Health Law Case Summaries
[09/09] Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Matrix Laboratories, Ltd.
In a patent infringement suit, related to 1-biphenylmethylimidazole compounds and their use as angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of high blood pressure, district court's decision sustaining the validity of a patent under 35 U.S.C. section 103 is affirmed as the district court did not err in holding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because defendant failed to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the '902 ARBs as lead compounds or, even if they had, that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the '902 compounds to synthesize the claimed invention.
[09/09] Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.
In a suit for infringement of a patent related to intervertebral implants used to replace discs between vertebrae in the spinal column that have degenerated or become diseased, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL that the asserted claims of the '071 patent are invalid for obviousness is affirmed; 2) district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity for failure to comply with the written description requirement is affirmed; 3) district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant's 35 U.S.C. section 112 defenses is affirmed; 4) district court's construction of the term "operative engagement" is affirmed; 5) district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and its grant of summary judgment of infringement with respect to O-Maverick is reversed and remanded for the court to enter judgment of noninfringement with respect to O-Maverick; 6) district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL of lost profits is reversed and jury's award of lost profits damages is vacated and remanded for the court to determine any additional reasonable royalty to which plaintiff might be entitled; 7) district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL of no willfulness is reversed and the enhanced damages and attorney fee awards vacated; and 8) the matter is remanded for the district court to modify the terms of the permanent injunction by deleting the extraterritorial portion.
[09/08] Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan
In an action concerning defendant's denial of disability benefits under an ERISA plan, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) the court's case law prohibited courts from considering materials outside the administrative record where the extra-record materials sought to be introduced related to a claimant's eligibility for benefits; and 2) neither a claimant nor an administrator should be allowed to use discovery to engage in unnecessarily broad discovery that slows the efficient resolution of an ERISA claim.
[09/08] Brown v. Auto. Components Holdings, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for interference with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as defendant's termination of plaintiff's employment based on her noncompliance with its internal leave procedures did not violate the FMLA because the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff was absent without leave after failing to give proper FMLA notice for an extension of a previously requested leave period.
[09/08] U.S. ex rel. Poteet v. Bahler Med., Inc.
In plaintiff's qui tam action against 120 spine surgeons and eighteen medical device distributors claiming that defendants defrauded the federal government by unlawfully promoting the medical products of plaintiff's former employer and its parent company, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that the False Claims Act's (FCA) public disclosure provision barred her claims against the doctor defendants; 2) as used in the statute, "hearing" is synonymous with "proceeding," and because a disclosure in a civil complaint is a disclosure in a civil proceeding, the disclosures emanate from a statutorily listed source; 3) plaintiff's qui tam action is "based upon" the prior disclosures of fraud; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice; and 5) district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.
[09/07] Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger
In a class action against California officials with responsibility over the corrections system and parole proceedings, seeking accommodations to plaintiffs' disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution, the district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate the needs of class members housed in county jails and to ensure a workable grievance procedure for such class members is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants were responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees they housed in county jails; and 2) the district court made the findings required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) regarding the necessity for relief and the narrowness and lack of intrusiveness of the relief order. However, the order is vacated in part where injunctions, whether controlled by the PLRA or otherwise, required evidence of rights violations commensurate with the scope of the relief being ordered.
[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.
[09/02] Conservatorship of the Person & Estate of Carol K.
Trial court's judgment ordering a 62-year-old woman to be placed in a locked skilled nursing facility as the least restrictive placement, after the jury found the woman gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt, is affirmed where: 1) the issue is not moot because "collateral consequences remain even after the conservatorship has been terminated"; and 2) substantial evidence supports a finding that the woman is gravely disabled and cannot obtain food, clothing, or shelter.
[08/31] Florida Dep't of State v. Mangat
Judgment of the circuit court, finding that the ballot summary for Amendment 9, for creating a new section related to health care services in article I of the Florida Constitution, does not meet the requirements of section 101.161 and therefore may not be included on the November 2010 ballot is affirmed as, the ballot language put forth by the party proposing the constitutional amendment contains misleading and ambiguous language and the only recourse is to strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.
[08/31] Jones v. Astrue
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, the order is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ had no need to contact plaintiff's treating physician because there was no ambiguity to resolve in her report, and the report contained all the necessary information, including the results of diagnostic testing; 2) the ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain under Polaski; and 3) substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's decision.
[08/30] Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).
[08/30] In re R.R.
In dependency proceedings, juvenile court's order declaring petitioner-father's daughter a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b) based on the father's past and current drug use, is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court did not err in denying father's motion to quash subpoena of his hospitalization; 2) any error in not hearing the motion to quash was harmless because as a matter of substantive law the motion would have been denied as father's hospital records were admissible; 3) father's claim that his right to privacy was violated by dissemination of his medical records is rejected; 4) substantial evidence supported the finding that the daughter was a person described by section 300; and 5) juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering monitored visits.
[08/27] County of Butte v. California Emergency Med. Serv. Auth., Inc.
In a county's suit against the Emergency Medical Services Authority (Authority), seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate, arising from the county's designation of a local EMS agency to administer some of the requirements of the EMS Act, while reserving for another local agency all of the remaining statutory powers and duties not covered by the agreement, trial court's grant of Authority's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the plain language of the EMS Act precluded Butte County from creating a bifurcated local agency system; 2) the Authority has the statutory authority to review a local EMS agency's creation of an exclusive operating area (EOA) as part of the transportation portion of the local EMS plan, regardless of whether the EOA was created through a competitive process or grandfathering, and then to reject the local EMS plan if it is not "concordant and consistent with applicable guidelines or regulations, or both the guidelines and regulations, established by the Authority"; 3) the Authority's interpretation of the "manner and scope" language of section 1797.224 is a generally applicable policy subject to the rulemaking procedures of the APA, and because the Authority did not comply with those procedures, this interpretative regulation is void and not entitled to any deference; and 4) the fact that the Authority relied on an invalid regulation in rejecting the EOAs does not require reversal as the Authority did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the designation of EOAs based on lack of information provided by Nor-Cal EMS.
[08/27] Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp.
In plaintiff's suit against a hospital, claiming that its negligence contributed to cause his fall from a hospital bed, court of appeals' affirmance of trial court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) because the provision of a safe hospital bed was an inseparable part of the health care services provided during plaintiff's convalescence from back surgery, his cause of action for injuries allegedly caused by the unsafe bed is a health care liability claim under article 4590i; and 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing plaintiff's request for additional time to file the requisite expert report.
[08/27] Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pac. Rwy.
In an action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging that defendant-employer discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his disabilities and retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to show that any restrictions resulting from his monocular vision substantially limited his major life activities; and 2) plaintiff failed to present a submissible case that he was "regarded as" disabled.
