Case Summaries
Labor & Employment Law
[07/03]
Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc.
In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat.
[07/03]
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
More...
ERISA
[07/02]
Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc.
In an ERISA action arising from a denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of state law claims was proper as defendant's disability plan is governed by ERISA, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice; 2) a California insurance regulation does not require defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of copying the medical records that defendant-insurer/administrator requested, as that regulation is preempted by ERISA; 3) defendants did not violate ERISA's regulation on "claims procedures" by requiring documentation from plaintiff regarding his claim; and 4) a remand was required in part as to dismissal of a claim that defendants violated ERISA section 1132(c)(1) for failing to turn over certain documents.
[07/02]
Newell Operating Co. v. Int'l Union of United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am.
In a declaratory judgment suit arising from plaintiff's decision to amend its employee welfare benefits plan to allow administrators to charge retirees uniform monthly premiums, dismissal of the case is affirmed where: 1) jurisdiction did not exist under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA since the declaratory judgment action was not designed to enforce any provisions of the plan or makes any valid allegations that ERISA will be violated; and 2) although plaintiff's LMRA section 301 claims fall within the statute, the request for declaratory judgment is covered by the Declaratory Judgment Act and the court used the discretion given under the Act to decline jurisdiction.
More...
Workers' Comp
[07/03]
State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.
[07/03]
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
More...
Civil Rights
[07/03]
Easley v. Reuss
On petition for rehearing, the circuit court grants a petition to cure an administrative error to a prior order but declines further review where: 1) petitioner failed to meet the strict requirements of Appellate Rule 35 for a hearing en banc; and 2) petitioner was raising issues that were not previously raised.
[07/03]
White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
In an employment discrimination suit brought under federal and Michigan state law, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to suggest that defendant's purported reason for not promoting him had no basis in fact, did not motivate defendant's decision, or was not sufficient to explain its hiring choice; and 2) plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on both single motive and mixed motive race discrimination claims.
More...
|
E-mail Us
