Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a machine repairman at a glass bottling plant filed a personal injury lawsuit against Arkema, Inc., the designer and manufacturer of a device known as a C-4 Hood. Plaintiff claimed that the C-4 Hood, to which he worked in close proximity, proximately caused his restrictive lung disease and pulmonary fibrosis. After excluding the opinions of Plaintiff's expert witnesses on the element of causation, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Arkema because Plaintiff was unable to prove causation without the opinions of his excluded causation experts. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects except as to Plaintiff's claims regarding his acute injuries, as Plaintiff's acute injuries were within those limited circumstances where expert opinion was unnecessary. Remanded for further proceedings concerning Johnson's alleged acute injuries. View "Johnson v. Arkema, Inc." on Justia Law

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on its claim of fraud and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against defendants. Defendants' misrepresentations induced plaintiff to settle the asbestos exposure claims of two former employees whom defendants represented in a state-court lawsuit. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively that the case called for Burford abstention. Defendants also contended that the evidence established their statute-of-limitations and waiver defenses as a matter of law. The court concluded, however, that defendants misconceived the legal authorities relevant to their jurisdiction, abstention, and waiver arguments. Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Guy, et al." on Justia Law

Mid-Continent appealed the district court's final judgment that it had a duty to indemnify Davis Construction in the underlying wrongful death action brought by the family of decedent Jorge Serrato. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Serrato was an independent contractor and not an employee of Davis Construction. View "Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Davis, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the former employer of a retired longshoreman, challenged a Benefits Review Board (BRB) decision that overruled an ALJ twice and held petitioner liable for the longshoreman's hearing loss. The court held that the BRB erred in rejecting expert evidence in part and in then rejecting the ALJ's first conclusion based on his evaluation of the evidence. Further, the court need not reach the aggravation rule issue raised by petitioner. Because the BRB initially applied the wrong legal test and standard of review to the ALJ's decision, the court reversed. View "Ceres Gulf, Inc. v. DOWCP, et al" on Justia Law

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on its claims of fraud and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against defendants where defendants' misrepresentations induced plaintiff to settle the asbestos exposure claims of two of plaintiff's employees whom defendants represented in a state-court lawsuit. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively that the case called for Burford v. Sun Oil Co. abstention. Defendants also contended that the trial evidence established their statute-of-limitations and waiver defenses as a matter of law. The court held that defendants misconceived the legal authorities relevant to their jurisdiction, abstention, and waiver arguments. Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Guy, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff sought workers' compensation from Wal-Mart's carrier after she suffered a lower-back injury on July 28, 1997. At issue was whether a claim for a bad faith denial of workers' compensation benefits was untimely brought by plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff's original claim was barred by Mississippi's three-year statute of limitations. Her new allegations as to a continuing violation and other instances of bad faith did not state a claim. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the entirety of her second amended complaint. View "Patrick v. Wal-Mart, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

C&MI was a company that recycled hazardous compounds used by manufacturers and Honeywell was one of its clients. An employee of Honeywell died from exposure to toxins released from a container that C&MI had mislabeled as holding a non-toxic refrigerant. It actually contained highly toxic industrial waste. C&MI subsequently entered into a written agreement with the government by which it agreed to plead guilty to negligent endangerment that resulted in death. The sentence included a $1,000,000 fine and a restitution award of $2,000,000. The court held that there was no evidence to support either amount. Therefore, the court modified the fine and vacated the restitution order, affirming the judgment. View "United States v. Chemical & Metal Ind." on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in denying their motions to remand and in dismissing their workplace safety claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Dresser failed to properly monitor and mitigate exposure to loud noise at Dresser's industrial facility and that these failures led to long-term hearing loss. The court concluded that Dresser owed plaintiffs duties under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and simultaneously owed non-negotiable, independent duties under Louisiana tort law. These duties formed the bases for two distinct types of claims - contract and tort - either of which plaintiffs could have brought before the district court. Plaintiffs chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims could be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court's construction of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded. View "McKnight v. Dresser, Inc.; Lachney v. Dresser, Inc.; Anderson, et al. v. Dresser, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was dismissed from the East Baton Rouge police training program after falling asleep in class and purportedly making inappropriate sexual comments. Plaintiff subsequently demanded a name-clearing hearing from the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff but was denied. Plaintiff then brought federal and state law claims against the Sheriff for his failure to grant the hearing and for potentially defamatory statements made regarding plaintiff's dismissal. Because plaintiff had failed to present competent summary judgment evidence, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff. View "Bellard v. Gautreaux, III" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of the Railroad for nearly 40 years, filed suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., claiming that the injuries to his knees, diagnosed after his retirement, were partly the result of the Railroad's negligence. A jury found such a connection and awarded damages. The court held that the evidence was insufficient on causation where no evidence was introduced to connect the worker's specific condition to the work that he performed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment.