Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Thomas Hilton suffered an admittedly compensable injury as the result of an insect or spider bite. The present dispute centered on whether he required further medical treatment to reach maximum medical improvement (MMI). The single commissioner agreed with Hilton on the merits, finding he had not reached MMI, and further that any misrepresentations he had made during the life of his claim were a result of a serious cognitive deficit from a previous brain injury. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an order of the Court of Appeals dismissing Hilton's appeal of an admittedly interlocutory order of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's Appellate Panel (the Commission). Hilton argued the Commission's interlocutory order vacating and remanding the Workers' Compensation Commission's single commissioner's order was immediately appealable pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A) (Supp. 2015). The Supreme Court agreed, under these unusual facts, that review of the final agency decision would not provide Hilton with an adequate remedy, and he was therefore entitled to an immediate appeal. Determining whether review of the final agency decision would give Hilton an adequate remedy required the Court to reach the underlying merits of the Commission's order, and since it concluded that the order could not stand, the Court of Appeals' order was vacated and the case remanded back to the Commission. View "Hilton v. Flakeboard America Limited" on Justia Law

Purifoy missed two days of work as a housekeeping aid in a Milwaukee VA medical facility without authorization. That week, he sought treatment for substance abuse at the facility where he worked. He was admitted and transferred to Madison for treatment. Purifoy verbally informed his VA supervisor that he would miss work, but did not fill out leave paperwork. Nor did he inform his parole officer that he would miss upcoming supervision visits. His parole officer issued an arrest warrant. Purifoy agreed to report to the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for treatment as an alternative to parole revocation. He entered the program, but was terminated after an altercation with another inmate; he remained as an inmate at MSDF for 38 more days. Following his release, Purifoy returned to work. The VA removed him from employment as a penalty for his unexcused absences, having first sent him a notice of proposed removal while he was at MSDF. A second notice cited two instances of extended unauthorized absence. Although an ALJ ordered Purifoy reinstated, the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the termination. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Board’s analysist improperly omitted relevant mitigation factors and discarded the ALJ’s credibility determinations without adequate rationale. View "Purifoy v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

James Mordhorst was injured while working for Fischer Furniture. Almost one year later, Dakota Truck Underwriters and Risk Administration Services (collectively, Insurers) terminated all workers’ compensation benefits. The South Dakota Department of Labor subsequently ordered Insurers to pay all past medical bills and interest as well as future medial expenses. Mordhorst then filed an action seeking punitive damages for an alleged bad-faith denial of workers’ compensation benefits. The circuit court granted Insurers’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred by granting Insurers’ motion to dismiss because Mordhorst asserted facts that, if true, state a claim for bad faith denial of a workers’ compensation claim and that Insurers’ reliance on an independent medical examiner’s report to deny benefits was not per se reasonable. View "Mordhorst v. Dakota Truck Underwriters" on Justia Law

Lansdale Borough Police Officer George Johnson received a subpoena to attend a preliminary hearing; his attendance at the hearing was critical as he had conducted the field sobriety tests relating to a criminal defendant’s charges of driving under the influence of alcohol. Without requesting a continuance or notifying anyone of his inability to attend, Johnson failed to appear at the preliminary hearing, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal charges. Police Chief Robert McDyre met with Johnson to determine why he missed the preliminary hearing. When Chief McDyre asked why he failed to appear at the hearing, Johnson responded that he had forgotten about the hearing as he had been distracted because his son had been bitten by the neighbor’s pitbull five days prior, despite having been given notice of the hearing. Johnson told his Chief that he was attempting to reinstate the criminal charges by informing both the district court and the assistant district attorney that he had missed the preliminary hearing, but not because he forgot that it was scheduled, but because he was sick. Noting that the officer's reasoning for missing the hearing changed, Chief McDyre placed Johnson on administrative leave. The Chief later recommended that Johnson's employment be terminated. Johnson appealed. Based on his prior disciplinary history, his failure to appear at the preliminary hearing, and his false statements to the court and the assistant district attorney, the Civil Service Commission denied Officer Johnson’s appeal of his termination. The trial court affirmed the Commission's rulings on two charges and reversed on two others. The court ultimately reversed Johnson's termination. In their appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Lansdale Borough and the Lansdale Borough Civil Service Commission contended that the trial court erred in conducting its substantial evidence review by rejecting the Commission’s factual findings that were supported by the record and by modifying Officer Johnson’s termination to a thirty-day suspension. Having determined that the Borough Code affords the trial court de novo review of the Commission’s adjudication, the Commonwealth Court concluded that the trial court acted within its statutory authority when it rejected the Commission’s conclusions on charges three and four. The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether a trial court’s standard of review of an adjudication of a municipal civil service commission where no new evidence was presented on appeal was governed by the Borough Code, which has been interpreted as providing for de novo review, or by the Local Agency Law, which provided for a limited appellate review under those circumstances. The Supreme Court held that when the two statutes are read in pari materia, "it becomes clear that a limited appellate standard of review applies. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court, which held that de novo review was appropriate, and remand the matter for further proceedings." View "Johnson v. Lansdale Boro." on Justia Law

