Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to the Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), the United States enters into contracts with Indian tribes and tribal organizations for âthe planning, conduct and administration of programs or services which are otherwise provided to Indian tribes and their members pursuant to Federal law.â These agreements (Contract Support Cost contracts, or CSCs) include costs which are used for the running of essential tribal services, such as law enforcement, economic development and natural resource management. Congress mandated all CSCs be provided with full funding, but then failed to appropriate funds sufficient to pay all CSCs. Instead Congress capped appropriations at a level well below the sum total of CSCs. Several tribes sued seeking to collect the promised-but-unappropriated CSC money. The government argued that the phrase âsubject to the availability of appropriationsâ relieves it of the obligation to pay if the Congress doesnât appropriate the funds. The tribes argued that only Congressional funding decisionsânot the discretionary allocation decisions made by the Department of the Interiorâcan render an appropriation âunavailable.â The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffsâ interpretation is âreasonable,â and it reversed the district courtâs grant of summary judgment in favor of the government. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Jessica Cohon sought funding through New Mexicoâs Medicaid program. She qualified for the âMi Via Waiverâ program, and submitted budget requests which were partly granted, partly denied. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, she filed suit, alleging that the administration of the Mi Via Waiver program discriminated against severely disabled persons like herself. The State moved to dismiss Plaintiffâs complaint, arguing that not only was it the wrong entity being sued, but that Plaintiff had no statutory basis to support her suit. The district court dismissed Plaintiffâs claims based on federal law, but remanded her state-law claims to the administrative agency for further proceedings. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her federal law claims to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found Plaintiffâs federal claims âinsufficient in substance,â and affirmed the judgment of the district court that dismissed her claims.

Plaintiff Richard Krauser appealed the district courtâs order that denied him social security and supplemental security income benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Plaintiffâs benefits on the last step of a five-step process for determining his eligibility. Among other things, the ALJ found that Plaintiffâs ailments had not met the âper seâ disabling impairments that would have made him eligible, and considering his age, education and transferable work skills, Plaintiff could go back to work. The appeals council denied review, making the ALJâs decision ripe for the Tenth Circuit to review. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ did not properly consider all of his impairments and came to the wrong conclusion after the five-step process. The Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ did not review all evidence Plaintiff submitted, particularly statements from Plaintiffâs treating physician. The Court reversed the ALJâs holding and remanded the case for further review.

In this case the Court was asked to determine who won an eminent domain action in which the winner should have been awarded attorney's fees. Despite winning the judgment, Appellees were denied attorney's fees. Technically Appellees were not the "prevailing party" at trial, and thus not entitled to fees. At issue in the case was the value of mineral rights to land the Government sought to take by eminent domain. Competing experts disputed the valuation, eventually resting on a number with the district court's help. Appellees sought fees but were denied. They brought their case to the Tenth Circuit to challenge the district court's decision. Relying on it's own precedent, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court had to use the highest valuation "attested to at trial." In this case, Appellants "won" the battle of the experts even though Appellees "won" the judgment. Appellants' expert had the highest valuation of the mineral rights, and because the amount of the judgment was far less than his highest valuation, Appellants were the "prevailiang party." The Court accordingly affirmed the district court's decision denying Appellees attorney's fees.

Plaintiff appealed the administrative law judge's ("ALJ") denial of his application for supplemental security income alleging that he became disabled beginning in March 20, 2005 due to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. At issue was whether the factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The court held that the ALJ did not follow the law in evaluating all the medical evidence from a licensed clinical psychologist, a licensed professional counselor, and a physician who diagnosed plaintiff with schizoaffective disorder. The court also held that the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards in assessing plaintiff's credibility, and alternatively, the ALJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

Plaintiff-Appellee Abby Tiscareno ran a licensed day care in Summit County, Utah. One morning in November, 2003, James Molineux dropped off his two sons. Plaintiff had cared for the Molineux boys since September. The younger of the two boys appeared sleepy that morning, and Plaintiff placed him in a crib. When the baby would not wake for feeding, Plaintiff called 911. The baby was found to have brain injuries indicating âa prior bleed.â Plaintiff denied that she injured the baby, but the doctorâs insistence that the injuries were recent lead police to focus solely on Plaintiff. Plaintiff was arrested and charged with felony child abuse. Plaintiff requested any evidence pertaining to her case, but received none. She was convicted of the charges against her. It was not until the Monineuxs sued Plaintiff did she learn of an exculpatory pathology report. A Utah court granted Plaintiff a new trial. When confronted with the pathology report at the second trial, the attending doctors admitted the report suggested that the baby sustained injuries days before he was dropped off at Plaintiffâs day care. Plaintiff was found not guilty at the second trial. Plaintiff filed suit for damages under federal and state law against Defendant-Appellant Richard Anderson in his official capacity as Director of the Division of Child and Family Services ("DCFS"), claiming that he and several other individual entities involved in the investigation and prosecution violated her rights to due process. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit based on qualified immunity. The district court rejected the motion. Defendant appealed. On review, the Tenth Circuit District Court noted that the qualified immunity doctrine is designed to protect public officials who act in good faith. The Court also recognized that the intentional failure of an investigator to turn over exculpatory evidence creates a liability for the investigating agency. âEven a generous reading of the case law fails to establish clearly that [Defendantâs] actions amounted to a constitutional deprivation.â The Court held that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because the record reflects he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law. The Court reversed the denial of Defendantâs motion to dismiss, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

In New Mexico, title insurance is totally regulated by the state. Under its âTitle Insurance Act,â the state superintendent of insurance holds yearly public hearings to establish premium rates insurers can charge for title insurance. At the close of the hearings, a legal or âfiled rateâ is published by the agency. Once set, the filed rate is considered âper se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers.â The policy behind the filed rate is to prevent price discrimination, preserve the role of agencies in approving rates and âto keep courts out of the rate-making process.â The New Mexico Insurance Code does not apply to title insurers except to the extent that the Title Insurance Act provides otherwise. Plaintiffs Coll and others brought suit alleging generally that the Title Insurance Act violates numerous New Mexico constitutional and statutory provisions precluding price fixing and creating monopolies. Plaintiffs also allege that the Insurer Defendants conspired with the insurance superintendent to establish a premium rate that is unreasonably high. Based on these theories, Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and statutory damages; Defendantsâ disgorgement of their profits; and attorneysâ fees and costs. The lower court dismissed Plaintiffsâ claims with prejudice and remanded to state court all claims asserted against the state Defendants. The Tenth Circuit District Court agreed with the lower courtâs decision that the âfiled rateâ doctrine precluded Plaintiffsâ claims against the Defendants. The Court affirmed the district courtâs dismissal of Plaintiffs claims and remanded the case to the lower court for review of claims brought on state constitutional and procedural grounds.

The Petitioner appealed an order awarding her attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2824, but denying $350 costs, in connection with a social security matter, then moved for an award of $5,210 for attorney fees on appeal. The district court denied the motion. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, stating that the Commissioner "substantially justified" in opposing her appeal. The Commissioner's position with respect to the request for costs was incorrect, but reasonable in light of existing authority.