Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Bruce Kelley and his spouse, Nancy Kelley, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in Vermont state court after Bruce Kelley was paralyzed from the waist down while residing at Franklin County Rehabilitation Center (FCRC). They alleged that Dr. Teig Marco, employed by Richford Health Center, Inc. (RHC), negligently treated Kelley, leading to his paralysis. RHC is a federally funded community health center deemed a member of the Public Health Service under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA).The United States intervened and removed the case to federal district court, asserting that RHC and Dr. Marco were covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) due to their deemed status. The United States District Court for the District of Vermont held an evidentiary hearing and determined that the FSHCAA did not apply to Dr. Marco’s treatment of Kelley because Kelley was not a patient of RHC, and the treatment did not fall under the specified statutory criteria for nonpatients. Consequently, the District Court remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Kelley was not a patient of RHC and that Dr. Marco’s treatment did not meet the criteria for FTCA coverage for nonpatients under the FSHCAA. The court concluded that the treatment did not qualify as after-hours coverage or emergency treatment and that RHC had not sought a particularized determination of coverage from the Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, the remand to state court was appropriate, and the District Court's order was affirmed. View "Kelley v. Richford Health Center, Inc." on Justia Law

In January 2019, Ashley Franklin, an inmate at the Franklin County Regional Jail, was transported to a hospital by Jail Sergeant Brandon Price due to illness. During the transport, Price sexually assaulted Franklin. Franklin filed a lawsuit against Price, Franklin County, and two other Jail employees, asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state law claims. She alleged that Price and his superior, Captain Wes Culbertson, were deliberately indifferent to her safety and that Franklin County had inadequate policies and training to prevent such assaults.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted Franklin’s motion for summary judgment on her Eighth Amendment claim against Price but denied her other claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the other defendants, finding no evidence that Culbertson or Franklin County were deliberately indifferent or that the County’s policies were inadequate. The court also found that the County’s previous incidents of misconduct did not establish a pattern of unconstitutional behavior. Franklin’s negligence claims against Culbertson and Jailer Rick Rogers were dismissed, with the court ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity under Kentucky law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Franklin County was not liable under § 1983 because Franklin failed to show a direct causal link between the County’s policies and her assault. The court also found that Culbertson and Rogers were entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions were discretionary and performed in good faith. Franklin’s claims of gross negligence were deemed forfeited due to lack of development in her arguments. The court concluded that Franklin had not established that the County’s policies or training were constitutionally inadequate or that there was a pattern of similar constitutional violations. View "Franklin v. Franklin County" on Justia Law

Anthony Barron, a civilian contractor, drowned while driving through a low water crossing at Camp Bullis, a U.S. military facility near San Antonio, Texas. The crossing was not closed or guarded despite regulations requiring such measures during heavy rain. Barron’s parents sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging general negligence, premises liability, and negligent undertaking.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the claims, citing sovereign immunity and the discretionary function exception. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the regulation mandating the gate be locked or guarded was non-discretionary. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that Texas law barred the general negligence and premises liability claims and that the negligent undertaking claim was inadequately pleaded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the general negligence and premises liability claims, agreeing that Texas law precludes recovery under these theories. However, the appellate court disagreed with the district court’s finding that the negligent undertaking claim was inadequately pleaded. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged the elements of negligent undertaking.Given the uncertainty in Texas law regarding whether a negligent undertaking claim can proceed when a premises liability claim is barred by the natural accumulation doctrine, the Fifth Circuit certified this question to the Supreme Court of Texas. The appellate court retained jurisdiction pending the state court’s response. View "Barron v. United States" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, alleged that she was sexually assaulted by court officer Jose Martinez while in custody at the Lawrence District Court in 2009 and 2014. Doe claimed that the Massachusetts Trial Court was negligent in failing to prevent these assaults. She reported the 2009 assaults to the New Hampshire Department of Corrections, but they did not inform the Trial Court. In 2014, after further assaults, she again reported to New Hampshire authorities, who then notified the Massachusetts State Police, leading to Martinez's arrest in 2015. Additionally, in 2013, another detainee accused Martinez of groping her, but an investigation by the Lawrence police and the Trial Court did not substantiate the claim.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trial Court, concluding that the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA) immunized the Trial Court from suit under the discretionary function exception. The judge also noted that the MTCA's public duty rule provided an alternative basis for summary judgment.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Trial Court's decisions regarding detainee safety policies and procedures involved discretionary functions protected by the MTCA. The court found that the Trial Court had discretion in implementing policies to ensure detainee safety and that these decisions were integral to policy-making and planning. The court also noted that the Trial Court's actions were not prescribed by any statute or regulation, including the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which did not mandate immediate compliance with its standards. Therefore, the Trial Court was immune from liability under the MTCA's discretionary function exception. View "Doe v. Massachusetts Trial Court" on Justia Law

Ming Zheng, a drilling field engineer, suffered a work-related injury to her right ankle while attempting to disassemble a tool string. She reported the injury and received workers' compensation benefits. Approximately a year later, Zheng sought additional benefits for an injury to her left ankle and requested preauthorization for surgery on her right ankle. The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division, denied these requests, finding the treatments were not related to her original work injury. The Division also discontinued her temporary total disability benefits after she received a 0% impairment rating.The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the Division's denial of benefits and discontinuation of temporary total disability benefits after a contested case hearing. The Commission found that Zheng failed to prove the requested treatments for her left ankle were related to her compensable work injury and that the surgery on her right ankle was necessary. The district court affirmed the Medical Commission's decision.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the Medical Commission's findings that Zheng's left ankle issues were not related to her work injury and that the requested surgery on her right ankle was not necessary. The Court also found that the Medical Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in admitting an addendum to Dr. Orth's independent medical evaluation, as Zheng had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Orth and present rebuttal evidence. The Court concluded that the Medical Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "Zheng v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

