Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Guzman, seven-and-a-half months pregnant, home alone, in bed, heard the doorbell and knocking. She walked toward the door. Sergeant Bonnstetter of the Chicago Police Department burst through the door. Officers wearing body armor rushed in, many with guns drawn. Guzman, fearful and crying, was ordered to lie face down on the floor. When she tried to position herself more comfortably, Rojas forced her down, pressing her pregnant belly against the floor. The Joint Gang Task Force executed a warrant, searching the apartment for about an hour. Guzman sued. The district court entered summary judgment in her favor, finding Bonnstetter and Rojas liable. At a damages-only trial, Guzman proved medical expenses. The court allowed defendants to testify that the search was legal and reasonable and that others might have caused Guzman’s injuries. The court instructed the jury that Guzman had to prove that Bonnstetter and Rojas were “personally involved” and could not be held “liable” for the conduct of “other employees.” The court instructed the jury to award nominal damages if Guzman failed to prove that her damages were the direct result of defendants’ conduct. Guzman was awarded $1. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Defendants’ theory of the case and evidence and the instruction likely confused the jury. View "Guzman v. Bonnstetter" on Justia Law

Aschermann suffers from degenerating discs and spondylolisthesis and had lumbar fusion operations in 2002 and 2004. Until 2003 she worked as a sales representative. Back pain left her unable to perform its duties. Between 2003 and 2009 she received disability payments under the employer’s disability plan, a welfare-benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The policy provides that after the first two years of benefits, the question becomes whether the recipient can perform any job in the economy as a whole. Lumbermens stopped paying disability benefits to Aschermann in fall 2009, concluding that she could do sedentary work. The district court held that the decision to end her disability benefits was not arbitrary. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Aschermann does not deny that her education B.S. in psychology and master’s degree in social work and experience suit her for many desk-bound positions, but claimed inability to work more than four hours a day. The insurer gave notice complying with ERISA, (29 U.S.C. §1133(1), that it wanted new diagnostic test results and other recent information; she was given a “reasonable opportunity” to supplement the file and receive a “full and fair review.” View "Aschermann v. Aetna Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Industrial grease, propelled in a jet with enough energy to penetrate and pass through the human body like a bullet, hit and disabled a worker at a steel rolling mill. At trial the jury found that the accident was caused by a design defect in a heavy industrial product designed and manufactured by Xtek and installed in the mill. That equipment contained an internal spring that could exert over 10,000 pounds of force. The jury accepted the theory of plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Hutter, that the spring was the culprit mechanism behind the accident and that an alternative design of a thrust plate in the equipment would have prevented the disabling accident. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in denying Daubert motion that sought to bar Dr. Hutter from offering his expert opinions, which were essential to the plaintiffs’ case. The purpose of the Daubert inquiry is to scrutinize proposed expert witness testimony to determine if it has “the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field” so as to be deemed reliable enough to present to a jury. View "Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc." on Justia Law

Shideler suffers osteogenesis imperfecta, “brittle bone disease.” In 2006, at age 48, he applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. 423(d), alleging an onset date of 1995. His date last insured was 2000. The ALJ found that despite Shideler’s limitations, there were a sufficient number of jobs in the regional economy available to a person with his restrictions, and denied his application. The Appeals Council denied review. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record supported the vocational expert’s testimony concerning available jobs as a clerk, assuming certain restrictions: never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and only occasionally climb ramps or stairs; never crouch, kneel or crawl; never perform overhead reaching; avoid exposure to extreme heat and cold; and perform work that includes occasional, but not frequent, use of fingers. Despite his testimony that he had broken at least 55 bones over the course of his life, the record showed that Shideler had only four surgeries and made a full recovery. The record contained no evidence that Shideler visited any doctors between May 2000 and December 2006. View "Shideler v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Budrik sued Wegman for injuries sustained in an accident on a construction site managed by Wegman and was demanding almost presented a realistic possibility of a potential loss above the policy limit, $1 million), but failed to warn Wegman of this possibility. Wegman sued Admiral for failure to act in good faith, alleging that it would promptly have sought indemnity from its excess insurer, AIG (policy limit $10 million). Budrik filed suit four years before Wegman notified AIG, which denied coverage for failure to timely notify. Budrik obtained a judgment of slightly more than $2 million. The district court dismissed Wegman’s suit against Admiral, and, on remand, granted a stay, pending state court resolution of Wegman’s suit against AIG. The Seventh Circuit dismissed appeal of the stay. Although Wegman’s suit against Admiral in federal court and against AIG in state court, are related, they do not satisfy the conditions for abstention.; the district court is not finished with the case. The stay really is a stay, and not a dismissal. View "R.C. Wegman Constr. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co." on Justia Law

