck his head near the shallow end of the pool and broke his neck. The plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair, has limited use of his arms, and is unable to perform most daily tasks without assistance.
The raft had several warnings clearly printed on it, including the following:
This is an obstetrical malpractice case. A caesarean section was delayed for several hours due to the negligence of both the treating physicians and the nurses, as result of which the baby sustained significant hypoxic brain damage during labor and was born with cerebral palsy. The plaintiff mother, suing on behalf of her child, settled with the physicians and proceeded to trial against the hospital that employed the nurses. Rodriguez-Valentin v. Doctors’ Center Hospital, No. 20-2093 (1st Cir.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes a cause of action for healthcare discrimination: “[A]n individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under [four existing federal nondiscrimination statutes], be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance….The enforcement mechanisms provided for and available under [29 U.S.C.
The case is Clanton v. United States of America (No. 20-2059, 7th Cir., 12/17/2021) and once again, the opinion’s opening paragraph summarizes it better than any of my several attempts:
Two recent federal appellate court opinions have brought my attention to an issue that is literally a matter of life and death – namely, a change in the policy for allocating donated organs among patients awaiting transplants. The cases (filed barely over a week apart) are Adventist Health System/SunBelt v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (No. 21-1589, 8th Cir., 11/8/2021), https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/11/211589P.pdf, and Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing (No.
Back in June, in a post about the first (as far as I know) case in which healthcare workers challenged a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, I wrote, “This could be the first of many cases in which employees object to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement – we’ll have to wait and see.” https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2021/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-houston-methodist-hospital-employees-who-refused-covid-19. Well, it was indeed th
This one could be headed to the Supreme Court. In Hepp v. Facebook (Nos. 20-2725 & 2885, 3d Cir., 9/23/2021), https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202725p.pdf, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals created a split in the circuits on an important issue, the Ninth Circuit having ruled the other way in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007). Both cases were 2-1 decisions with vigorous dissenting opinions.
This case is must reading for any trial lawyer (plaintiff or defense) who litigates product liability cases that rely on sophisticated expert testimony. In a workmanlike 35-page opinion (I did say the case was complex), the Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court’s exclusion of the plaintiffs’ medical and engineering experts and its resulting grant of summary judgment to the defendant. In re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation – Amador v.
