Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Roger Brock was passenger in a vehicle driven by Brian Mason, which was involved in an accident with a logging truck, driven by Ryan Stevens. At the time of the accident, Stevens was insured through the owner of the logging truck, Malachi Sanders' policy issued by Aequicap Insurance Company. Brock sustained severe injuries as a result of the wreck and filed suit. Soon after the litigation began, Brock settled his claim against Stevens and Sanders with Aequicap for $185,000 for the release of all claims. Shortly after the settlement was reached but before Brock received any payment, Aequicap was declared insolvent. Because Aequicap was an insurer licensed to do business in the State of South Carolina and the insured was a resident of South Carolina, the claim was referred to South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (Guaranty). As a result, Brock made demand on Guaranty for payment of the full settlement amount of $185,000. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the construction and application of the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the Act), S.C. Code Ann. Secs. 38-31-10 to -170 (2002 and Supp. 2013), and specifically the exhaustion/non-duplication provision in section 38-31-100(1). Guaranty and Brock moved for summary judgment on the issue whether Guaranty may offset payments from solvent insurance carriers against Brock's settlement under section 38-31-100. The circuit court found section 38-31-100 was ambiguous and granted partial summary judgment to both parties, holding that Guaranty may offset some but not all of the benefits received by Brock from solvent insurance carriers. The Supreme Court disagreed that section 38-31-100 was ambiguous and hold that the unambiguous language of section 38-31-100 provides that Guaranty may offset all payments from all solvent insurers made to Brock as a result of this wreck.View "SC Property v. Brock" on Justia Law

Claimant-appellant Kevin Hope injured his right shoulder in 2003 while he was working for Empro Professional Services. He argued to the Industrial Commission that the Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) was liable for part of his income benefits because he was totally and permanently disabled due to pre-existing back and shoulder injuries that combined with his 2003 shoulder injury. If Hope's total and permanent disability resulted from the combined effects of his 2003 shoulder injury and impairments that pre-existed that injury, then ISIF was liable for the portion of income benefits caused by the pre-existing injuries. Hope appealed the Commission's order that ISIF was not liable for any of Hope's benefits. The Commission found that Hope was totally and permanently disabled, but had failed to prove that his disability was a result of pre-existing back and shoulder impairments combined with his last shoulder injury. Hope argued that the Commission's decision was based on errors of law and fact. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order.View "Hope v. Industrial Special Indemnity Fund" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was an “ante litem notice.” Kimberly Myers arrived for class at Dalton State College and allegedly stepped on the edge of an unrepaired pothole in the parking lot and was injured. She received emergency medical treatment that day, had follow-up orthopedic doctor visits, and began physical therapy. Myers sent an ante litem notice to the Georgia Department of Administrative Services, stating she intended to sue the Board of Regents for negligence based on the allegedly unsafe condition of the parking lot that led to her fractured left ankle and torn tendons. Under a provision of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, the State government may not be sued in a civil action without first being given notice of the claim. In her ante litem notice, Myers’ attorney provided details of what had happened to her and stated: “The amount of Ms. Myers’ loss is yet to be determined as she is still incurring medical bills and does not yet know the full extent of her injury.” The question in this case centered on whether the language in the ante litem notice was a sufficient statement of the amount of loss claimed. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court correctly recognized Myers "failed entirely to comply with a requirement despite having knowledge.”View "Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia v. Myers" on Justia Law