In 1992, OSHA issued the Process Safety Management Standard to protect the safety of those who work with or near highly hazardous chemicals. After a catastrophic chemical explosion at a Texas fertilizer company that qualified as an exempt retail facility, OSHA narrowed the scope of the retail-facility exemption so that the safety standard’s requirements would now apply to formerly exempt facilities like the Texas plant. Petitioners seek review of OSHA's narrowed definition of retail facilities. The court held that, when an action by OSHA corrects a particular hazard, as opposed to adjusting procedures for detection or enforcement, it amounts to a “standard.” Applying that understanding, the court concluded that the agency’s narrowing of the substantive scope of the exemption for retail facilities qualified as issuance of a “standard.” Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to review it and OSHA was required to adhere to notice-and-comment procedures. Consequently, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated OSHA's action. View "Agricultural Retailers Assoc. v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Inc. ("SSPBA"), and three of its members, all of whom were employed as police officers by the City of Auburn (collectively, "plaintiffs"), sued Alabama Governor Robert Bentley and the other members of the Board of Control of the Employees' Retirement System of Alabama ("the ERSA"); David Bronner, the chief executive officer and secretary-treasurer of the Retirement Systems of Alabama ("the RSA") and the ERSA; and Thomas White, Jr., the State comptroller (referred to collectively as "the State defendants"), in their representative capacities. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and a judgment declaring that participants in the pension plan the ERSA operated could make retirement contributions and receive increased retirement benefits based upon their "earnable compensation," which term, the police plaintiffs argued, rightly included payments received for overtime worked. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the State defendants, and the police plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, because "earnable compensation" as defined in code section 36-27-1(14), was compensation received for working "the full normal work-time." The Court agreed with the State defendants that, before the amendment of 36- 27-1(14) in 2012, earnable compensation did not properly include overtime payments, regardless of the past practice of the ERSA. "Moreover, although the 2012 amendment to 36-27-1(14) allows overtime payments to be included within earnable compensation to a limited extent . . . we find no support in the language of the statute for the police plaintiffs' argument that the legislature intended to differentiate between mandatory overtime and voluntary overtime and to make mandatory overtime part of a member's annual base compensation and thus not subject to the 120 percent limit." View "Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Inc., et al. v. Govenor Robert H. Bentley et al." on Justia Law

In 1987, Fitzgerald began working as an Immigration Inspector with the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. From 1988-2000, she served as a Customs Inspector with the Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury. Fitzgerald has been continuously employed in various Instructor positions at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) since 2000, providing training to federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers. In 2012, Fitzgerald requested review of her employment history so that she could obtain Customs Officer retirement credit for her past service with INS and Customs. Federal retirement laws extend enhanced benefits to certain groups, such as law-enforcement officers and firefighters, who have served in physically rigorous positions. Under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System, those benefits include eligibility to retire with an annuity at an earlier age than many other federal employees and eligibility to retire based on fewer years of service, 5 U.S.C. 8412(d)(1),(2). In 2007 the law was amended to extend benefits to Customs and Border Patrol Officers. The Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit affirmed denial of her claim, finding that the amendment did not provide “retroactive service” credit for service performed before July 2008, its effective date. View "Fitzgerald v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Stephen Swain filed claims for workers’ compensation benefits for his occupational hearing loss. An administrative law judge (ALJ) with the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges identified Pioneer Pipe, Inc. and two other employers as being potentially chargeable for Swain’s claim. The ALJ then ruled that Pioneer Pipe was the sole chargeable employer responsible for paying Swain’s hearing loss claim under W.Va. Code 23-4-6b(g). The Workers Compensation Board of Review affirmed. Pioneer Pipe appealed, contending, inter alia, that the language of W. Va. Code 23-4-6b(g) requires the Insurance Commissioner to allocate and divide the charges for a hearing loss claim if the claimant was injured while employed by multiple employers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) by using the term “may” in the statute, the Legislature afforded the Insurance Commissioner discretion in deciding whether to allocate and divide charges for a hearing loss claim between various employers or to charge only one employer; and (2) the statute does not require sixty days of exposure to hazardous noise before the Insurance Commissioner may hold an employer solely responsible for a hearing loss claim. View "Pioneer Pipe, Inc. v. Swain" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s probationary employment was terminated by Kansas State University. Plaintiff sued the University, arguing that her employment termination was in retaliation for her potential claims under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. The district court granted the University’s motion to dismiss, determining that Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies because Plaintiff was required under the Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA) to first present her retaliatory discharge claim to the University for determination. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were not governed by the KJRA and, therefore, jurisdiction was proper in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s tort claim was not governed by the KJRA. Remanded. View "Platt v. Kansas State Univ." on Justia Law

This case was one in a string of longstanding disagreements regarding how the practice of physical therapy should be regulated in South Carolina. The South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy (the Board) sided with members of the profession who wanted to prevent physical therapists (PTs) from providing treatment as direct employees of physicians. The Board had long sought to require PTs to provide their services directly to patients or through a practice group of PTs. However, other licensed healthcare professionals in South Carolina, such as occupational therapists, speech pathologists, and nurse practitioners may be employed by physicians. Thus, the PTs stood alone in South Carolina. Physicians' offices could not provide PT services by employing licensed PTs, and PTs could not provide services while employed by a physician or physicians' practice group. Appellants Kristin Joseph, a PT, and two orthopedic surgeons, Doctors Thomas Joseph and William McCarthy appealed a circuit court's order dismissing their claims challenging a 2011 position statement from the Board, which opined that within a group practice, if a PT or physical therapist assistant (PTA) provided services to a patient at the request of another PT or PTA employed within the same practice, the act did not constitute a "referral" under section 40-45-110(A)(1) of the South Carolina Code, as construed in "Sloan v. South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners," (636 S.E.2d 598 (2006)). After review, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in "Sloan," and reversed the circuit court's order in this case. View "Joseph v. SC Dept of Labor, Licensing & Regulation" on Justia Law