Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2018, Terri Richardson Mattson (“Mattson”) and her husband filed this action against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and its employee, Laurie Gallegos, a certified physician assistant (“Defendants”), alleging medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent related to outpatient mental health services Mattson received from Defendants. As a part of those services, Gallegos prescribed Mattson Prozac (fluoxetine), an antidepressant. Roughly one month later, the day of her follow up appointment with Gallegos, Mattson woke up, took a firearm from her gun cabinet, went to the liquor store, bought a bottle of vodka, drank the entire bottle while driving to her follow up appointment, and when she arrived in the Department’s parking lot, fired the gun into her head. Mattson survived but suffered extensive injuries. Subsequently, Mattson and her husband filed this action. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on two grounds: (1) Defendants were immune from liability under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”) because Mattson’s claims arose out of injuries sustained while she was receiving services from a “mental health center”; and (2) the “reckless, willful and wanton conduct” exception to immunity did not apply as a matter of law. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that Mattson’s and her husband’s claims fell within the purview of the “mental health center, hospital or similar facility” immunity provision in Idaho Code section 6-904A(2). However, the Court reversed the district court’s decision that there was no triable jury question under the “reckless, willful and wanton conduct” exception to immunity. The Supreme Court found Mattson alleged sufficient facts at summary judgment to demonstrate that a reasonable person could find that Defendants’ acts or omissions were “reckless, willful and wanton[.]” Thus, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Mattson v. IDHW" on Justia Law

The City of Lemoore (City) appealed following a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, who was injured when he tripped over an uneven portion of a City sidewalk. The City asks us to declare the offending portion of the sidewalk not a “dangerous condition” under the Government Claims Act as a matter of law. The City argued the present sidewalk condition must be deemed trivial as a matter of law because of its open and obvious nature, Plaintiff’s admitted familiarity with the condition, and the absence of prior accidents there.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed. On balance, the factors do not combine to create a risk so trivial, minor, or insignificant that the sidewalk condition must be held not dangerous as a matter of law. Although the condition was visible on approach on an inferably clear, dry day and had not harmed others or Plaintiff in his many prior jogs, reasonable minds could still differ as to its dangerousness based on the evidence of the first defect’s relatively large height and rough edge, the presence of back-to-back defects, and the partial obstruction of the pine needles and debris. The determination of the condition’s dangerousness was properly left to the jury, whose verdict we will not overturn. View "Stack v. City of Lemoore" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of West Virginia, formerly owned Demcorp, LLC, which did business as “Dollar Stretcher,” a convenience store in nearby Winchester, Virginia. That store sold large quantities of cigarettes, which law enforcement agents of the Department of Homeland Security had evidence to believe was being resold in New York to avoid New York’s higher excise taxes, in violation of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act. During their criminal investigation, agents, armed with warrants, seized 1,560 cartons of cigarettes from the Dollar Stretcher store, and the Department of Homeland Security then held them for several years, during which time the cigarettes passed their shelf life of one year. When the Department ultimately offered to return the cigarettes, Plaintiff refused them as they could no longer be sold and thus had no value. Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Department of Homeland Security and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking compensatory damages. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the criminal warrant served a range of obvious and stated criminal investigative purposes. Any damages action against the United States for the improper seizure and detention under such a warrant is barred by sovereign immunity. Even though the seizure of cigarettes, in this case, was authorized by both a warrant issued for criminal investigative purposes and a warrant issued for civil forfeiture — dual purposes — the court concluded that the United States is immune from suit. View "Reba Myers v. Alejandro Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Board of Review (BOR) affirming the finding of the Office of Judges (OOJ) that Respondent's claim for occupational pneumoconiosis benefits against Petitioner was timely, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.The claims representative for Petitioner's worker's compensation insurance carrier found that Respondent's claim for benefits was filed outside of the pertinent three-year statute of limitations and therefore denied it. The OOJ reversed, ruling that Respondent was not time-barred from filing his claim. Thereafter, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that Respondent had a ten-percent impairment. The BOR affirmed on the timeliness issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR did not clearly err in finding that Respondent filed his occupational pneumoconiosis claim within the three-year limitations period. View "Argus Energy, LLC v. Marenko" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Manuel Hernandez appealed the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant City of Stockton (City) based on his failure to comply with the claims presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act. Plaintiff sued for damages arising out of an allegedly defective public sidewalk. Plaintiff filed a government claim with the City, alleging that it negligently maintained public property by failing to correct a dangerous condition along a sidewalk. Plaintiff claimed that he sustained severe injuries when he tripped and fell due to a “dangerous condition” on the City-owned “sidewalk surface” that he identified only as an “uplifted sidewalk.” After his government claim was rejected, plaintiff filed this personal injury action, complaining broadly that the “sidewalk surface” harbored a “dangerous condition” that created an unspecified hazard. He later disclosed during his deposition that he tripped and fell when he stepped into a hole, specifically a tree well with no tree in it. When specifically asked whether it was “fair to say that [his] fall was not caused by an uplifted sidewalk,” he responded: “Correct.” The Court of Appeal concurred with the trial court that this action was barred because the factual basis for recovery was not “fairly reflected” in plaintiff’s government claim. View "Hernandez v. City of Stockton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the opinion and order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding permanent partial disability income and medical benefits to Claimant, holding that there was no error.Claimant alleged that his bilateral knee injuries had been caused by cumulative trauma while working exclusively for Employer as a firefighter and EMT paramedic. Following a final hearing, the ALJ determined that Claimant's bilateral knee condition was caused by work-related cumulative trauma and awarded him benefits. Employer appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ALJ did not err in finding that Claimant had sustained an "injury" as defined under Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.0011(1); (2) the ALJ's findings regarding causation were supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the ALJ's findings of fact were sufficiently specific. View "Lexington Fayette Urban County Government v. Gosper" on Justia Law

