Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant received disability benefits due to a work-related injury. Those benefits were terminated as a result of Appellant's incarceration. Following his release, Appellant applied for reinstatement of the benefits. Although that application was initially denied, benefits were awarded following a contested case hearing. At that time, Appellant filed one application for retroactive benefits for the period during which his prior claim was contested and two additional applications for separate periods of prospective benefits. The office of administrative hearings denied all three claims for failure to comply with the Wyoming Workers' Compensation Act (Act). The district court affirmed the denial of two of those applications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's applications for temporary total disability benefits did not comply with the Act because a health care provider did not perform a separate physical examination for each of Appellant's applications as required by the Act. View "Talbot v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether a written letter from the assistant commissioner of the fire department of the city of New York to Petitioner firefighter advising him that he violated the department's code of conduct and equal employment (EEO) policy may be made part of Petitioner's permanent EEO file without affording him an opportunity for a hearing. The supreme court annulled the department's determination that Petitioner made racially offensive remarks and expunged the letter from Petitioner's EEO file. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that the department did not comport with the requirements of due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the department denied Petitioner his right to due process by placing the letter in his file without conducting a hearing, and thus the letter was properly expunged from Petitioner's permanent EEO file. View "D'Angelo v. Scoppetta" on Justia Law

Petitioners, attorneys who were the subject of disciplinary proceedings, challenged the validity of two aspects of the Commonwealth's workers' compensation, claiming (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, 7C, which authorizes the senior judge of the department of industrial accidents to suspend the right of an attorney to "practice or appear before the department," violated the separation of powers explicitly provided for under article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) 452 Mass Code Regs. 1.19(3), which precludes recovery of an employee's costs and attorney's fees if the employee does not accept an insurer's offer to pay the full amount of the compensation claim, conflicted with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15, 13A(5), which governs the award of attorney's fees and expenses where a claim proceeds to the hearing stage. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) chapter 152, section 7C is invalid as a violation of article 30 insofar as it authorizes the senior judge of the department to suspend attorneys from appearing before the department; and (2) section 1.19(3) is a valid interpretation of chapter 152, section 13A. Remanded. View "Ellis v. Dep't of Indus. Accidents" on Justia Law

Employer allowed Employee to take a college class during his normal work hours but informed him he would have to use his vacation, compensation, or unpaid time rather than take shorter lunches, come in early, or stay later. Employee enrolled in the class but did not follow Employer's instructions and failed properly to account for his time off. Consequently, Employee was fired and denied unemployment benefits. An ALJ overturned that decision and granted Employee unemployment benefits, concluding that the discipline was too severe for only a small amount of misreported time. The review board of the department of workforce development upheld the original denial of unemployment benefits, finding that J.M. was discharged for just cause and thus ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the review board's denial of benefits, holding that the findings of fact by the review board showed Employee violated his supervisor's instructions and the employee handbook, which were statutory grounds for just-cause discharge. View "J.M. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development's (DOTD) writ application to consider whether the Office of Workers' Compensation hearing officer erred in requiring a vocational rehabilitation counselor to comply with the so-called "Crain Brothers conditions," drafted by claimant's counsel, before the counselor could commence or continue to provide vocational rehabilitation services to the claimant. Upon review, the Court held that the hearing officer erred in imposing these conditions ostensibly as a prophylactic measure without an evidentiary showing that any of the imposed conditions were reasonably necessary to resolve or rectify a "dispute . . . concerning the work of the vocational counselor" as provided in La. Rev. Stat. 23:1226(B)(3)(a). Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, and remanded the case to the Office of Workers' Compensation. View "Hargrave v. Louisiana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of the City of Bossier City to determine the proper interpretation of La. R.S. 33:2501(C)(1); specifically, whether the statutory authority of the Bossier City Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board to modify discipline was conditioned upon a finding that the appointing authority acted in bad faith or without cause. After review, the Court found that a municipal fire and police civil service board has the statutory authority to review and modify the discipline imposed, even when the appointing authority acts in good faith for cause. View "City of Bossier City v. Vernon" on Justia Law

Respondent Town of Moultonborough (Town) appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) which granted a petition for certification filed by the petitioner, New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NEPBA). In June 2010, the NEPBA filed a petition for certification of a proposed collective bargaining unit to be composed of "[a]ll sworn and non-sworn employees of the Town of Moultonborough Police Department excluding the Chief of Police." The proposed bargaining unit contained fourteen employees in seven different positions. The Town objected to the petition on the basis that RSA 273-A:8, I (2010) (amended 2011) requires a minimum of ten employees to form a bargaining unit, and that this requirement was not met because several of the positions were not statutorily eligible for inclusion. The Town argued that the executive assistant, communication specialist, and prosecutor positions, and a probationary employee lacked a "shared community of interest" with the remaining members of the proposed unit. The Town also argued that the executive assistant was a confidential employee, see RSA 273-A:1, IX(c) (2010), and that the sergeant and corporal positions were supervisory positions, see RSA 273-A:8, II (2010). Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the PELRB as to its inclusion of the sergeants and corporal in the bargaining unit, and affirmed the remainder of its determinations. The Court made no ruling on the eligibility of the bargaining unit after exclusion of the sergeant and corporal positions. View "Appeal of Town of Moultonborough" on Justia Law

Jamie Inagawa, the Solicitor-General of Fayette County, filed a mandamus action against Fayette County and its Commissioners in their official capacities asserting that since July 1, 2007 his compensation had been incorrectly calculated. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Inagawa and partial summary judgment to the County, and each party appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly held that Inagawa was improperly compensated beginning in July 2007. The Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion that the County properly compensated Inagawa as of January 1, 2009 in accordance with an amended local law, because the Court found that amendment invalid. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Inagawa v. Fayette County" on Justia Law

Appellant unsuccessfully sought postretirement total disability compensation (TTC). The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied Appellant's application after finding that she had voluntarily abandoned the work force when she took disability retirement for a condition that was unrelated to her workplace injury. The court of appeals agreed and denied Appellant's request for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals pursuant to State ex rel. Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc. and State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm'n, holding that the Commission did not did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reinstate TTC, as Appellant voluntarily removed herself from the work force by taking disability retirement because she still had the physical ability to work. View "State ex rel. Rouan v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

USA Cleaning is a proprietorship with fewer than 10 employees that provides janitorial services to a cement plant owned by Essroc. After an inspection of the plant the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration ordered three janitors to undergo 24 hours of safety training. The Administration issued a “withdrawal order,” forbidding the janitors from reenterng the plant until they completed training, 30 U.S.C. 814(g)(1). Essroc provided legal assistance to challenge the order; within a week the lawyers billed $22,000. A week after issuing the order, the Administration vacated it, without acknowledging error. The review commission dismissed USA Cleaning’s contest proceeding. USA Cleaning requested $22,000 in legal fees that Essroc had paid (Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504). The Administration refused; the review commission upheld the refusal. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, noting that not the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, but a separate body, the Federal MineSafety and Health Review Commission, was named as respondent along with the Secretary of Labor. The review commission is the equivalent of a court. It did not issue the order challenged by the petitioner, but merely upheld the refusal of the mine-safety administration to award attorneys’ fees. View "USA Cleaning Serv. & Bldg. Maint. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Comm'n" on Justia Law