Jesse Keidel appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision denying Keidel permanent partial impairment (PPI) benefits. In May 1996, Keidel suffered a work-related injury to the meniscus of his left knee. Keidel had surgery in December 1996. In October 1997, Keidel underwent a second surgery to his left knee, a high tibial osteotomy. The doctor performing an independent medical evaluation in May 1998 opined that Keidel’s left knee condition was a “combination of his significant preexisting left knee degenerative joint disease and the work-related permanent aggravation.” Following a permanent impairment evaluation, WSI denied Keidel a PPI award because Keidel’s 15% whole body impairment was below the statutory 16% threshold for an impairment award. In January 2019, Keidel had left total knee replacement surgery. In June 2020, Keidel underwent a second permanent impairment evaluation. The evaluating doctor, Dr. Redington, determined Keidel had a 24% whole person impairment for the left total knee replacement. "Giving [Keidel] the benefit of the doubt, I will apportion 50% of the impairment rating of the left knee to pre-existing conditions." In November 2020, WSI denied an impairment award for Keidel’s left knee because his overall impairment rating after apportionment after the second evaluation was 12%, which was below the 14% threshold for an impairment award under then current version of N.D.C.C. § 65-05-12.2. At a hearing, Keidel argued the apportionment of his left knee impairment due to preexisting arthritis was litigated and decided in a 2000 hearing. Keidel argued administrative res judicata prohibited WSI from litigating whether his permanent impairment could be apportioned to a preexisting condition. The ALJ and district court concluded administrative res judicata did not apply. Finding no error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Keidel v. WSI, et al." on Justia Law

This insurance coverage dispute between a public entity joint insurance fund (JIF) and Star Insurance Company (Star), a commercial general liability insurance company, turned on whether the JIF provided “insurance” to its members or, instead, the JIF members protect against liability through “self-insurance.” That distinction was pertinent here because Star’s insurance policy included a clause under which its coverage obligations began only after coverage available through “other insurance” has been exhausted; the clause, however, did not mention “self-insurance.” Star argued the JIF provided insurance and therefore Star’s coverage was excess to the JIF; the JIF disagreed, contending that because its members were instead “self-insured,” Star’s coverage was primary. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that under the plain language of N.J.S.A. 40A:10-48, a JIF “was not an insurance company or an insurer under New Jersey law, and its “authorized activities . . . do not constitute the transaction of insurance nor doing an insurance business.” By the statute’s plain terms, JIFs cannot provide insurance in exchange for premiums, as insurance companies typically do; instead, JIF members reduce insurance costs by pooling financial resources, distributing and retaining risk, and paying claims through member assessments. Therefore, JIFs protect members against liability through “self-insurance.” “Self-insurance” is not insurance. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the JIF and denial of summary judgment to Star. View "Statewide Insurance Fund v. Star Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed district court orders granting the State’s request for an extension of time to file pleadings, granting two protective orders to Heather Zins, denying two applications to file motions subject to a then existing but subsequently vacated pre-filing order, and a final judgment denying his motion to amend a child support judgment. Rath also argued the North Dakota Child Support Guidelines were unconstitutional. Rath and Zins shared one minor child, A.J.O., born in 2004. The North Dakota Department of Human Services’ Child Support Enforcement Division (“the State”) commenced support proceedings against Rath in 2005 and a judgment ordering child support payments was entered. The judgment was amended in 2008 to establish a parenting plan for A.J.O. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility while Rath received scheduled parenting time. The judgment was modified three different times—in 2009, 2013, and 2016—with the last judgment requiring Rath to pay $366.00 per month. The district court issued an order detailing the applicable provisions of the North Dakota Child Support Guidelines, applying them to the evidence presented at the hearing, and addressing Rath’s constitutional claims. The court denied Rath’s motion to modify his child support judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders granting the State an extension, protection orders on behalf of Zins, and the final judgment denying Rath’s motion to amend his child support obligation. The Court reversed the district court’s orders denying Rath’s applications to file pleadings pursuant to a vacated pre-filing order and remanded to allow for further proceedings. View "Burleigh Cty. Social Service Bd. v. Rath" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted writs of prohibition and mandamus ordering Judge John P. O'Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to stop exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case and to dismiss the underlying case, holding that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation was entitled to the writs.The City of Cleveland and the City of Parma sued the Bureau in separate actions. The Supreme Court held that the court of claims had exclusive jurisdiction over Cleveland's action. Judge O'Donnell then dismissed Parma's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereafter, Parma filed the underlying lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment. Judge O'Donnell denied the Bureau's motion to dismiss. Parma also filed an action against the Bureau in the court of claims, which dismissed the complaint on limitations grounds. The Bureau then brought this action against Judge O'Donnell, arguing that the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that the Court of Claims Act, Ohio Rev. Code 2743.01 et seq., patently and unambiguously divested the common pleas court of jurisdiction. View "State ex rel. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

