Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the State of Delaware could be held liable for tortious conduct by an on-duty Delaware State Police Officer. The officer was supposed to take a woman accused of shop-lifting to court. Instead, the officer allegedly coerced her to engage in oral sex in the front seat of the police car. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State based on its conclusion that no reasonable jury could find that the officer was acting within the scope of his employment. The trial court focused only on the officer's tortious conduct, which was not within his job description. But the nature of the tortious conduct was not dispositive. There were other factors used to determine whether one is acting within the scope of employment, and the jury must make that decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Kathy Allegrezza filed separate workers' compensation claims against her employer Greenville Manufacturing, alleging injury to her upper extremities (carpal tunnel syndroms) in 1997, and a separate injury to ber back in 1998. An administrative law judge granted disability benefits for the carpal tunnel claim, but denied benefits on the back injury claim. The Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed the ALJ's findings on carpal tunnel, but found Allegrezza sustained some loss of wage-earning capacity due to her back injury. Allegrezza appealed the Commission's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission in all respects. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Commission. Finding no error in the Commission's judgment or the appellate courts' decicions affirming the Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Allegrezza v. Greenville Manufacturing Company" on Justia Law

Appellant Hugo Rosales suffered an injury working on a fish-processing vessel. He filed both a workers' compensation claim and a maritime lawsuit. Appellant and the employer ultimately entered into a global settlement of both cases. The state Workers' Compensation Board initially rejected the settlement. Appellant later tried to withdraw from the settlement but changed his mind. At a hearing, he testified that the though the settlement was in his best interests. The Board approved the settlement after the hearing. Several months later, appellant moved to have the agreement set aside. The Board denied this request. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board's decision. Finding no error in the Commission's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rosales. v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Delbert Ingram appealed a district court dismissal of his claims against Defendants-Appellees Dr. Hashib D. Faruque, Dr. Yan Feng, Donna Delise, Kyle Inhofe, Lt. Michael Stevenson, and Captain Tim Collins. Plaintiff claimed Defendants had violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the federal constitution by holding him in a psychiatric ward for over twenty-four hours without his consent. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that, among other things, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provided the sole remedy for plaintiff's claims. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed that the district court lacked subject matter to hear plaintiff's claims and affirmed. View "Ingram v. Faruque, et al" on Justia Law

The State appealed a jury verdict that awarded damages to L. Fred Weaver, Joan Weaver and Vicki Weaver. The Weavers had sued the State over negligent fire containment procedures on their real property. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the Weavers' negligence claim; (2) whether the trial court did not allow the State to assert a "public duty doctrine" defense; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to find the state negligent without expert testimony to establish the standard of care; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State's motion to change venue. Finding no errors or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Weaver v. DNRC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2671-80, seeking compensatory damages for loss of property and personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence and malice of the VA. The court affirmed the district court's grant of the VA's motion to dismiss where the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA), 38 U.S.C. 511, and in the alternative, the United States' sovereign immunity, barred the district court from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. View "King v. US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, landowners, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., seeking damages from the government for its role in the design, construction, and maintenance of a portion of a highway that prevented sufficient drainage periods of heavy rainfall. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the district court erred when it declined to apply Louisiana's continuing-tort doctrine to delay commencement of the running of the FTCA's two-year limitations period. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not been aggrieved by a Louisiana continuing tort and have failed to bear their burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claim was time-barred. View "Young, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

In a social security disability or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) case, an administrative law judge (ALJ) must evaluate the effect of a claimant's mental impairments on her ability to work using a "special technique" prescribed by the Commissioner's regulations. At the second step of a five-step analysis, the ALJ must determine whether the mental impairment is "severe" or "not severe." If "not," then the ALJ must determine and discuss them as part of his residual functional capacity (RFC) analysis at step four. A question that is frequently encountered in social security disability appeals cases is how much further discussion of a non-severe impairment is required at step four? The Tenth Circuit found that in assessing the claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant's medically determinable impairments; the Commissioner's procedures do not permit the ALJ to simply rely on his finding of non-severity as a substitute for a proper RFC analysis. In this case, the ALJ found that Petitioner's alleged mental impairments were medically determinable but non-severe. He then used language suggesting he had excluded them from consideration as part of his RFC assessment, based on his determination of non-severity. Under the regulations, however, a finding of non-severity alone would not support a decision to prepare an RFC assessment omitting any mental restriction. The ALJ's specific conclusions he reached in this portion of his analysis were unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings at step four. View "Wells v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Employee-appellant, Gary Andreason appealed a Superior Court judgment affirming two Industrial Accident Board decisions. The first decision awarded compensation to Andreason for his work-related knee and right shoulder injuries, but denied compensation for a separate and unrelated lower back injury. The second decision denied Andreason's reargument motion challenging the Board's denial of compensation for his lower back injury. Andreason argued on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) the Board erred as a matter of law when it determined that there was no implied agreement to compensate him for his lower back injury; (2) that title 19, section 2322(h) does not apply when compensation is paid as the result of a unilateral mistake. The Court concluded all of Andreason's arguments were without merit. View "Andreason v. Royal Pest Control" on Justia Law

In "Keller v. City of Spokane," (44 P.3d 845 (2002)), the Washington Supreme Court held that the duty to design and maintain reasonably safe roadways extended "to all persons, whether negligent or fault-free." This case presented an opportunity to clarify the relationship between questions of duty and legal causation in the context of a municipality's or utility's obligation to design and maintain reasonably safe roadways. In this case, the Court held that the reasoning of Keller equally supported a determination of legal causation. Therefore, if the jury finds the negligent placement of the utility pole too close to the roadway was a cause of plaintiff's injuries when defendant's car left the roadway and struck the pole then it was also a legal cause of plaintiff's injuries. View "Lowman v. Wilbur" on Justia Law