This appeal related to petitioner Linda Hendron's third application for disability benefits. She filed the first in 1999 and was denied on the merits. She applied again in 2001, and was denied on res judicata grounds. This latest application was filed in 2009, claiming a disability onset date of November 1, 1995. After the Social Security Administration denied the claim on res judicata grounds, requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ heard testimony from petitioner, and considered 19 medical exhibits that had not been submitted in petitioner's previous applications. The ALJ issued a written decision finding that petitioner was not disabled before the expiration of her insured status. The Appeals Council denied review, and petitioner took her appeal to the district court, which concluded the ALJ failed to develop a sufficient record on which to base a disability decision. The Commissioner appealed the district court's decision. Finding ample evidence in the record that the ALJ developed the record on which he denied petitioner's claim, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Hendron v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Scrogham, then age 53, applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, submitting medical conditions including degenerative discs, spinal stenosis, sleep apnea, hypertension, arthritis, atrial fibrillation and restless leg syndrome. An ALJ denied the application and the Appeals Council denied his request for review. The district court affirmed, holding that the ALJ did not err in giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinions of nontreating physicians, that the ALJ permissibly found Scrogham not to be credible and that the ALJ’s decision otherwise was supported by substantial evidence. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The ALJ impermissibly ignored a line of evidence demonstrating the progressive nature of Scrogham’s degenerative disc disease and arthritis and inappropriately undervalued the opinions of Scrogham’s treating physicians, whose longitudinal view of Scrogham’s ailments should have factored prominently into the ALJ’s assessment of his disability status. Even considering only “the snapshots of evidence that the ALJ considered,” that limited evidence does not build the required logical bridge to her conclusions. The ALJ apparently misunderstood or at least considered only partially some of the evidence about Scrogham’s daily activities, rehabilitation efforts and physicians’ evaluations. View "Scrogham v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Moon was a 26-year-old mother who had worked as a cashier, bank teller, and certified nursing assistant. She suffered from documented back and joint problems, mild sleep apnea, depression, and migraine headaches. Most of these problems are related to exceptional obesity: at a height of 5’5”, she weighs more than 400 pounds. In support of her application for disability benefits, Moon submitted extensive medical records. Her migraine headaches were diagnosed as early as 2005 and she saw doctors about her headaches many times. She was taking Imitrex and Motrin at the time of her May 2010 hearing. In his written decision denying benefits, the ALJ went through the standard five-step analysis and found that Moon was no longer engaged in substantial gainful activity and that her combination of impairments qualified as “severe,” but that she was still capable of doing sedentary work if she would be permitted to sit or stand at will. The ALJ relied on the opinions of two doctors who had reviewed medical records but had not examined Moon. The ALJ referred to “alleged headaches” dismissively. The Appeals Council and the district court upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The ALJ improperly discounted evidence of chronic migraine headaches. Because Moon is receiving disability benefits based on a later application, the only issue on remand will be whether she was disabled between August 2008 and the later date from which benefits have been paid.View "Moon v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Because of a 2007 car accident, Glenn suffers from degenerative disc disease, a closed head injury and cerebral concussion that cause dizziness and memory loss, left shoulder tendonitis, and post-traumatic headaches. She also suffers major depression, with slow thought processes, mood swings, agitation, poor concentration, anxiousness, feelings of anger and hopelessness, paranoia, auditory hallucinations, and suicidal and homicidal ideation. She has a chronic skin condition that has caused cysts around the vulva that occasionally prevent her from walking and require frequent bathroom breaks. In 2008, Glenn sought social security benefits. Following her hearing, at which Glenn appeared without counsel, the ALJ denied the application at the fifth step of the required analysis: whether, taking into account age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform other work. The Appeals Council declined review. The district court remanded, based on five errors, but denied attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding that the government’s position on appeal was “substantially justified” because the magistrate rejected three of Glenn’s claims of error. The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of fees. Regardless of what happens on remand, Glenn had to retain counsel to ensure that her claim would be properly adjudicated.View "Glenn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

This case was an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in an Eighth Amendment case brought by a Colorado state prisoner. Plaintiff Homaidan Al-Turki filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against several prison officials, including Defendant Mary Robinson (a prison nurse) based on these officials’ failure to provide him with any type of medical evaluation or treatment while he was suffering through several hours of severe abdominal pain from what turned out to be kidney stones. The district court granted qualified immunity to the other prison officials, none of whom were medical professionals, but denied Defendant Robinson’s summary judgment motion for qualified immunity. Defendant then filed this interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the issues this case presented to the Tenth Circuit were: (1) whether the hours of severe pain Plaintiff experienced constituted a sufficiently serious medical need to satisfy the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference test; and (2) whether Defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly established law. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court on both issues. View "Al-Turki v. Robinson, et al" on Justia Law

Chris Hogan lost his job with the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency("UTOPIA"). Claiming he was fired for revealing a conflict of interest in contract awards, he threatened to sue the agency for wrongful termination. Shortly after making this threat, he was subject to several unflattering media articles about his job performance and his termination dispute with the agency’s leaders. Several of the stories claimed his threats to sue the agency amounted to extortion or blackmail. One of the stories was written pseudonymously by Michael Winder, the mayor of West Valley City where UTOPIA did much of its business. Hogan sued UTOPIA, the mayor, the City, and a number of other people he believed were involved in the publication of the articles. He claimed the articles were defamatory, portrayed him in a false light, invaded his privacy, were an intentional infliction of emotional distress, a deprivation of his constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and a civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. 1985. He also sued UTOPIA for First Amendment violations, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and other violations of state law in a separate lawsuit. The district court dismissed all of the claims, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "because the articles' critical statements are explained by their context, we agree with the district court's conclusion that the articles were neither defamatory nor otherwise tortiously offensive. And we further agree that Hogan's federal law claims cannot go forward because he has insufficiently pleaded that the defendants' actions were exercises of their power under state law and that the defendants conspired to punish Hogan for bringing his claims to court." View "Hogan v. Winder, et al" on Justia Law

In 2012 the Drug Enforcement Administration seized over $110,000 worth of smokable “incense products” from the Smoke Shop, a Delavan, Wisconsin retailer. At the time of seizure, the DEA believed that the incense products, which contained synthetic cannabinoids, were controlled substance analogues and illegal under federal drug laws. Smoke Shop sought return of its inventory in federal district court. Later, the substances in the incense products were scheduled by the Attorney General, rendering them contraband and eliminating Smoke Shop’s hopes of recovering the goods, so it brought a conversion action for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court dismissed, finding that the government enjoyed sovereign immunity under the detained-goods exception to the FTCA, and, alternatively that Smoke Shop failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it did not submit a claim for damages to either the DEA or the Department of Justice before filing suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on both grounds. View "Smoke Shop, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law