Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether physicians employed as faculty members at the Medical College of Georgia ("MCG") were entitled to official immunity in treating a patient at MCG's Children's Medical Center. Plaintiffs-Appellees Kenneth Jones and Clara Ramon filed a medical malpractice action against Appellants Prem Singh Shekhawat, M.D. and Wayne Mathews, M.D., along with other defendants, arising from treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' child at the Center in 2003. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Appellants, concluding that they were entitled to official immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellants, in treating Plaintiffs' child, were acting within the scope of their employment with the State, using the Supreme Court's holding in "Keenan v. Plouffe," (482 SE2d 253 (1997)). After further review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Keenan" should have been overruled, because it conflated the standard for official immunity with that for sovereign immunity. Utilizing the proper analysis, the Court held that Appellants were entitled to official immunity because they were acting within the scope of their state employment in rendering the medical care at issue. View "Shekhawat v. Jones " on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involved claims for survivors' benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq. Petitioners, the coal mine operators responsible for payment of respondents' benefits, petitioned for review, claiming that principles of res judicata foreclosed respondents - each of whom previously and unsuccessfully sought survivors' benefits under the Act - from relying on a recent amendment to the Act to pursue benefits again through a "subsequent claim." The court affirmed the Board's awards, concluding that res judicata did not bar the subsequent claims because the amendment created a new cause of action that was unavailable to respondents when they brought their initial claims. View "Union Carbide Corp. v. Richard" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investigations (OIG) found that the SEC had received numerous substantive complaints since 1992 that raised significant concerns about Madoff’s hedge fund operations that should have led to a thorough investigation of the possibility that Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. The SEC conducted five examinations and investigations, but never took the steps necessary to determine whether Madoff was misrepresenting his trading. The OIG found that had these efforts been made, the SEC could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme. Madoff’s clients filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671, to recover damages resulting from the SEC’s failure to uncover and terminate the scheme in a timely manner. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The Third Circuit affirmed, reasoning that SEC regulations afford examiners discretion regarding the timing, manner, and scope of investigations and that there is a strong presumption that the SEC’s conduct is susceptible to policy analysis. View "Baer v. United States" on Justia Law

Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. appealed a jury verdict in favor of Ira Balch, personal representative of the Estate of Danny Balch, and Melvin Balch, personal representative of the estates of Bernard Balch and Armie Balch. The matter stemmed from a road-resurfacing project conducted by the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT). ALDOT hired Weaver to complete the project. The Balches were traveling on the portion of the road resurfaced by Weaver when the vehicle they were riding in was hit head-on by a tractor-trailer. Their personal representatives filed wrongful-death actions against Weaver and others, alleging that Weaver negligently performed the resurfacing project, and that negligent performance caused the deaths of the Balches. The trial court denied Weaver's prejudgment motions, and the jury returned a verdict in the estates' favor. Weaver appealed the denial of its postjudgment motion, and alleged multiple errors at trial in its argument to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Weaver owed no duty to the decedents, and therefore was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court reversed the trial court and entered a judgment in favor of Weaver. View "Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. v. Balch" on Justia Law

Defendants U.S. Innovations Group, Inc. (and several others) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order the trial court to dismiss claims filed against it by Judy Hawke and Carolyn Grimes. Defendants argued that because the claims arose on a federal enclave subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims. Finding that defendant did not demonstrate the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that they had a clear right to have those claims dismissed, the Supreme Court denied their petitions for the writ. View "Hawke v. U.S. Centrifuge Systems, LLC" on Justia Law

Employee-claimant Cathy Bone filed a workman's compensation claim for a work-related injury. The employer, U.S. Food Service, and its carrier Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America disputed the claim. The single commissioner and an Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission issued orders denying the claim. Under the procedure then in place, Bone appealed to the circuit court, which concluded the injury was compensable and remanded the matter to the Commission for further proceedings. The employer appealed the circuit court's order, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the basis the order was not a "final judgment" and thus not immediately appealable because further proceedings were ordered before the administrative agency. The Supreme Court granted Petitioners' petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The high court subsequently granted a petition for rehearing filed by the employer, and it additionally granted the following two motions: (1) Bone's motion to argue against precedent, and (2) the motion of the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association to accept its Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Petitioners. After considering the record in this matter, as well as the briefs and arguments, the Court adhered to its original decision to affirm. View "Bone v. U.S. Food Service" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, in two separate lawsuits, sued a medical doctor and medical center for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and fraud. Prior to the trial date, Defendants successfully moved to bifurcate the trials. The administrative judge of the circuit court vacated the trial judge's orders bifurcating the trials and reassigned the cases to another judge for trial. Defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition to reverse the administrative judge's orders. The Court of Appeals vacated the administrative judge's orders and reinstated the orders of the trial judge, holding that, under the circumstances, the administrative judge did not have the authority to review and vacate the trial judge's decision to bifurcate the trials and to unilaterally reassign the cases. View "St. Joseph Med. Ctr. v. Circuit Court (Turnbull)" on Justia Law

The State Board of Dentistry fined Plaintiff-Appellant Lon Peckham, DMD for failing to adequately inform a patient prior to performing a procedure, and for publishing misleading material on his website. The district court affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court's affirming of the Board's final Order. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence to support findings that Plaintiff failed to inform a patient prior to performing a procedure or for publishing misleading material. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the district court. View "Peckham, DMD v. State Bd of Dentistry" on Justia Law

Thomas Petipren sued the police chief of Port Sanilac Rodney Jaskowski and the Village itself alleging Jaskowski assaulted and wrongfully arrested him for resisting, obstructing and disorderly conduct. Jaskowski filed a separate suit against Petipren alleging assault and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Petipren's band had been scheduled to perform at a fundraiser hosted by the Village. Attendees complained about the before Petipren's took the stage. A decision was made to stop the music; Petipren, claimed he was unaware of the decision to stop the performances, and was warming up on his drum set when Jaskowski approached him. Jaskowski arrested Petipren. The parties' respective versions of the facts surrounding the arrest were completely different. Petipren alleged that he did not resist arrest, but that Jaskowski barged through the drum set and then pushed him off his seat and into a pole before pushing him off the stage and onto the grass where he was handcuffed. Jaskowski alleged that Petipren refused to stop playing, swore at him, struck him in the jaw, and then resisted arrest. Jaskowski moved for summary judgment on Petipren's claims on the grounds of governmental immunity. The trial court denied that motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts and reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Jaskowski. View "Petipren v. Jaskowski" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., alleging that two federal law enforcement officers caused the tortious intentional infliction of emotional distress when they maliciously and falsely testified before a federal grand jury about his involvement in a drug conspiracy. Although the court disagreed with the district court about the need to evaluate the possible ambiguity of section 2674, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that, in FTCA suits, the United States could assert common law defenses available to private individuals under relevant state law. The court also concluded that, were Connecticut courts to consider the matter, they would find statements made under oath by federal grand jury witnesses to be privileged. View "Vidro v. United States" on Justia Law