Charles Johnson, Jr. was arrested by Officer Garrett Rolfe for driving while intoxicated. Johnson alleged that Rolfe used excessive force during the arrest, resulting in a broken collarbone. Johnson sued Rolfe and the City of Atlanta under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia state law, claiming excessive force and battery. Johnson's complaint stated that he was respectful and did not resist arrest, but Rolfe threw him to the ground, causing his injury.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia reviewed the case. The City moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it failed to state a claim for Monell liability. Rolfe moved for judgment on the pleadings, submitting body camera and dashcam footage showing Johnson resisting arrest. The district court considered the video evidence, determining it was central to Johnson's claims and its authenticity was not disputed. The court found that Rolfe did not use excessive force and was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and official immunity on the state law claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the Monell claim against the City, as there was no underlying constitutional violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the video evidence was properly considered under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine. The court found that Rolfe's use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including Johnson's resistance and the dangerous location of the arrest. Therefore, Rolfe was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and official immunity on the state law claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Monell claim against the City, as no constitutional violation occurred. View "Johnson v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a plaintiff, Carol Allen, who slipped and fell on the steps of Newport City Hall during a winter storm, resulting in severe injuries. Allen alleged that the city and its employees were negligent in failing to properly treat the stairs for adverse weather conditions. The case was heard in the Superior Court, where the trial justice ruled in favor of Allen, finding that the city and its employees had a duty to clear the steps of snow and ice, even during an ongoing storm, due to "unusual circumstances."The city and its employees appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. They argued that the trial justice erred in not applying the "Connecticut Rule," which states that a property owner's duty to clear snow and ice does not arise until a reasonable time after a storm has ended. The city argued that the storm was ongoing at the time of Allen's fall, and therefore, they did not owe her a duty to clear the steps.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island agreed with the city and its employees. The court found that the trial justice had erred in applying the "unusual circumstances" exception to the Connecticut Rule. The court clarified that "unusual circumstances" exist when a property owner's actions exacerbate the inherent risk of traveling during a storm, not when the owner fails to alleviate the danger. In this case, the city and its employees did not engage in any behavior that increased the risk to Allen. Therefore, the court vacated the judgments of the Superior Court and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the city and its employees. View "Allen v. Sitrin" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the award of black lung benefits to the surviving wife of the late Bruce E. Goode, who worked for American Energy as a coal miner and suffered from a severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disability. American Energy disputed the cause of his impairment, arguing that it was due to his long-term cigarette smoking, not his coal mine employment. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Goode’s disability arose from his coal mine employment and awarded black lung benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the award.American Energy appealed, arguing that the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard. The company contended that the Black Lung Benefits Act and its implementing regulations require a miner to prove that coal dust caused the lung disease or made it worse. American Energy argued that the ALJ reversed the burden of proof by finding that the company had not proven why Mr. Goode’s lung disease was not at least partially due to coal dust exposure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard in determining that Mr. Goode had legal pneumoconiosis. However, the court noted that the ALJ also concluded that Mr. Goode’s clinical pneumoconiosis entitled him to benefits. The court granted American Energy’s petition and vacated and remanded the Board’s order for further proceedings. View "American Energy, LLC v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas Sterry, an inmate at the Moose Lake Correctional Facility, who filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) and Correctional Officer Ashley Youngberg. Sterry alleged that Youngberg sexually assaulted and harassed him while he was working in the prison kitchen. The DOC was aware of Youngberg's history of harassment but had not disciplined her prior to the incidents involving Sterry. Sterry's lawsuit included claims of battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence under a theory of vicarious liability.The district court dismissed Sterry's claims, concluding that the DOC was immune from the suit under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act because Youngberg was not acting within the scope of her employment when the alleged assault occurred. Sterry appealed this decision, and the court of appeals reversed the district court's ruling. The court of appeals found that Sterry's complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive the motion to dismiss, as it was consistent with common law principles of vicarious liability applicable to private employers.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The court held that a state employer could be held vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional tort under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act if the tort is related to the duties of the employee and occurs within work-related limits of time and place. The court also found that Sterry's complaint alleged sufficient facts to survive the DOC's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Sterry's claim could allow a jury to find that Youngberg was acting within the scope of her employment when the alleged assault occurred, under circumstances where the DOC would be liable under common law for vicarious liability. View "Sterry v. Minnesota Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Sally Splittgerber suffered a fall while walking on a city sidewalk, leading to a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the adjacent property, the lessee of that property (Bankers Trust), and the City of Des Moines. The plaintiffs alleged that these parties were negligent in maintaining the uneven sidewalk. After settling the claims, Bankers Trust sought contribution from the City for the settlement payment, arguing that the City, not the property owner or lessee, was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk.The district court, relying on the precedent set in Madden v. City of Iowa City, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court held that the City could impose liability on abutting landowners for damages resulting from other types of failures to maintain sidewalks, beyond just snow and ice removal. Bankers Trust appealed this decision, asking the Supreme Court of Iowa to overrule the Madden decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with Bankers Trust, stating that the Madden decision was wrongly decided. The court found that the City's attempt to shift costs and liability to abutting landowners for sidewalk maintenance and accidents beyond what the state statute allows was in direct conflict with the legislature's express determination about where such burdens reside. The court noted that the statute only permits cities to require abutting landowners to repair sidewalks if the city first notifies the landowners by certified mail that a repair is necessary, and only permits cities to hold abutting landowners liable for damages if they fail to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk.The court overruled the Madden decision, reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bankers Trust Company v. City Of Des Moines" on Justia Law