Defendant Donald J. Trump and Appellant the United States of America appealed from a district court judgment denying their motion to substitute the United States in this action pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988. In the Second Circuit’s prior opinion, the court vacated the district court’s judgment that Trump did not act within the scope of his employment, and the court certified to the D.C. Court of Appeals the following question: Under the laws of the District, were the allegedly libelous public statements made, during his term in office, by the President of the United States, denying allegations of misconduct, with regards to events prior to that term of office, within the scope of his employment as President of the United States?   The D.C. Court of Appeals reformulated our certified question in two parts, asking (1) whether the D.C. Court of Appeals should opine on the scope of the President of the United States’ employment and (2) how the court might clarify or modify the District of Columbia’s law of respondeat superior to resolve the issue in this appeal. The D.C. Court of Appeals answered the former part in the negative and provided additional guidance in response to the latter. Having vacated the district court’s judgment in the court’s prior opinion, the court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the guidance provided in the D.C. Court of Appeals’ opinion. View "E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump" on Justia Law

Claimant Hipolito Coria sought review of the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing a penalty that the Workers’ Compensation Board imposed on respondent SAIF for unreasonable claims processing. The board imposed the penalty pursuant to ORS 656.262(11)(a), which provides, in part, that, if an “insurer . . . unreasonably refuses to pay compensation,” the insurer “shall be liable for an additional amount up to 25 percent of the amounts then due,” plus penalty-related attorney fees. On review, the parties disagreed about the board’s reason for imposing the penalty. They also disagreed about many of the procedural and substantive legal requirements for imposing penalties pursuant to ORS 656.262(11)(a). The Oregon Supreme Court concluded the board’s imposition of the penalty was not supported by substantial reason because the board’s order failed to “articulate a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them.” Consequently, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the board to explain its reasoning; necessarily, the Court did not reach the parties’ arguments about the legal requirements for imposing penalties pursuant to ORS 656.262(11)(a). View "SAIF v. Coria" on Justia Law

Erasmo Paredes sustained an on-the-job injury in late 2019. He continued working for his employer, Schlumberger Technology Corp., until January 30, 2020. His employer's insurance carrier, Travelers Indemnity Company of America, provided voluntary medical treatment to Paredes from January 3, 2020, through February 14, 2020. Paredes's CC-Form 3 Claim for Compensation was filed on December 3, 2020, alleging an injury date of December 29, 2019. This claim was filed ten months after Paredes's last medical treatment, but within one year from the date of his injury. Travelers's counsel entered an appearance in the Workers' Compensation case on December 22, 2020. On February 18, 2021, the affidavit of Travelers's claims handler was filed with attachments indicating Travelers provided medical treatment to Paredes in the total amount of $1,371.47. No disability benefits were paid. On the same date, counsel for Travelers filed the CC-Form 10 Answer and Notice of Contested Issues on behalf of Schlumberger raising the defense of statute of limitations pursuant to Section 69(A)(1) of Title 85 A. 1 Schlumberger also denied compensable injuries, alleged pre-existing conditions pursuant to 85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 2(9)(b)(6), and denied benefits. An ALJ issued an order that was filed on May 13, 2021, concluding that Paredes's claim was not barred by Section 69(A)(1). Schlumberger appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission ("Commission"), and the parties filed written arguments. Oral argument before the Commission was held on January 14, 2022. The Commission, sitting en banc, affirmed the Decision of the ALJ by order filed January 18, 2022. Schlumberger appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking review of the Commission's interpretation of 85A O.S. Supp. 2019, § 69(A)(1). Finding no error in the Commission's interpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America" on Justia Law

The Sabine River Authority of Louisiana ("SRA-L")was created as a conservation and reclamation district lying within the watershed of the Sabine River, by an act of the Louisiana legislature in 1950. The SRA subsequently entered into a joint venture with the Sabine River Authority, Texas ("SRA-T") to create a dam and reservoir, promote industrial development, and conserve water.Plaintiffs are Louisiana and Texas property owners who claimed that the SRAs violated their federal Fifth Amendment rights by opening spillway gates to relieve highwater levels in the reservoir during a rain event in March of 2016. Plaintiffs claimed the SRA's actions flooded their properties, causing significant property damage.The district court determined SRA-L was not an arm of the state and therefore was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. SRA-L appealed. Finding that the first Clark factor weighed in favor of sovereign immunity, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the remaining Clark factors weighed against sovereign immunity. Thus, the court held that, under he Eleventh Amendment, the SRA-L is not an "arm of the state." View "Bonin, et al v. Sabine River Authority" on Justia Law