While working as a flight attendant, LeGrande was injured when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674, alleging that air traffic controllers employed by the FAA negligently had failed to warn the flight’s captain that turbulence had been forecast along the flight path. The district court concluded that FAA employees did not breach any duty owed LeGrande and granted summary judgment for the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. LeGrande argued, for the first time, that her injuries resulted from the negligence of a National Weather Service meteorologist. The court concluded that the FAA breached no duty owed to LeGrande and that LeGrande failed to give the NWS the notice that the FTCA requires. View "LeGrande v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2008, Sojka was working on the upper floors of the Chicago Trump Tower construction project, trying to repair a steel cable that held safety netting around the upper floors of the project when the wind knocked him back and a piece of metal struck his eye, causing severe injuries. Although Sojka was wearing safety glasses at the time, they apparently did not fit his face properly. He sued the construction manager, which moved for summary judgment on the ground that it did not owe Sojka any duty of care to provide a safe workplace, and that even if it did it had not breached such a duty because it had no knowledge that the safety glasses were inadequate to prevent the injury. Sojka failed to address this argument in his response and the court granted the motion. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Although the court was correct that Sojka conceded the eyewear point by failing to respond, it took too narrow a view of Sojka’s case. His response addressed several other ways in which defendant’s negligence allegedly caused his injuries. A dispute of material fact remains on those theories. View "Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc." on Justia Law

TAMS, a medical device manufacturer, hired Comtrans to coordinate shipment of equipment to a trade show in Chicago. Comtrans is not a carrier. It used its affiliate, ACS, which retained Atlas to perform the actual shipment. The Atlas truck was involved in a serious accident, leaving TAMS with more than $1 million in losses. TAMS’s insurance company sued on behalf of TAMS. Atlas is an interstate motor carrier authorized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to transport goods in interstate commerce. Claims are subject to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 14706, which provides that a carrier of property in interstate commerce is liable for the actual loss or injury to the property caused b” the carrier, which may be limited “to a value established by written or electronic declaration of the shipper or by written agreement between the carrier and shipper if that value would be reasonable under the circumstances.” Atlas relied on the contract it had in place with ACS and the bill of lading delivered signed by a Comtrans warehouse manager when Atlas picked up TAMS’s shipment, as limiting liability to $0.60 per pound. The district court entered summary judgment for Atlas. The Seventh Circuit remanded for further development of the facts. View "Nipponkoa Ins. Co., L v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

A former inmate sued under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.794–94e, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111–213, and the Eighth Amendment, claiming that prison officials ignored his need for placement in an ADA-compliant facility, and refused to consider him for a work-release program solely because he walks with a cane. Imprisoned for driving on a suspended license, the inmate had advanced osteoarthritis and vascular necrosis in his hip. The prison declined his request for installation of grab bars or for a transfer. The district court screened the complaint before service and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit vacated. While the court correctly dismissed the Eighth Amendment count, the inmate adequately alleged that refusal to accommodate his disability kept him from accessing meals and showers on the same basis as other inmates. View "Jaros v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Siblings of decedent, a 22-year-old inmate who committed suicide while incarcerated, sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that staff members acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition involving a long history of suicide attempts, self-harm, and mental illness. The district court granted qualified immunity to the management level defendants, the Wisconsin Resource Center defendants, and the nurse who was called after the suicide, but denied qualified immunity to staff members. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the different levels of knowledge available to the defendants and that there is a clearly established right to be free from deliberate indifference to suicide