Microsoft's fighting class certification on an Iowa suit. The suit alleges Microsoft overcharged the direct purchasers, and those purchasers in turn passed on the overcharges to the ultimate buyers. Microsoft is arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs must prove up the exact damages of each proposed member of the class:
On a motion for class certification in an antitrust action, the pivotal elements are impact and damages to the class members. Under well-established law, plaintiffs must demonstrate at the time class certification is sought that they have devised a viable method that can show, through common proof, that each class member suffered impact and the amount of damages each sustained.
The Court disagrees.
In a malpractice suit against the Wolfe Clinic for allegedly botching a LASIK procedure, the Court upheld the dismissal of the case for being filed beyond the statute of limitations. You've only got two years to file a suit once you know, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, of the injury for which damages are sought. If you don't make it, and you don't fall into one of the limited exceptions, you're out. Do not pass go. In this case, the plaintiff was trying get Iowa to accept the "continuous treatment doctrine" that is recognized in some other states. The basics:
if the treatment by the doctor is a continuing course and the patient’s disease or condition is of such a nature as to impose on the doctor a duty of continuing treatment and care, the statute does not commence running until treatment by the [doctor] for the particular disease or condition involved has terminated, unless during the course of treatment the patient learns or should reasonably have learned of the harm, in which case the statute runs from the time of knowledge, actual or constructive.
The Court declined to adopt the doctrine, at least on this case, because the evidence showed that the plaintiff knew that the LASIK probably caused his eye problems over two years before the filing, and "If there is actual proof that the patient knows or reasonably should know of the injury or harm before termination of medical treatment, the statute of limitations is not tolled."
In an inmate suit, the Court analyzed the provisions in the Iowa Code requiring the courts to tack on the jail's room and board charges as part of restitution. Specifically, the inmates challenged Iowa Code section 356.7(3), which states in part that "Upon receipt of a claim for room and board reimbursement, the court shall approve the claim in favor of the sheriff or the county for the amount owed by the prisoner as identified in the claim and any fees or charges associated with the filing or processing of the claim with the court." (emphasis mine). They alleged that this provision required the court to essentially act as a rubber-stamp to any claim presented by the Sheriff, usurping the court's right to determine the reasonableness of the charges, a serious intrusion by another branch of government into the area of responsibility constitutionally vested in the court. The Court agreed that if the provision did prohibit the courts from assessing reasonableness of the fees, it would be constitutionally problematic. So it interpreted the section as a "grant of authority to the court to resolve the merits of the claim—not a mandate that it simply sign the order as a ministerial function." Given the prisoners had already had a hearing on the reasonableness issue, despite their complaints that by the language on its face the statute would preclude one, the problem was solved.
Finally, State v. Meadows indicates that if a trucker applies for a special permit to carry an overweight load, and is approved for a particular route to avoid a weight-restricted bridge, DO NOT vary the route. The defendant got caught off the approved route and the court found that utterly voided his permit, exposing him to charges for the full amount of weight violations. It cites an earlier case in which the court held that in a case where a trucker who got a special overweight permit but then hauled a heavier load than allowed by the permit, he rendered his permit void and was subject to an overweight violation, not only to the extent that his load exceeded that which was authorized by the permit, but for the full extent that his load exceeded the generally applicable statutory limits. In other words, don't screw with the IDOT or they will screw you. (Okay, I had to find a way to work that in. It seems to be a theme day).
No comments:
Post a Comment