Petitioner D.S. (Mother) was the adoptive mother of A.S. In 2021, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) petitioned on behalf of A.S. in response to allegations of physical abuse. During the pendency of the proceedings, Mother petitioned to have A.S. placed back in her home. She appealed the summary denial of her petition. However, on appeal, Mother did not address any issue encompassed by her petition, nor did she seek reversal of the order denying her petition or reversal of any prior jurisdictional or dispositional orders. Instead, Mother’s opening brief was entirely devoted to seeking review of the adequacy of the juvenile court and CFS’s efforts to fulfill their obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) seeking only to have the matter “remanded with instructions for the juvenile court to order full compliance with the inquiry provisions of the ICWA.” Consequently, the Court of Appeal construed Mother's appeal as a petition for extraordinary writ seeking an order directing the juvenile court and CFS to comply with their statutory duties under ICWA and the related California statutes. Upon consideration of the matter on the merits, the Court granted the requested relief. View "D.S. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) denying the petition for a declaratory judgment filed by Block Island Power Company (BIPCo), holding that there were no grounds to overturn the PUC's decision.In 2009, the legislature enacted R.I. Gen. Laws 39-26.1-7 (the enabling act) authorizing the Town of New Shoreham Project. In 2017, BIPCo sought a declaratory judgment declaring that the enabling act required the costs for BIPCo's interconnection facilities and backup transformer to be socialized across all electric ratepayers in the state, not just those in the Town. The PUC issued a judgment against BIPCo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the PUC's reading and application of the statute was without error. View "In re Block Island Power Co. Petition for Declaratory Judgment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the superior court granting Stephen Witham's motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal and dismissed Witham's appeal as untimely, holding that Witham's notice of appeal was untimely.At issue was the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy adopting a hearing officer's recommended decision to revoke Witham's certificate of eligibility as a law enforcement officer. The superior court affirmed the decision. Witham filed a notice of appeal together with a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court granted Witham's motion for an extension. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order and dismissed Witham's appeal as untimely, holding that the lower court erred in granting Witham's motion for an extension under the circumstances. View "Witham v. Bd. of Trustees of Me. Criminal Justice Academy" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the Department of Civil Service's (DCS) unilateral implementation of application fees for promotional and transitional civil service exams was not a term and condition of employment, as defined in N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 201(4), and therefore, the State had no obligation to negotiate those fees under the Taylor Law, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 200 et seq.The State offers the subject exams to provide qualified State employees an opportunity to seek other public employment. For at least ten years, DCS waived the application fees for employees represented by Respondents to take the exams. In 2009, DCS began assessing fees for the exams but did not collectively bargain with Respondents regarding the imposition of the fees prior to taking the action at issue. Respondents filed improper practices charges with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that by unilaterally imposing the fees the State violated Civil Service Law 209-a(1). PERB determined that the subject was mandatorily negotiable and that the State's past practice of not charging such fees was enforceable. The Appellate Division dismissed the State's ensuing petition seeking to annul PERB's determinations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that PERB's determination conflicted with Civil Service Law 201(4) and this Court's precedent. View "State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The Edison Electric Institute and NorthWestern Corporation, d/b/a NorthWestern Energy (collectively, “Utilities”) petition for review of an order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) in which the Commission granted Broadview Solar’s application to become a qualifying facility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”). The Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”) petitions for review of the Commission’s denial of its motion to intervene in the adjudication of Broadview’s application.   The DC Circuit concluded that the Commission’s interpretation of the statute is entitled to deference and that the Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously and accordingly denied the Utilities’ petitions. The court explained that the Utilities challenge the Commission’s decision to look at Broadview’s instantaneous net power output and not its power output over time. The statute measures “power production capacity” in “megawatts.” But power production over time is measured in “megawatt-hours.” Rather than being arbitrary and capricious, the Commission’s focus on instantaneous power production adhered to the statutory language.   Further, the court dismissed SEIA’s petitions because it lacks Article III standing. The court explained that SEIA’s failure to timely intervene is the result of its own mistaken judgment. The effect of that mistake—SEIA’s inability to participate in the Commission’s proceedings—does not give rise to an Article III injury. View "Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), promulgated regulations (5 U.S.C. 5545(d) and 5343(c)(4)), to provide hazardous duty and environmental differential pay to federal employees. Current and former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed suit, alleging that they were entitled to hazardous duty and environmental differential pay due to their “work [with] or in close proximity to objects, surfaces, and/or individuals infected with COVID-19 without sufficient protective devices.”The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal of their claims for hazardous duty and environmental differential pay (plus related overtime, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs). For the plaintiffs to prevail, it is not enough that COVID-19 can readily be characterized as “unusual”—one of the requirements of the statutory provisions; their case depends on whether their allegations come within OPM’s existing regulations, which are not challenged and which delimit particular situations in which federal employees are entitled to hazardous duty and environmental differential payments. OPM has not addressed contagious-disease transmission outside certain situations within laboratories and jungle-work situations. Although OPM might be able to provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings, it has not to date adopted regulations that do so. View "Adams v. United States" on Justia Law