Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A minor child suffering from a rare congenital condition required urgent medication, specifically Lupron Depot injections, to alleviate her symptoms. Her parents, after consulting with her physician, pursued this treatment and sought to fill the prescription through a specialty pharmacy owned by Walgreens. The process required prior authorization from the child’s health insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma. Walgreens investigated coverage, communicated the need for prior authorization to the physician, and placed the prescription on hold pending approval. Although the physician eventually obtained and sent the authorization, Walgreens closed the prescription file, and neither party followed up for nearly a month. The child was hospitalized twice during that period. After renewed urgency from the physician, Walgreens reopened the file, filled the prescription, and delivered the medication.The parents and child brought a negligence claim against Walgreens in Oklahoma state court, alleging Walgreens had promised to timely deliver the medication and breached a duty by not doing so. Walgreens removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, which applied Oklahoma law. Walgreens moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to fill the prescription until it had taken affirmative action after July 13, and citing state statutes and regulations that do not impose a general duty to fill prescriptions within a certain timeframe. The plaintiffs argued Walgreens owed a duty throughout the period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. It held that, under Oklahoma law, Walgreens owed no duty to fill the prescription before July 13, 2020, either by statute, regulation, or common law, and found no evidence of a promise or undertaking by Walgreens to do so. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Walgreens. View "Scholl v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who operated boarding schools and programs for troubled teens, was featured in a three-part documentary series that examined the troubled-teen industry and included depictions and commentary about his role in industry organizations and specific schools. The filmmaker, herself a former student at an affiliated program, created the series based on her personal experience and broader investigative reporting. The series, produced and distributed by a major streaming service, included segments which the plaintiff claimed falsely implied his responsibility for a teen’s death, omitted the ultimate dismissal of criminal charges against him following a facility raid in Costa Rica, and accused him of abusing children and committing crimes.The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, which included claims for defamation, defamation per se, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The court concluded that the challenged statements were either non-actionable opinions protected by law and the First Amendment, true, or not defamatory. The court also granted the defendants’ special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP statutes, awarding attorneys’ fees and costs, and declined to decide between Utah or California law because the outcome was the same under either.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that none of the challenged documentary segments were capable of defamatory meaning under Utah law or the First Amendment. The court found the statements to be either protected opinion, not materially false, or not objectively verifiable. The court also found the anti-SLAPP fee award appropriate and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding amendment and anti-SLAPP procedure, holding that any errors on those points were invited by the plaintiff’s own positions below. View "Lichfield v. Kubler" on Justia Law

A dairy farmer with extensive experience was injured when he dismounted a moving tractor manufactured by the defendant in order to retrieve an object in its path. The tractor continued moving forward, pulling an attached seed drill over the plaintiff and causing serious injuries. The tractor featured an electronic parking brake and a manual that included instructions such as not to get off the tractor while it was in motion, to apply the parking brake before leaving, and warnings about the parking brake’s operation. The plaintiff contended he believed the parking brake would stop the tractor automatically after he left his seat for five seconds, and thus did not fully stop the tractor before dismounting.The plaintiff sued the manufacturer in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting a failure to adequately warn about the tractor’s operation and initially alleging a design defect (later abandoned). After discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the danger was open and obvious, but the district court denied the motion. At trial, the jury found for the plaintiff and apportioned sixty percent fault to the defendant. The defendant’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, reconsidered judgment, and a new trial were all denied by the district court.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit applied Kansas substantive law and federal procedural standards, conducting de novo review. The court held that under Kansas product-liability law, the manufacturer had no duty to warn of the open and obvious danger of dismounting a moving tractor, as a reasonable operator should recognize the risk. The court determined this was a legal question suitable for resolution as a matter of law, given that the evidence pointed clearly in one direction. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and the jury verdict. View "Miller v. CNH Industrial America" on Justia Law

A surgery center performed a liposuction procedure on April Jenkins, who died during the operation. Her father, Hal Jenkins, engaged in negotiations with the center’s insurer, Prime Insurance Company, regarding liability. The policy had a $50,000 per occurrence limit, which decreased as Prime Insurance paid defense costs. After months of negotiations, Hal Jenkins sued the surgery center, CLJ Healthcare, LLC, and Prime Insurance offered the remaining policy limit. Jenkins rejected the offer. Subsequently, Jenkins learned of a separate $2 million policy through another insurer, Owners Insurance Company, and demanded payment from both insurers. Owners Insurance denied coverage. Jenkins and CLJ Healthcare entered into an agreement where Jenkins would receive an assignment of CLJ’s potential bad faith claim against Prime Insurance and CLJ would not defend itself in Jenkins’s malpractice suit. Jenkins then obtained an uncontested $60 million judgment against CLJ.Jenkins and CLJ sued Prime Insurance in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, alleging bad faith. The district court initially found the claim time-barred, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding the claim timely and remanded the case. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for Prime Insurance, concluding the evidence did not show bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that, under Utah law, an insurer generally has no duty to explain policy terms absent ambiguity or fraud, and Prime Insurance’s actions—including offering the policy limit and communicating with the insured—did not constitute bad faith. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Jenkins and CLJ had not provided evidence sufficient to support a claim of bad faith against Prime Insurance. View "Jenkins v. Prime Insurance" on Justia Law

