Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

John Hudnall, a former financial advisor, applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming he had been unable to work since May 1, 2015, due to major depressive disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. His application included a function report from his wife, Miyuki Sato, detailing his limitations in daily activities and self-care. Despite this, the Social Security Administration denied his application and request for reconsideration. Hudnall then sought a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who also denied his claim, finding him not disabled based on medical evidence and Hudnall's self-reported activities, without explicitly addressing Sato's lay evidence.Hudnall appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Social Security Administration. Hudnall then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that under the Social Security Administration's new regulations, effective March 27, 2017, ALJs are no longer required to provide germane reasons for discounting lay witness testimony. The court found that these regulations, which state that ALJs are not required to articulate how they considered evidence from nonmedical sources, are within the Commissioner of Social Security's broad authority and are not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the ALJ did not err in discounting Sato's evidence without explanation. The court resolved all other issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "HUDNALL V. DUDEK" on Justia Law

Petitioners, veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, applied for service-connected PTSD disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Bufkin's claim was denied due to insufficient evidence linking his PTSD to his military service. Thornton, who already received benefits, sought an increased disability rating, which the VA denied. Both cases were reviewed de novo by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which upheld the VA's decisions. Bufkin and Thornton then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the evidence was in "approximate balance" and they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no clear error in the approximate-balance determinations. Petitioners appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the Veterans Court's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. §7261(b)(1). They argued that the Veterans Court should review the entire record de novo to determine if the evidence was in approximate balance. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed the Veterans Court's decisions.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the VA's determination of whether evidence is in "approximate balance" is predominantly a factual determination, subject to clear-error review. The Court clarified that the Veterans Court must review the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule using the same standards as other determinations: de novo for legal issues and clear error for factual issues. The judgment of the Federal Circuit was affirmed. View "Bufkin v. Collins" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Lin Luo, sought review of a final order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that determined her ineligible for unemployment benefits from April 5, 2023, to June 28, 2023. Luo was terminated from her position at the American Chemical Society (ACS) and received post-termination payments under an Agreement and General Release. The OAH administrative law judge (ALJ) classified these payments as severance pay, which disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits. Luo argued that the payments were settlement payments for sexual harassment claims, not severance pay.The Department of Employment Services (DOES) initially found Luo ineligible for benefits for a slightly different period. Luo appealed to OAH, where the ALJ held a hearing and excluded Luo's evidence of her harassment claims, citing the parol evidence rule. The ALJ concluded that the Agreement's language unambiguously indicated the payments were severance pay, based on Luo's years of service and lack of advance notice of termination. The ALJ also noted that the Agreement included a release of claims against ACS and found that Luo signed the Agreement without fraud, duress, or mutual mistake.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the ALJ erred in not considering parol evidence regarding the nature of the payments. The court noted that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence showing that factual recitals in an agreement are untrue. The court concluded that the ALJ should have considered Luo's testimony and evidence about her harassment claims to determine the parties' intent regarding the payments. The court vacated the OAH orders and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider this evidence. View "Luo v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services" on Justia Law

Several unemployed workers in Alabama applied for unemployment benefits and claimed that the Alabama Department of Labor unlawfully delayed processing their claims. They sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that the delays violated their due process and federal statutory rights. They sought a court order to expedite the processing of their claims. The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claimants had not satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirement under Alabama law. The state trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.The claimants appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that §1983 did not preempt the state's administrative-exhaustion requirement, effectively preventing the claimants from suing to expedite the administrative process until they had completed it.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that state courts may not deny §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when the application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively immunizes state officials from such claims. The Court reasoned that Alabama's exhaustion requirement, as applied, prevented claimants from challenging delays in the administrative process, thus immunizing state officials from §1983 suits. The Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. Reed" on Justia Law

Ken Lick Coal Company employed Bob Reed from 1973 to 1986, during which he was exposed to coal dust. Reed later worked for Green Valley Hydro Seeding & Reclamation and JPR, where he continued to be exposed to coal dust. Reed developed breathing problems and filed three claims for black-lung benefits. His first claim in 1986 was denied. His second claim in 2007 was initially granted but later denied by an administrative law judge who found Reed did not have pneumoconiosis. Reed's third claim in 2018 was pursued by his widow after his death.The district director awarded benefits and designated Ken Lick as the responsible operator. An administrative law judge upheld this decision, finding Reed had over 15 years of coal-mine employment, including his work with Green Valley and JPR. The judge also found that Ken Lick had stipulated to being the responsible operator during Reed's second claim, which the judge deemed binding in the third claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the administrative law judge erred in treating Ken Lick's prior stipulation as binding. The court found that the stipulation was a legal conclusion rather than a factual one, and thus, the judge had the authority to disregard it. The court noted that the administrative law judge would not have required Ken Lick to pay the benefits but for the stipulation. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit granted Ken Lick's petition for review and transferred the liability for Reed's claim to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. View "Ken Lick Coal Co. v. OWCP" on Justia Law

