Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), alleging that the Army was negligent and therefore liable for an Army Specialist's sexual assault against plaintiff. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish that the sexual assault was foreseeable under North Carolina law, and thus the Army did not breach a duty owed to plaintiff as landlord of Fort Bragg; the Army did not have a special relationship with the assailant for purposes of an FTCA claim; the government did not breach a voluntarily assumed duty to plaintiff; and, because discovery would serve no purpose, it was not error for the district court to reach the merits of plaintiff's claim at this stage of the litigation. The court also concluded that, although the government's ability to control a tortfeasor must be independent of the tortfeasor's status as a government employee, knowledge of the tortfeasor's propensity for violence or criminal history did not, per se nullify an FTCA claim. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal on this alternative basis was erroneous. View "Durden v. United States" on Justia Law

Prinkey served in the Army, 1969 to 1970, including time in Vietnam. He was diagnosed with diabetes in 1996. Diabetes mellitus type II is presumed to be service connected if the veteran was exposed to Agent Orange, 38 U.S.C. 1116(a)(2)(H) (2002). In 2003, the VA received Prinkey’s claim for benefits on account of his diabetes, asserting exposure to Agent Orange. The VA Regional Office grantedservice connection for diabetes, evaluated at 20%, and lesser rated service connection for other disabilities secondary to diabetes. Prinkey sought to reopen his claim. During reexamination, the VA concluded that his diabetes more likely than not resulted from the surgery that removed most of his pancreas following years of alcohol abuse, not from his exposure to Agent Orange. Ultimately the Board of Veterans’ Appeals sustained severance of service connection for diabetes and related disabilities and denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. The Veterans Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under 38 C.F.R. 3.105(d) “service connection will be severed only where evidence establishes that it is clearly and unmistakably erroneous; the VA may consider medical evidence and diagnoses that postdate the original award of service connection. View "Prinkey v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Augutis had reconstructive surgery on his foot at a VA hospital. Complications led to amputation of his leg. Augutis claims that the amputation was the result of negligent treatment and filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA denied the claim. Augutis timely requested reconsideration on March 21, 2011. On October 3, the VA informed him that it had not completed reconsideration, but that suit could be filed or additional time could be permitted to allow it to reach a decision. The letter noted that Federal Tort Claims Act claims are governed by both federal and state law and that some state laws may bar a claim or suit. Days later, the VA denied reconsideration. The letter explained that a claim could be presented to a district court within six months, but again noted that state laws might bar suit. Augutis filed suit on April 3, 2012, more than five years after the surgery, but within six months of the VA’s final dismissal. The district court dismissed under Illinois’s statute of repose, 735 ILCS 5/13‐212(a), which requires that a medical malpractice claim be brought within four years of the date of the alleged malpractice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the state limitations period was preempted by the FTCA period. View "Augutis v. Uniited States" on Justia Law

Before the invasion of Iraq, KBR entered into contracts with the U.S. Army for the provision of dining facility (DFAC) services in Iraq. The contract at issue was for DFAC services at Camp Anaconda, one of the largest U.S. bases in Iraq. KBR subcontracted with Tamimi to provide services in Anaconda. As troop levels increased, the Defense Contract Auditing Agency (DCAA) engaged in audits of DFAC subcontracts. With respect to Anaconda, the DCAA concluded that KBR had charged $41.1 million in unreasonable costs for services provided from July 2004 to December 2004 and declined to pay KBR that amount. KBR sued and the government brought counterclaims, including a claim under the Anti-Kickback Act. The Court of Federal Claims held that KBR was entitled to $11,460,940.31 in reasonable costs and dismissed the majority of the government’s counterclaims, but awarded $38,000.00 on the AKA claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed the determination of cost reasonableness and dismissal of the government’s Fraud and False Claims Act claims and common-law fraud claim. The court remanded in part, holding that the Claims Court improperly calculated KBR’s base fee and erred in determining that the actions of KBR’s employees should not be imputed to KBR for purposes of the AKA. . View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs, Inc. v. United States" 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

The Department of Veterans Affairs promulgated a rule that purported to eliminate certain procedural and appellate rights for veterans appearing before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) sought review. During the course of review it became clear that the new rule was invalid; the VA made assurances to NOVA and to the Federal Circuit about how the matter would be handled pending resolution. It later became clear that these assurances were not honored by the VA. The Federal Circuit ordered the VA to show cause why it should not be sanctioned. The VA, conceding error, provided a detailed remedial plan. After clarifications, NOVA indicated its satisfaction with, and agreement to, the plan, under which the VA agreed to notify relevant claimants before the Board, to vacate the affected Board decisions, and to provide affected claimants with a new hearing even if relevant deadlines would otherwise have expired. The Federal Circuit approved the plan and did not enter sanctions. View "Nat'l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former members of the armed forces, brought suit against defendants, two former Secretaries of Defense, alleging that they were victims of rape and sexual misconduct by fellow servicemembers during their military careers. Plaintiffs sought money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court held that no Bivens action will lie where special factors counsel hesitation in creating an implied right of action and special factors clearly counsel hesitation in implying a cause of action for injuries arising out of military service. The court concluded that judicial abstention was the proper course in this case pursuant to Chappell v. Wallace, United States v. Stanley, and Feres v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Cioca v. Rumsfeld" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed suit against the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy and others, alleging violation of his constitutional rights in an administrative decision which suspended him from practice before naval courts. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from plaintiff's filing of an appellate brief containing statements he knew were false and misleading. The court concluded that the district court did not err in holding that the Navy JAG had authority to discipline plaintiff; plaintiff received ample due process and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated during the proceedings against him; and the record did not support plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 701, and 706, claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims and denied his request for mandamus review. View "Partington v. Houck, et al." on Justia Law

Antonellis, a member of the Navy Reserve since 1986, is a member of boththe Selected Reserve, a paid unit, and the Individual Ready Reserve, which is unpaid. From 2009 through 2011, Antonellis submitted 69 applications, but he was not assigned to any Selected Reserve billet and was instead assigned to a Volunteer Training Unit in the Individual Ready Reserve. He performed those duties without pay. In 2011 Antonellis filed suit under the Military Pay Act, 37 U.S.C. 206(a), asserting that, based on his outstanding service record and the standards described in the Commander’s guidance letter, he “has been clearly entitled to a pay billet” and that the decision not to assign him to a Selected Reserve pay billet was arbitrary. He sought more than $64,700 in back pay. The Claims Court dismissed the claim as nonjusticiable, because there were no standards by which it could review the Navy’s assignment decisions. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Antonellis v. United States" on Justia Law

Harkness, a reserve Commander in the Navy Chaplain Corps, was denied a promotion to the rank of Captain by an annual selection board. The Secretary of the Navy denied his request to convene a special selection board (SSB) to review that decision. Harkness filed suit, claiming that promotion policies and procedures for chaplains violated the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies required by 10 U.S.C. 14502(g). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that non-promoted officers must first petition the Secretary to convene an SSB. The Secretary must weigh certain factors, including whether an administrative error caused the original selection board not actually to consider the officer, or whether a material error caused the original board to mistakenly fail to recommend promotion. If the Secretary determines that an SSB is not warranted, the officer can seek review of that denial in federal court. The language of Harkness’s request apparently challenged only the composition of the board and fell short of giving the Secretary a meaningful opportunity to respond to Harkness’s constitutional contention. View "Harkness v. United States" on Justia Law