Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Wayne Kassotis appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his complaint, arising from the nonrenewal of his employment contract to remain as the Town of Fitzwilliam's Chief of Police. Petitioner filed a complaint against the Town seeking, among other things, reinstatement as Chief of Police, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, for the Town’s alleged failure to comply with RSA 105:2-a, which provided procedural protections to appointed chiefs of police who are "dismiss[ed]." The Town moved to dismiss, arguing that, "[b]ecause the Petitioner was not dismissed, RSA 105:2-a does not apply, and he fails to state a claim for relief." The trial court granted the Town’s motion on the basis that "the provisions of RSA 105:2-a are inapplicable to the [Town’s] decision not to renew the employment contract." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kassotis v. Town of Fitzwilliam" on Justia Law

Appellant injured his lower back in 2007 while working for Employer. Employer denied further treatment that same year. Appellant filed a petition for hearing in 2009, alleging that he was entitled to medical benefits. Based on a deposition of Dr. Dale Anderson, Employer filed an amended answer admitting that Appellant’s work activities were a major contributing cause to his need for medical treatment. The Department of Labor dismissed the case in 2010. In 2011, Employer denied further medical treatment based upon a recent independent medical evaluation by another doctor. Appellant petitioned for a hearing, arguing that res judicata applied to prevent Employer from changing its position from its previous admittance. The Department found res judicata inapplicable and that Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof on causation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Dr. Anderson’s opinion was adopted by Employer and judicially accepted by the Department through its 2010 order of dismissal, Employer was judicially estopped from taking an inconsistent position; and (2) Appellant met his burden of proving that his work-related activities as of 2010 were a major contributing cause of his disability. Remanded.View "Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor Advertising, Inc. " on Justia Law

In 2010, almost ten years after he had left his employment with his employer, Formica Corporation, Appellant applied for temporary-total-disability (TTD) compensation. The Industrial Commission denied Appellant’s application, concluding that Appellant’s failure to search for work since leaving Formica was evidence that he had abandoned the job market and retired, making him ineligible to receive further compensation. Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the evidence supported the Commission’s decision that Appellant intended to voluntarily abandon the workforce when his employment with Formica ended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it determined that the Commission’s order was supported by sufficient evidence that Appellant had already abandoned the entire workforce when he applied for TTD compensation in 2010.View "State ex rel. Floyd v. Formica Corp." on Justia Law

The new owner of an arena football team applied for workers’ compensation coverage. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation concluded that the new owner was a successor employer for workers’ compensation purposes and that it would base the new owners’ premium rate on the experience of the former owner. The new owner filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Bureau abused its discretion by finding that the new owner was a successor to the former owner for workers’ compensation purposes and by failing to adequately explain its decision. A magistrate concluded that the Bureau abused its discretion in transferring the entire experience of the former owner, concluding that if only a portion of the former owner’s business was transferred to the new owner, then the experience rating is transferred in proportion to the business that was transferred. The court of appeals agreed with the magistrate’s decision and granted the new owner’s request for a writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Bureau abused its discretion by transferring the entire experience rating of the former owner.View "State ex rel. Cleveland Prof’l Football, LLC v. Buehrer" on Justia Law

Police Chief Beck charged Officer Pedro with misconduct: use of a city police vehicle for personal business on two occasions, making a discourteous statement to a member of the public, and making a misleading statement to a supervisor conducting an official investigation. A Board of Rights found that three counts were time-barred. Beck disagreed; the board found Pedro guilty on all counts and recommended a 22-day suspension without pay. Beck approved the recommendation. The trial court found in favor of Pedro, finding counts one and four barred by the statute of limitations and counts two and three not barred. It concluded that Pedro was not informed that he was being investigated for misconduct prior to his interrogation, as required, and suppressed Pedro’s statements and set aside the guilty finding on count four. Although the court found that counts two and three were not barred by the statute of limitations, it determined that the Board had found that those counts were barred, and that its finding was final and binding because the city failed to challenge the decision. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that the Board failed to proceed as required by law by deferring to Beck’s determination on the statute of limitations rather than making a decision consistent with its own findings, and that its findings do not support its decision. Ignorance of the accused officer’s identity does not postpone the commencement of the one-year limitations period under Government Code section 3304. The discovery rule applies; the trial court properly determined that count four is time-barred. View "Pedro v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In this class action lawsuit, the trial court found that the State wrongfully denied health benefits to a number of its part-time employees. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was how to value the damages suffered by that group of employees when they were denied health benefits. The State argued that the only damages to the employees were immediate medical expenses paid by employees during the time they were denied health benefits. But evidence showed that people denied health care benefits suffer additional damage. They often avoid going to the doctor for preventive care, and they defer care for medical problems. This results in increased long-term medical costs and a lower quality of life. Based on this evidence, the trial court correctly rejected the State's limited definition of damages because it would significantly understate the damages suffered by the employees. The Supreme Court affirmed.View "Moore v. Health Care Auth." on Justia Law