Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Cynthia Bowen purchased an insurance policy from Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("Farm Bureau") for her pick-up truck. She was injured when an employee of Menard, Inc. ("Menards") accidentally dropped a large board on her while helping load her truck at a store. Bowen sued Menards for damages, alleging negligence. Menards then filed an action against Farm Bureau seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to a defense and indemnification from Farm Bureau under Bowen's insurance policy. The district court ruled in favor of Menards, finding that Menards and its employee were covered insureds under the policy and that no policy exclusion applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the policy's "Intrafamily Immunity" exclusion applied to the case. This exclusion stated that there was no coverage for any bodily injury to any "insured," which, in this case, included both Bowen and Menards. Therefore, the policy provided no liability coverage for Bowen's claim against Menards, another insured party. The court rejected the district court's reasoning that the term "intrafamily" limited the application of the exclusion, finding that the plain meaning of the operative policy provision prevailed. The court also rejected Menards' argument that Farm Bureau was estopped from asserting this defense to coverage. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that Farm Bureau was not obligated to provide defense and indemnification for Menards in connection with the lawsuit brought by Bowen. View "Menard, Inc. v. Farm Bureau P&C Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit examined claims by Colleen M. Johnson against her former employer, Midwest Division-RBH, LLC (Belton Regional Medical Center), her supervisor Patrick Avila, and her replacement Nicole Pasley. Johnson had been on medical leave for nine months due to heart-related issues when she informed Belton Regional that she could not give a return date. The next day, the company terminated her employment. Johnson sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), claiming age and disability discrimination, and also brought common law claims for emotional distress, defamation, and property damage. The district court dismissed the common law claims and granted summary judgment on the MHRA claims.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that her common law claims were not preempted by the MHRA, ruling that the MHRA provided the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of an employment relationship and that she had fraudulently joined the Missouri defendants to prevent removal. The court also found that Johnson could not establish a prima facie case of age or disability discrimination under the MHRA because she did not provide evidence that her age or disability was the “determinative influence” on her termination. Instead, the court concluded that Johnson was fired due to her refusal to provide a date when she would return from medical leave, not because of her age or disability. Finally, the court ruled that Johnson had waived her argument of constructive discharge by failing to provide meaningful legal analysis in her opposition to summary judgment. View "Johnson v. Midwest Division - RBH, LLC" on Justia Law

In November 2020, Autumn Hilger visited the Mount Rushmore National Memorial and slipped on a temporary access mat that was installed due to renovations, which resulted in her breaking her wrist. Hilger filed a negligence claim against the United States Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking $2 million for her injuries. The Government denied her claim, leading her to sue and allege that the National Park Service (NPS), a government agency, negligently installed and maintained the access mat and failed to warn of its danger. The district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA. Hilger appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court used a two-step test to determine whether the discretionary-function exception applies, first asking whether the challenged conduct or omission is discretionary, meaning it involves judgment or choice and is not controlled by mandatory statutes or regulations. Hilger had conceded in her appeal that there were no such controlling statutes or regulations, leading the court to agree with the district court that the challenged conduct was discretionary. The second inquiry was whether the judgment or choice was based on considerations of social, economic, and political policy. The court found that Hilger's complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to rebut the presumption that the discretion was grounded in policy considerations. The court concluded that the decisions regarding the mat were susceptible to policy analysis and that safety concerns, which Hilger argued were key in this case, are a typical policy consideration when applying the discretionary-function exception. As such, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Hilger's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Hilger v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s son spent several months at a medium-security facility in St. Louis called “the Workhouse.” None of the guards saw Plaintiff’s son receive or take fentanyl, the drug that killed him. Inmates tried to help by rubbing ice on him once he lost consciousness. Upon arriving a few minutes later, three Officers radioed for medical assistance. In the meantime, rather than try to resuscitate Plaintiff’s son themselves, they stood by and watched as two inmates tried to help him. When trained medical personnel finally arrived four minutes later, it was too late: they were unable to revive Plaintiff’s son, who died from an overdose. Surveillance footage captured some, but not all, of these events. Plaintiff’s mother sued the City of St. Louis, the three responding officers, and two supervisors for their deliberate indifference. The district court denied summary judgment to the responding officers.   The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the district court misstated the burden and relied on allegations from an unverified complaint to deny summary judgment. The court wrote that the district court erred in how it dealt with the gaps in the video footage. Instead of relying on other evidence to fill in the missing details, the findings mirrored what the plaintiff’s unverified complaint said. The court wrote that unsworn allegations are no substitute for evidence at summary judgment. The court explained that the district court tilted the scales too far in the Plaintiff’s favor by raising the summary-judgment burden on the officers and allowing unsworn allegations to rebut evidence. View "Janice Washington v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Kenneth Kraemer and Kraemer Farms, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), against United Dairies, other dairy farms, and their partners and agents (“Defendants”) alleging that they knowingly filed false crop insurance claims. Plaintiffs’ FCA Complaint alleged that Defendants (1) fraudulently obtained crop insurance payments by falsely reporting a silage-use-only variety of corn as grain and using that false statement to obtain the payments, and (2) were unjustly enriched by receiving the payments. The district court held that Defendants submitted materially false claims but denied Plaintiffs FCA relief because they failed to prove that Defendants knowingly defrauded the United States. However, the court found that certain Defendants had been unjustly enriched and awarded damages to the United States. The United States then filed a post-trial motion urging the district court to vacate or amend its judgment because Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek common law unjust enrichment relief on behalf of the United States. The district court granted the motion and vacated its judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FCA claims must be affirmed even if Plaintiffs are correct that the district court erred in ruling that any violations were not knowing. The court wrote that because it concludes that Defendants in submitting Acreage Reporting Forms supporting their crop insurance applications did not submit materially false claims for crop insurance payments, Plaintiffs contention -the district court applied the wrong legal standard in denying FCA relief on other grounds is of no moment. View "United States ex rel. Kenneth Kraemer v. United Dairies, L.L.P." on Justia Law

