Skip to main content

Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.

E.D. Va.March 24, 2017No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16cv229Cited 36 times
Motion To Dismiss DeniedNaphCare, Inc.

Case Details

Judge(s)
Smith
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
motion to dismiss
Circuit
4th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff sufficiently stated claims for negligence, gross negligence, and deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against NaphCare Health Services Administrator. The court overruled all objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion.

What This Ruling Means

**Adams v. NaphCare, Inc.: Court Allows Medical Negligence Claims to Proceed** This case involved a worker named Adams who sued NaphCare, Inc., a company that provides healthcare services, claiming the company failed to provide proper medical care. Adams alleged that NaphCare was negligent, grossly negligent, and violated civil rights by not delivering adequate medical treatment. NaphCare tried to get the case thrown out of court before trial by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that Adams hadn't provided enough evidence to support the claims. However, the court disagreed and denied NaphCare's request. The judge found that Adams had presented sufficient facts to support claims of negligence, gross negligence, and civil rights violations. This means the case can move forward to the next stage of litigation. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that courts will protect employees' rights to proper medical care from employer-provided healthcare services. Workers who believe they received inadequate medical treatment from company healthcare providers may have legal grounds to pursue claims for negligence and civil rights violations. The decision demonstrates that companies cannot easily escape responsibility for substandard medical care by getting cases dismissed early in the legal process.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Day
S.D. OhioDec 2019
Dismissed
Adams
E.D. Va.Mar 2017
Unresolvable
Ronnie Tejada and Rose Tejada as Next Friend of Kelsey Tejada and Kaylee Tejada v. Naphcare, Inc. and Virgilio Gernale
Tex. App.—1st Dist.Aug 2011
Plaintiff Win
Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co
COLOCTAPPMay 2018

Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years

Defendant Win
Kahn
Cal. SupremeAug 2003
Plaintiff Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.