Dale Staten, a coal miner for nearly thirty years, retired in 2000 and passed away in January 2017 from respiratory failure after a two-week hospitalization. His widow, Bernadette Staten, filed for survivor benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. A Department of Labor administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded benefits, concluding that Bernadette qualified for a statutory presumption that Dale died from black lung disease due to his extensive underground mining work and total disability at the time of his death. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's decision in a divided ruling.Consolidation Coal Company (CONSOL), Dale's former employer, challenged the ALJ's award, arguing that the 15-year presumption should only apply to chronic pulmonary conditions, not acute illnesses like Dale's respiratory failure. CONSOL contended that Dale's total disability was due to an acute condition rather than a chronic one. The ALJ had credited Dr. Sanjay Chavda's opinion that Dale was totally disabled at the time of his death, while discounting the opinions of CONSOL's experts, Dr. James Castle and Dr. Robert Farney, who argued that Dale was not disabled based on his medical history before his hospitalization.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the ALJ's award of benefits. The court held that the Black Lung Benefits Act does not require a claimant to prove that a miner's total disability arose from a chronic pulmonary condition to invoke the 15-year presumption. The court found that the ALJ acted within its authority in crediting Dr. Chavda's opinion and concluding that CONSOL failed to rebut the presumption that Dale's death was due to pneumoconiosis. The court denied CONSOL's petition for review and affirmed the judgment of the Benefits Review Board. View "Consolidation Coal Company v OWCP" on Justia Law

Donald Hunter, a former coal miner, applied for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) in 2019, claiming that he was totally disabled due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) caused by his coal mine employment. Southern Ohio Coal Company, his former employer, contested his claim, arguing that Hunter's COPD was caused by his significant history of smoking cigarettes rather than coal mine dust exposure.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the case and awarded benefits to Hunter, finding that his COPD constituted legal pneumoconiosis and that it was a substantially contributing cause of his total disability. Southern Ohio Coal appealed to the Benefits Review Board (BRB), arguing that the ALJ erred in discrediting its evidence and in crediting Hunter's evidence. The BRB affirmed the ALJ's decision, holding that the ALJ had properly considered and weighed the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Southern Ohio Coal argued that the ALJ erred by relying on a pulmonary function test (PFT) that did not comply with regulatory quality standards and by relieving Hunter of his burden to establish entitlement to benefits. The court found that the ALJ acted within his discretion in determining that the PFT was compliant and supported Hunter's entitlement to benefits. The court also held that the ALJ did not improperly rely on regulatory guidance or flip the burden of proof to Southern Ohio Coal. The ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including expert opinions and Hunter's testimony.The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review, affirming the ALJ's decision to award benefits to Hunter. The court held that the ALJ correctly applied the law and that his decision was supported by substantial evidence. View "Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed two successive applications for disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Her first application, alleging disability beginning June 24, 2017, was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on September 18, 2018. While appealing this denial to the district court, she filed a second application for benefits for a later period. Washington State Disability Determination Services (DDS) reviewed the second application and awarded benefits, determining she was disabled starting September 19, 2018, the day after the ALJ denied her first application.The district court partially ruled in her favor on the first application and remanded it for further proceedings. The Appeals Council remanded the case to the ALJ with instructions. On June 23, 2021, the ALJ reopened the second application and denied the benefits previously granted by DDS. The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was disabled beginning July 14, 2020, on her first application. The district court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s reopening and denial of benefits on the second application.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s reopening of the second application. The Appeals Council did not reopen the second application, and the ALJ’s reopening occurred more than two years after the award, which is only permissible in cases of fraud or similar fault. Finding no evidence of fraud or similar fault, the Ninth Circuit held that the ALJ erred in reopening and reversing the award of benefits on the second application. The court remanded for the district court to direct the agency to award benefits according to DDS’s decision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on the first application, concluding that the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff was not disabled between June 24, 2017, and September 19, 2018, was supported by substantial evidence. View "NEVIN V. COLVIN" on Justia Law

Chesla A. Scott challenged the Idaho Department of Labor's service of three determination notices, claiming she did not receive them while temporarily working out-of-state. The Department mailed the notices to her last known address, and Scott missed the fourteen-day appeal period. When she attempted to appeal, the Department's Appeals Examiner dismissed her appeal as untimely. Scott argued that the Department's service by mail did not meet constitutional due process requirements.The Appeals Examiner conducted a hearing and concluded that Scott's appeal was untimely under Idaho Code section 72-1368(3) and (5). The Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed this decision, denying Scott's request for a new hearing and conducting a de novo review of the record. The Commission also concluded that Scott had not timely filed her appeal.Scott appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the Department's service by mail was constitutionally inadequate. The Court reviewed whether Scott exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her constitutional challenge. The Court held that Scott had exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her due process claim, allowing it to be reviewed.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Department's mailing of the determination notices was reasonable under all the circumstances and did not violate due process. The Court found that the Department's method of service was reasonably calculated to provide notice, and Scott's failure to receive the notices was not due to any fault of the Department. The Court did not award attorney fees to either party but awarded costs to the Department. View "Scott v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

S.S. was receiving temporary housing assistance through the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and staying at a shelter. After a confrontation with shelter staff over a mistakenly reassigned locker, S.S. was asked to vacate the shelter without prior warning. Consequently, DCF imposed a thirty-day period of ineligibility for further temporary housing assistance due to the shelter-rule violation. S.S. requested a fair hearing to challenge this decision, and a hearing officer recommended reversing the ineligibility period, which DCF subsequently did.S.S. then filed a motion with the Human Services Board to adopt the hearing officer’s findings and issue a final order. The hearing officer questioned the mootness of the case since DCF had already lifted the ineligibility period. The Board ultimately dismissed the case as moot, concluding there was no further relief it could provide since DCF had already granted S.S. the requested relief.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The Court held that the Board lacked the statutory authority to provide the relief S.S. sought, as the Board can only affirm, modify, or reverse DCF decisions and provide appropriate relief. Since DCF had already reversed the ineligibility period, there was no live controversy for the Board to address. The Court also found that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply, as S.S. did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of being subjected to the same action again. Consequently, the Board’s dismissal of the case was appropriate. View "In re appeal of S.S." on Justia Law