District Court, S.D. West Virginia — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Rubin v. United States
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1999-09-27 · cited 1×
This case is a wrongful death action brought by the administratrix of a decedent's estate against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that negligent medical care at a Veterans Administration Medical Center in West Virginia caused the decedent's death in 1994. The complaint claimed that government employees breached the standard of care by refilling and administering pain medications including morphine too frequently, failing to monitor the decedent's known medication abuse, and not providing adequate follow-up or counseling. The court had jurisdiction after the plaintiff satisfied the prerequisite administrative claim process under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2675(a) and West Virginia wrongful death statutes. After reviewing trial testimony from treating physicians and experts, depositions, medical records, and pharmacy printouts, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence and entered judgment for the United States.
torts & liabilityfederal powerhealthcare
Fraley v. Stoddard
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1999-04-08
This case consists of two related actions alleging medical malpractice by podiatrists in performing bunion surgery on plaintiff Willis Fraley and providing post-operative care that allegedly caused him to develop reflex sympathetic dystrophy, with his wife asserting a loss of consortium claim. One action is against the private podiatrist under diversity jurisdiction, while the other is against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for care provided by VA-employed podiatrists. The defendants moved in limine under Daubert to exclude the plaintiffs' expert podiatrist's testimony on causation and for summary judgment, to which the plaintiffs filed no formal response; the court held a hearing on the expert's qualifications and testimony. The opinion also addresses and denies the plaintiffs' motion for a continuance of trial, based on expired discovery deadlines under the scheduling order and the unavailability of alternative experts.
torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare
Watterson v. GMRI, Inc.
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1997-12-09 · cited 15×
The case involved a slip-and-fall personal injury suit brought in West Virginia state court by plaintiffs Jo Ann and Robert Watterson against defendant GMRI, Inc., in which the complaint specifically sought $74,500 in damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium. The defendant petitioned for removal to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the true amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 statutory threshold based on a prior $85,000 settlement demand and the plaintiffs' refusal to stipulate they would not seek more. The court reviewed precedents interpreting the amount-in-controversy requirement for removal and held that a defendant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that recovery above $75,000 is highly probable, considering factors such as actual expenses incurred and comparable verdicts. Because the defendant presented insufficient proof beyond settlement negotiations, the court concluded diversity jurisdiction was lacking and ordered the case remanded to state court.
proceduretorts & liability
Berlin v. United States
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1997-06-23 · cited 2×
The case involves a plaintiff's FTCA action seeking damages for injuries from a 1993 car accident allegedly caused by a Deputy U.S. Marshal's negligence. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiff failed to present a proper administrative claim to the Marshal Service within two years because his attorney's May 1995 letter did not state a sum certain for money damages or provide information to calculate it. The plaintiff countered that the letter, combined with his prior civil complaint filed before the deadline, satisfied the requirement or that the government was estopped from challenging timeliness based on agency communications. The court explained that FTCA claims require timely presentation of a sum-certain demand to the agency under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b) and 2675(a), that filing suit cannot substitute for an administrative claim, and that it would address whether the prior complaint amended the letter or estoppel applied.
proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power
Johnson v. UNIGLOBE/LYNDON TRAVEL, INC.
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1997-04-11
This case involved a dispute between the Johnsons, who purchased a one-third interest in a travel agency corporation, and the Delawders, who owned the remaining shares and managed the business. The Johnsons sued after conflicts arose over unpaid work by Mrs. Johnson, expense charges, roles in the business, and her exclusion from the premises via a state court injunction, leading to claims for economic damages and emotional distress. A jury awarded the Johnsons $26,000, but the Delawders moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50. The court granted the motion in part, ruling that the Johnsons had not established a basis to recover the value of Mrs. Johnson's unpaid services under the parties' agreement, but upheld other damage awards totaling $10,124 based on the jury's findings. The court therefore reduced the judgment accordingly while denying the motion as to the remaining amounts.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Reich v. Tri-State Energy Products, Inc.
District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1993-11-01 · cited 1×
This case involves a complaint by the Secretary of Labor under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent a bank holding a security interest and landlords asserting liens from selling or transporting personal property left at a closed manufacturing plant. The undisputed facts established that the employer, Tri-State, had ceased operations without paying employees minimum wages or overtime for work performed in August and September 1993, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207, rendering certain inventory, supplies, and finished goods 'hot goods' under the Act whose sale in commerce is prohibited by 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1). The parties disputed whether plant machinery and equipment also qualified as hot goods or instead fell within the ultimate-consumer exception of 29 U.S.C. § 203(i). The court granted motions to correct party names and add the landlords as defendants, found the violations, and noted the parties' agreement to maintain the status quo pending further order while they prepared a consent order.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory