Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671, against Louisiana national guardsmen for alleged negligence arising from post-Hurricane Katrina activities undertaken while they were in federal-pay status. The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (the immunity statute), La. Rev. Stat. 29:735(A)(a), grants immunity to the state and its agents if they were engaged in emergency-preparedness activities. The court agreed with the district court that the guardsmen were engaged in emergency-preparedness activities and were therefore immune. In regards to plaintiff's alternative argument that the immunity statute is unconstitutional under a provision of the Louisiana Constitution, the court concluded that Louisiana's immunity statute was not unconstitutional as applied to the guardsmen who were put into the shoes of private individuals for purposes of the FTCA claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Alfonso, IV v. United States" on Justia Law

On January 13, 2009, Jackson was in a car accident with an agent of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Jackson suffered damage to her head and spinal cord. Jackson retained the services of Shaffer, an attorney with the firm “Michigan Autolaw.” On March 5, 2009, Shaffer erroneously submitted Jackson’s administrative claim for Damage, Injury, or Death, to DHS, which forwarded Jackson’s claim to ICE. On June 17, ICE received Jackson’s claim. The cover letter listed Shaffer’s address in Southfield, Michigan. The claim form included Jackson’s mailing address. On July 7, ICE confirmed receipt of Jackson’s claim in correspondence, sent to the Southfield address, stating that ICE would process Jackson’s claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim Act, which allows an agency “up to six months to adjudicate a damage claim, beginning from the date the agency receives the claim.” On March 8, 2011, ICE sent to the Southfield address a “final determination” denying Jackson’s claim, stating that Jackson could file suit no later than six months after the date of mailing. On March 23, the Postal Service returned the denial as “Not Deliverable…Unable to Forward.” Autolaw had changed locations in May, 2010. Jackson contends that Autolaw had a one-year forwarding order for its mail. The parties also disagree whether the information about changing locations was conveyed to ICE. Despite receiving the undelivered mail, ICE took no further action. On January 11, 2012, Jackson filed suit. The district court dismissed, finding that the mailing of the denial letter triggered the six-month limitation and declining to apply equitable tolling. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

Charles Kemp attempted suicide while in administrative segregation at the Anchorage Correctional Complex. He survived but suffered a serious brain injury. His mother, Marjorie Achman, sued the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging both a negligent failure to protect Kemp from self-harm and medical malpractice. The superior court granted summary judgment to DOC and awarded attorney’s fees to DOC as the prevailing party. Achman appealed that decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Achman v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought insurance coverage for gastric lap band surgery. Defendant, a health-care insurer that covered Plaintiff by virtue of Plaintiff’s husband’s employment with the federal government, refused to cover the full cost of the surgery. Plaintiff brought tort and breach of contract claims against Defendant in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. Defendant removed the action to the federal district court, asserting, inter alia, that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) completely preempted Plaintiff’s local-law claims, thus conferring original jurisdiction on the federal court. Defendant then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the FEHBA demanded exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff, in the meantime, requested that the district court remand the case to the Court of First Instance. The district court (1) denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that the FEHBA completely preempted Plaintiff’s claims and, thus, federal jurisdiction attached; and (2) dismissed the action for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment of dismissal and its order denying remand, holding that the court erred in concluding that the FEHBA afforded complete preemption. View "Lopez-Munoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc. " on Justia Law

The question before the Supreme Court was whether La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applied to requests for medical treatment and/or disputes arising out of requests for medical treatment in cases in which the compensable accident or injury occurred prior to the effective date of the medical treatment schedule. The Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) ruled that the medical treatment schedule applied to all requests for medical treatment submitted after its effective date, regardless of the date of injury or accident. The court of appeal reversed, holding that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 was substantive in nature and could not be applied retroactively to rights acquired by a claimant whose work-related accident antedated the promulgation of the medical treatment schedule. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal and found that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 was a procedural statute and, thus, did not operate retroactively to divest a claimant of vested rights. As a result, the statute applied to all requests for medical treatment and/or all disputes emanating from requests for medical treatment after the effective date of the medical treatment schedule, regardless of the date of the work-related injury or accident. View "Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to consider whether La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applied to a dispute arising out of a request for medical treatment where the request for treatment was submitted after the effective date of the statute and the medical treatment schedule, but the compensable accident and injury that necessitated the request occurred prior to that date. Both the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) and the court of appeal ruled that La. R.S. 23:1203.1 applied to all requests for medical treatment submitted after the statute’s effective date, regardless of the date of accident and injury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cook v. Family Care Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on whether the Patient’s Compensation Fund (PCF) could be bound by summary judgment rendered solely against a defendant physician in the underlying malpractice proceeding on the issue of causation. Plaintiffs, Majdi Khammash and his wife and children, filed suit against various defendants, including Dr. Gray Barrow. After approving plaintiff’s settlement with Dr. Barrow for the $100,000 Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) cap, the District Court granted partial summary judgment, finding plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the fault of Dr. Barrow. The case then proceeded to jury trial against the PCF for the remaining $400,000 MMA cap. The jury returned a verdict in the PCF’s favor, finding Dr. Barrow’s malpractice did not cause plaintiff damage. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding as a result of the partial summary judgment, the issue of causation was not properly before the jury, and remanded for a new trial on damages only. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the extent, if any, the PCF was bound by the partial summary judgment on causation. The Court found, in accordance with La. Rev. Stat. 40:1299.44(C)(5)(a) and its holding in "Graham v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr.," (699 So.2d 365), the partial summary judgment against Dr. Barrow on the issue of causation was not binding on the PCF in plaintiff’s claim for damages exceeding the $100,000 MMA cap. Furthermore, the Court found no manifest error in the jury’s factual findings on causation. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the District Court’s judgment in its entirety. View "Khammash v. Clark" on Justia Law

Roger Frith appealed a district court judgment affirming an order of Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") denying him medical benefits. In September 2010, Frith filed a claim for a work injury, alleging that on August 18th or 19th he hurt his back at work while lifting and moving a large desk backwards up some stairs. Frith was working for DMI Industries. In June 2011, WSI denied Frith's claim for benefits, concluding he had not proven that his condition was causally related to a work injury or that his work activities substantially accelerated the progression or substantially worsened the severity of his preexisting spine condition. WSI found the medical records reflected a pre-existing condition which exhibited symptoms well before Frith alleged he injured his back at work. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a reasoning mind could have reasonably concluded Frith failed to show his work activities substantially accelerated the progression or substantially worsened the severity of a preexisting condition. View "Frith v. WSI" on Justia Law

Dennis Whedbee appealed a district court judgment affirming Workforce Safety and Insurance's ("WSI") binding dispute resolution denying Whedbee's request for a myoelectric prosthesis and approving a body-powered prosthesis. Whedbee argued the binding dispute resolution was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process rights. He argued that WSI should have selected an independent medical examiner located closer to his residence and that his treating physician's opinion should have been given controlling weight. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Whedbee v. WSI" on Justia Law

Sixteen years ago Carolyn Bayless began to suffer from a mysterious illness. As her condition deteriorated, she sought to learn what caused (and how to treat) her illness. In 2008, convinced that she was the victim of exposure to nerve gas emitted by an Army testing facility, she filed a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. When this lawsuit followed in 2009, the Army responded that she knew of her claim by at least 2005 and had waited too long to assert it. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment dismissing the case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under the "unusual circumstances presented here," the period of limitation did not accrue until February 2007. Therefore, the Court reversed. View "Bayless v. United States, et al" on Justia Law