After suffering a stroke, Mary, a member of the Brentwood Hutterite Brethren, received care at a Select Specialty Hospital. During her time at Select, she was covered by Brentwood’s insurance. But after Mary applied for and received Medicaid, it retroactively covered her time at Select. Select accepted $300,000 from Medicaid for Mary’s care—far less than it was expecting from Mary’s Brentwood insurance. Select sought payment from Brentwood, the Hutterite Brethren General Fund (the Fund), and South Dakota Medical Holdings Company (Dakotacare) for breach of contract. It also sought damages from Brentwood and the Fund for fraud and deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Brentwood, the Fund, and Dakotacare. On appeal, Select argues that Brentwood and the Fund breached their contractual obligations by refusing to pay for Mary’s treatment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Select has already accepted money from Medicaid “as payment in full” for Mary’s care. Under 42 C.F.R. Section 447.15, “the Medicaid agency must limit participation in the Medicaid program to providers who accept, as payment in full, the amounts paid by the agency.” The court wrote that as a Medicaid program participant, Select must follow this regulation. The central issue here is whether Section 447.15’s “payment in full” provision bars Select from pursuing third parties like Brentwood and the Fund after accepting payment from Medicaid. The court wrote that in its view, Section  447.15’s “payment in full” language is plain and unambiguous: Once Select accepted payment from Medicaid, it was paid in full for Mary’s care. View "Select Specialty Hospital v. Brentwood Hutterian, Brethren" on Justia Law

In June 2020, Plaintiff’s father died from COVID-19. He allegedly contracted the disease at his nursing home, NHC HealthCare-Maryland Heights, LLC. Plaintiff brought suit in Missouri state court against the nursing home, three corporate entities that own the facility, and twelve administrators and medical professionals employed by NHC HealthCare-Maryland Heights, LLC. The nursing home and the three corporate entities removed the case to federal court, but the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court. The NHC entities appealed and argued that removal was proper.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the remand order of the district court. The court explained that the PREP Act immunizes covered individuals from suit for injuries “caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.” The Act provides no immunity where a covered person’s “willful misconduct” is the proximate cause of a person’s injuries. The statute creates an exclusive federal cause of action for claims based on willful misconduct. The court explained that the NHC entities assert that the nursing home “acted under” the direction of a federal officer because the government designated nursing homes as “critical infrastructure” during the COVID-19 pandemic and subjected these facilities to extensive regulation. However compliance with even pervasive federal regulation is not sufficient to show that a private entity acted under the direction of a federal officer. Thus, the court found that removal is not authorized under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442. View "Zane Cagle v. NHC Healthcare" on Justia Law

L.W.’s appendix ruptured during her incarceration, and she subsequently died from sepsis. Plaintiff, as special administrator of L.W.’s estate, filed suit against the county in which L.W. was incarcerated, as well as against the individuals involved in her incarceration and medical care, alleging civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and tort claims under state law. The medical malpractice claim against the jail physician, Defendant, went to trial. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Plaintiff’s evidence. The district court granted the motion. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff and awarded $1.3 million in damages. The district court granted Defendant a credit against the verdict for the value of the settlement, amending the judgment to $800,000. Defendant appealed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the medical malpractice claim. Plaintiff appealed the grant of judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages claim, as well as the grant of credit against the verdict.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it does not believe that the court’s decision to preclude the use of legal terms like “reckless” would have had any bearing on its decision to grant judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages. The court explained that it does not matter that separate wrongdoings caused L.W.’s injuries. UCATA does not focus on the cause of the injury or the policy reason for imposing liability. It focuses on the injury, which Plaintiff has alleged is the same for the Section 1983 claims as it is for the medical malpractice claim View "Christine Turner v. Garry Stewart, M.D." on Justia Law

Robert Half International, Inc. (“RHI”) provides legal staffing solutions for its clients. Plaintiff worked for RHI as a contract attorney performing document review. Plaintiff was employed on various projects on an as-needed basis. Defendants Marcia Miller and Theresa Hodnett were Plaintiff’s coworkers and had no supervisory duties related to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Miller, Hodnett, and other coworkers engaged in a pattern of discrimination and harassment toward her. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of her claims against Marcia Miller and Theresa Hodnett.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The court explained the relevant conduct at issue here is RHI’s continuous employment of Miller following the doorway incident. The court explained that no reasonable jury could find this conduct rises to the requisite level necessary to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff asserts that Miller committed a battery against her during the doorway incident. In Minnesota, the battery is an intentional and offensive contact with another person.   Further, the court wrote that it reviewed the video footage of the alleged trip and find there is sufficient evidence in the video to create a factual dispute as to whether Miller intended to lift her leg, make contact with Plaintiff, and cause Plaintiff to trip. Because of the factual dispute, summary judgment on this claim is improper the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s battery claim and remand. View "May Yang v. Robert Half Int., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a diversity action in the District of Nebraska against Defendant, seeking damages for losses allegedly caused by an auto accident in 2015. Defendant’s Answer admitted that her negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. After protracted discovery disputes over expert witness disclosures, the district court excluded all of Plaintiff’s numerous treating physician witnesses for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the summary judgment record supports the district court’s conclusion that the treating physician’s letter “demonstrates that his causation opinion was not formed during his treatment of Plaintiff.” Therefore, the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in determining that the physician was a prospective expert witness subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and excluding his testimony for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with that Rule. View "J.T. Johnson, Jr. v. Jenna Friesen" on Justia Law