The cases set forth below are cases tried by injury attorney Brien Roche. They are mostly tort and personal injury cases, but some of them are contract matters where the issues bear on tort claims but directly involved contract principles. Most of the cases are available through the national reporting services involved. These reporting services can be found on line or you can go directly to the reporting service or to a local law library for a copy of the opinion cited. The citations that follow the case names are references to the volume and page of the book containing the cases in their full context.
If you have questions about any particular case or personal injury cases in general then Brien Roche can be reached at the office number listed and is available to discuss that case or your particular case if appropriate.
Keep in mind that these cases were all decided on the specific facts that were presented to the court at trial and therefore they are not determinative of what the result may be in your case as every case hinges on the discreet facts that are presented into evidence at trial.
Contract action to assert contractual rights of client against major insurance company. Mr. Roche’s client prevailed.
In this decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict of $900,000 in favor of Mr. Roche’s client in a medical malpractice action against an obstetrician/gynecologist from George Washington University.
In this case, an arbitration award to Mr. Roche’s client was affirmed.
In this police shooting case, Mr. Roche represented the victim of a police shooting. The County police officer claimed immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of that immunity to the police officer.
This is a malpractice action brought by Mr. Roche on behalf of a patient against a physician and his corporation who had engaged in improper surgical technique and improperly managed the patient’s care following recovery from prostate surgery. The jury returned a verdict of $1.85 million. The defendant corporation appealed on the grounds that the verdict should be reduced to the $1 million cap on malpractice actions then in effect in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the $1.85 million verdict finding that the evidence presented by Mr. Roche at trial proved that the defendant corporation was not properly registered and therefore not entitled to protection of the cap.
This was a wrongful death action brought against State Farm Insurance Company to obtain insurance coverage for a gentleman who was the victim of a car jacking resulting in his death. In this case, Mr. Roche represented the estate of the young man that had been killed in the car jacking and argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals that insurance coverage should be found to exist for this incident since it did involve the use of a motor vehicle. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the position asserted by Mr. Roche and the insurance company prevailed in denying coverage.
Arbitration proceeding involving insurance coverage. The D.C. Court of Appeals on this case agreed with the position asserted by Mr. Roche.
In this decision, Mr. Roche’s client appealed requesting an award of attorney’s fees and the Court of Appeals indicated that such an award of attorney’s fees should be granted.
In this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal of a complaint on procedural grounds.
This is a suit where Mr. Roche represented a taxpayer in an action brought against the Internal Revenue Service in Federal Court in Alexandria wherein the Internal Revenue Service had improperly denied certain business deductions for the taxpayer. The Court in that case ruled in favor of the taxpayer and judgment was entered accordingly.
In this decision, the Virginia Supreme Court reviewed the issue of sovereign immunity.
In this case, the issue asserted was whether a victim of a criminal assault could assert a claim against a security agency for alleged negligent misrepresentation that may have contributed to the criminal assault. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the position asserted by Mr. Roche.
In this suit brought against several local police officers, Mr. Roche defended these police officers asserting that they had not overstepped their bounds and that they were acting within the proper dictates of the search warrant that governed their search in this instance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with the position asserted by Mr. Roche.
Action involving adoption agency.
In this personal injury action, the issue on appeal was whether non-compliance with certain court orders was a basis for sanctions against the party that did not comply. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia agreed with the position asserted by Mr. Roche.
In this case, Mr. Roche addressed the issue of whether the D.C. Superior Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. On appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the position asserted by Mr. Roche.
In this personal injury action, the issue on appeal was whether a jury instruction should have been given by the trial court on the issue of negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court agreed with the position asserted by Mr. Roche.