Kyle Messerli died from acute intoxication after repeatedly inhaling Difluoroethane gas contained in computer duster cans, a practice known as “huffing.” He became addicted to the substance, using multiple cans daily, and ultimately overdosed. His father, Robbin Messerli, acting individually and as representative of Kyle’s estate, sued several manufacturers and distributors of the computer duster products. The lawsuit alleged that the companies knew their products were being abused but failed to take adequate steps to reduce harm, including ineffective warnings and product design changes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas reviewed the case. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Kansas law bars tort recovery when the plaintiff’s injuries result from their own illegal acts. The district court agreed, finding that the illegality defense—where a plaintiff’s illegal conduct proximately causes their injury—remains valid under Kansas law and was not abrogated by the state’s adoption of comparative fault principles. The court dismissed Messerli’s claims and denied his subsequent motion to certify the question to the Kansas Supreme Court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether the illegality defense applies to products liability actions under Kansas law. The court held that the defense is still available, as neither the Kansas Legislature nor the Kansas Supreme Court has abrogated it. The court further determined that Kansas’s comparative fault regime does not implicitly eliminate the illegality defense, which is grounded in public policy against allowing recovery for injuries caused by one’s own illegal acts. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Messerli’s claims. View "Messerli v. AW Distributing" on Justia Law

Eric Coomer, Ph.D., the former Director of Product Strategy and Safety at Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against several defendants, including Make Your Life Epic, LLC, Reopen America, LLC, and Clayton Thomas Clark. Joseph Oltmann, a nonparty to the lawsuit, was subpoenaed to testify and produce documents. Oltmann initially appeared for his deposition but left without authorization and later boasted about his actions on his podcast, disparaging the magistrate judge and suggesting violence.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held Oltmann in civil contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena and court orders. The court imposed a $1,000 per day fine until Oltmann complied and ordered him to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Oltmann appealed the Contempt Order, arguing that he properly invoked the newsperson’s privilege and that his due process rights were violated because the district court did not hold a hearing before issuing the Contempt Order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s Contempt Order. The appellate court held that Oltmann waived his arguments by not raising them specifically in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Contempt Order without a second hearing, as the material facts were undisputed. The appellate court further imposed sanctions on Oltmann, ordering him to pay Coomer’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the amount. View "Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic" on Justia Law

PorterCare Adventist Health Systems had inadequate surgical-sterilization procedures for about two years, leading to over $40 million in liability from thousands of patients' claims. PorterCare sought coverage from AdHealth, its excess-liability insurer, for the full $40 million policy limit, arguing that the claims arose from one medical incident. AdHealth refused coverage, asserting that a medical incident covers injuries to a single person, not multiple people, and filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. PorterCare counterclaimed for declaratory judgment and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment to AdHealth, agreeing with its interpretation that a medical incident is limited to the acts or omissions causing injury to one person. The court found that AdHealth owed coverage only for the claims of a single patient that trigger the excess policy’s liability threshold, not for multiple patients' claims grouped together.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the policy’s definition of “medical incident” unambiguously applies to the injuries of a single person. Therefore, AdHealth is liable only for individual claims exceeding PorterCare’s $2 million self-insurance retention, not for the aggregated claims of multiple patients. View "Adhealth, Limited v. PorterCare Adventist Health Systems" on Justia Law

Germaine Coulter was found guilty of child sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit child sex trafficking, resulting in a 360-month imprisonment sentence. The district court ordered Coulter to pay $386,000 in restitution to two victims. Coulter appealed, arguing that the government failed to prove he was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries and that the restitution amount was unsupported by evidence.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma initially handled the case, where Coulter was convicted by a jury on two counts. He appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both. Following the appeal, the government sought restitution, and the district court awarded $198,000 for Doe 1 and $188,000 for Doe 2, covering ten years of therapy, psychiatric treatment, and medication. The court rejected the government's request for lifetime treatment costs and lost wages, finding them speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government met its burden of proving Coulter was the but-for cause of the victims' injuries, as the expert testimony established a direct link between the victims' symptoms and the sex trafficking. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to limit the restitution to ten years, as it was a reasonable projection based on the evidence presented. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution award. View "United States v. Coulter" on Justia Law

Ricky Koel sought emergency care at Citizens Medical Center in Colby, Kansas, after sustaining serious injuries to his right eye. He was evaluated by a triage nurse, a physician assistant, and Dr. Daniel Kuhlman, who suspected a possible globe rupture. Dr. Sam Funk, an optometrist, also examined Koel but did not confirm an open globe rupture. A CT scan indicated a possible globe rupture, but Dr. Kuhlman did not share these results with the specialists. Koel was discharged with instructions to see an ophthalmologist the next morning. Despite undergoing emergency surgery the following day, Koel ultimately lost vision in his injured eye.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Koel's EMTALA claim, concluding that Citizens Medical Center did not violate the Act's requirements. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koel's state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Citizens Medical Center provided an appropriate medical screening examination within its capabilities and adhered to its own standard procedures, as required by EMTALA. The court also found that Citizens did not have actual knowledge of Koel's specific emergency medical condition (an occult globe rupture) and therefore was not obligated to stabilize him for that condition before discharge. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Citizens Medical Center. View "Koel v. Citizens Medical Center" on Justia Law

Jason Waterhouse, high on methamphetamine, barricaded himself in his sister's basement and started a fire when Lakewood Police Department officers arrived. After an hour of failed negotiations, seven officers entered the basement to extract him and locate the fire. Sergeant Marc Direzza, providing lethal cover, was among the last two officers in the basement when Waterhouse burst out of a bedroom and rushed towards them. Another officer fired a beanbag shotgun, and Direzza fired his pistol, killing Waterhouse with a shot to the back.The Estate of Jason Waterhouse filed a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Direzza, concluding he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Direzza's use of lethal force was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law. The district court also dismissed a state-law wrongful-death claim without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that Sergeant Direzza was entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that Direzza's use of lethal force was objectively reasonable given the dangerous circumstances, including the fire and smoke, and the perceived threat posed by Waterhouse. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful-death claim, as it was contingent on the outcome of the excessive-force claim. View "Estate of Jason Waterhouse v. Direzza" on Justia Law