Michael Francis Urbanski

This case involved a premises liability claim by plaintiff Lisa Harrison against Kroger after she slipped and fell on a small puddle of pink liquid in a store aisle in August 2006. Harrison filed suit alleging negligence, claiming Kroger failed to maintain safe premises. The court granted Kroger's motion for summary judgment, holding that Harrison failed to present evidence that Kroger created the hazard or had actual or constructive notice of the spill before the fall. The decision rested on Virginia negligence law requiring proof of notice for such claims, with the record showing employees had inspected the area shortly before without seeing any substance and no indication of how long the liquid had been present.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Rhonda Walker sued the Commissioner of Social Security seeking review of the denial of her claim for supplemental security income benefits based on back pain and anxiety. The court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence as to Walker's physical impairments and her mental condition prior to 2006. It remanded the case for further administrative proceedings to evaluate the impact of her mental impairments on functional capacity beginning April 25, 2006, the date of her first psychiatric hospitalization, because the record contained no medical opinions addressing her condition after multiple 2006 inpatient stays and 2007 outpatient treatment. The court directed the Commissioner to obtain a consultative psychiatric examination to aid in that assessment.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involves plaintiff Molly Billings' claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act that her termination from Stonewall Jackson Hospital was due to her disability from breast cancer and related lifting restrictions. Billings moved to compel the deposition testimony of the hospital's in-house attorney and human resources consultant regarding their discussions about her termination. The court denied the motion, holding that the communications were protected by attorney-client privilege because they were confidential and made for the purpose of seeking legal advice. The court found no waiver from prior disclosures to the EEOC or in discovery responses, as those materials did not reveal the substance of the privileged conversations, and rejected the crime-fraud exception due to lack of evidence of evidence fabrication.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit in which defendant Yorktowne Cabinetry moved to bar plaintiff's counsel from further ex parte contacts with its former employees, to obtain notes from a prior interview with former HR manager Anne Goins, and to disqualify counsel. The court denied the motion in full. It held that Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 and its comments expressly permit ex parte communications with former employees of an opposing organization, even those who were once in the control group, provided counsel does not seek privileged or confidential information. The court distinguished contrary precedent and noted that ethics opinions and the majority of other jurisdictions reach the same conclusion.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns Martinsville Cable's attempt to exercise a contractual right to match an offer to purchase Adelphia's cable television assets in Martinsville and Henry County, which stemmed from franchise agreements and local ordinances. Martinsville Cable, created as a vehicle for the City of Martinsville, sought a declaratory judgment that the sale to Time Warner and Comcast was subject to that right. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The core reasoning was that Virginia's Municipal Cable Law required the City to hold hearings, conduct a feasibility study, and hold a referendum before owning or operating such assets, which it failed to do; the City could not bypass these rules by acting indirectly through Martinsville Cable or claim a grandfather exception, and it also failed to properly or timely match the offer.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Joseph Francis Powers, a convicted felon, who was charged with multiple counts including felon-in-possession of firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), possession of unregistered firearms under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), felon-in-possession of explosives, and related explosives offenses after authorities found over sixty firearms, ammunition, and military-grade C-4 plastic explosives at his residence. The court addressed whether a pretrial detention hearing could be held under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), which requires the charges to qualify as a crime of violence. It ruled that such a hearing was authorized because possession of unregistered firearms by a felon presents a substantial risk of physical injury to others, even without an overt act, due to the inherent dangers and the defendant's prior convictions for similar weapons offenses. The court further found that the unexplained large quantities of firearms and explosives justified detention as no release conditions would adequately ensure community safety or court appearance.

criminal lawguns