THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Torts -- Employer-employee relations -- Defamation -- Whistle-blowers -- Wrongful termination -- Appeals -- No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendants on defamation claims where none of plaintiff's witnesses were able to testify to personal knowledge of hearing anyone state the allegedly defamatory rumors -- Existence of rumor itself was insufficient basis to infer that rumor was started and spread by individual defendant managers -- Appellate court lacks jurisdiction over portion of appeal challenging entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim for wrongful termination in violation of Whistleblowers' Act -- Order granting summary judgment on wrongful termination claim is a nonfinal, nonappealable order where issues are intertwined with plaintiff's pending claim that she suffered further retaliation in violation of the Whistleblowers' Act based on defendant's filing of counterclaims against her in the underlying action
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Evidence -- Expert -- Same specialty -- New trial -- Action alleging that defendant vascular surgeon ordered medically unnecessary tests and committed medical negligence, brought by plaintiff who suffered kidney damage following arterial surgery -- Trial court erred by allowing an expert nephrologist to testify and provide opinions on the standard of care for a vascular surgeon from the “standpoint” of a nephrologist -- An expert witness may not testify to the professional standard of care against a specialist unless that expert witness specializes in the same specialty as the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered -- Court rejects argument that expert did not testify regarding the professional standard of care for a vascular surgeon -- Although expert couched statements by describing what he would have done as a nephrologist, he still testified as to what defendant should have done -- Because the determination of whether the decision to perform a procedure turns on what is customary in a given field, expert's testimony that he would not have ordered the testing defendant ordered was a direct comment on the prevailing professional standard of care for a health care provider engaged in defendant's specialty -- Erroneous admission of standard of care testimony from an expert of a different specialty was not harmless -- Remand for new trial
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Workers' compensation -- Appeals -- Timeliness -- Tolling -- Separation of powers -- Claimant's notice of appeal was timely where, although notice was filed more than thirty days after rendition of final compensation order, period for filing notice of appeal was tolled under rule 9.020(h) because judge of compensation claims had not yet rendered an order disposing of claimant's motion for rehearing -- Rule promulgated by Office of Judges of Compensation Claims, which states that a motion for rehearing “does not toll the time within which an order becomes final or an appeal may be filed,” cannot be applied to bar operation of rule 9.020(h) -- OJCC lacks authority to promulgate rules that would govern appellate proceedings in district courts -- Additionally, OJCC's administrative rule impedes the policy behind the supreme court's tolling rule -- Appellate procedure in district court, especially when it affects timeliness and jurisdiction, is governed by the supreme court's promulgated rules, not by the OJCC's administrative rules -- Fact that JCC rendered written order granting claimant's motion for rehearing under grant of concurrent jurisdiction leaves district court without an order to review -- Appeal dismissed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Rules of Criminal Procedure -- Amendment -- Post conviction relief -- Ineffective assistance of counsel -- Newly discovered evidence -- Post conviction DNA testing -- Appeals
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of Criminal Procedure -- Amendment -- Pretrial release -- Nonmonetary conditions
VIEW OPINION (login required)