Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Relators brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B), alleging that the Mayo Foundation and others billed Medicare for surgical pathology services it did not provide. The government intervened and the parties settled. Relators then filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting additional claims. On appeal, relators challenged the district court's dismissal of their additional claim that Mayo fraudulently billed for services it did not provide whenever it prepared and read a permanent tissue slide but did not prepare a separate written report of that service. As a preliminary issue, the court concluded that relators satisfied their burden of showing that the public disclosure bar did not deprive the court of jurisdiction over relators' claim. On the merits, the court concluded that nowhere in the Medicare regulations or in the American Medical Association Codebook has the court found a requirement that physicians using the CPT codes for surgical pathology services must prepare the additional written reports that relators claimed Mayo fraudulently failed to provide. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ketroser, et al. v. Mayo Foundation, et al." on Justia Law

The M/V Julie White, a towboat owned by Artco, was pushing four barges on the river when the barges separated from the towboat and allided with Lock and Dam 25. The barges then sank. After Artco salvaged and removed the sunken barges from the Mississippi River, Artco filed suit under the Limitation of Shipowners' Liability Act (Limitation Act), 46 U.S.C. 30501-12, seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability for, claims arising from the allision. On appeal, Artco challenged the district court's dismissal of the limitation complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) because the United States' claims under the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401-76, were not subject to limitation under the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the government did not have statutory standing because it failed to file a claim in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Supplemental F(5), and therefore, the district court erred by entertaining the government's motion to dismiss the limitation complaint. Because the court concluded that the government was without standing, the court need not address the merits of the government's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "American River Transp., et al. v. United States, Corp of Engineers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, on behalf of the United States, against the City, alleging that the City obtained grants from HUD by falsely certifying compliance with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and its applicable regulations, 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 24 C.F.R. 135. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that he had direct and independent knowledge of the information underlying his fraud allegations and, therefore, affirmed the district court's decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 3730(e)(4). The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court denied plaintiff's motion to take judicial notice. View "United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, the court addressed the Board's finding that RELCO unlawfully discharged eight workers for engaging in protected labor activity and RELCO's subsequent challenge to the Board's composition. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's labor law conclusions. The court also concluded that it lacked authority to decide RELCO's challenge to the recess appointments where RELCO's challenge was barred by 29 U.S.C. 160(e)'s jurisdictional exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement and denied RELCO's petitions for review. View "NLRB v. RELCO Locomotive" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the city alleging that the city's zoning scheme violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court concluded that the zoning ordinances at issue were content-neutral, time, place and manner regulations subject to intermediate scrutiny; the zoning scheme was narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest; and there were reasonable alternative avenues in which plaintiffs could operate an adult entertainment business despite the zoning ordinances. Accordingly, the zoning ordinances did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Peterson, et al. v. City of Florence" on Justia Law

After a patient's death, the patient's family sued the VA for medical malpractice. The VA settled with the family and determined that the settlement was "for the benefit of" plaintiff, who was a treating physician. Plaintiff then filed suit against the VA alleging violations of his due process rights and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The court concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing the procedural due process claim because plaintiff failed to plead the deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest; the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's substantive due-process claim because plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient; the VA's factfinding procedures were adequate and the district court properly rejected de novo review; the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to supplement the record; and the VA's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and the district court did not err by granting summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rochling v. Dept. of VA, et al." on Justia Law

Voters filed suit against Officials challenging the process by which Officials confirmed the eligibility of voters who register on election day (election day registrants or EDRs). Voters also challenged a provision of the Minnesota Constitution denying the right of persons under guardianship to vote, as well as the sufficiency of notice afforded to such persons under certain Minnesota statutes. The court concluded that Voters could not prevail on their 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims based on Officials' failure to verify EDR's voting eligibility before allowing EDRs to cast their votes where Voters raised no allegations of the "aggravating factors" identified in Pettengill v. Putnam County R-1 School District; alleged no discriminatory or other intentional, unlawful misconduct by Officials sufficient to implicate section 1983; and alleged no defects causing Minnesota's voting system to be so "fundamentally unfair" that relief under section 1983 would be appropriate. Further, Voters lacked standing to raise their remaining claims where the amended complaint failed to allege that any plaintiff has been denied the right to vote by a constitutional provision barring persons under guardianship from voting. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Voters claims and denial of their motion for summary judgment as moot. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. v. Ritchie, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs ("Parents") filed suit against Educators seeking a declaratory judgment that the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206(f)(1), violated the Equal Protection Clause and an injunction transferring their children to another school district. The court concluded that Parents' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because the Arkansas General Assembly enacted the Public School Choice Act of 2013, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-1901 et seq., which repealed the 1989 Act in its entirety. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss. View "Teague, et al. v. Arkansas Board of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the District alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 706 and 794a. Plaintiffs' claims involved disputes with the District over the manner in which the District implemented individualized education programs. The court concluded that plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1491, before filing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in the district court. Further, the futility, inadequate remedy, and contrary to law exceptions were not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant summary judgment in favor of the District. View "J.B., et al. v. Avilla R-XIII School District" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his claim for asylum based on the untimeliness of his application. The court concluded that the BIA did not commit legal error because it did not require petitioner to show both "changed circumstances" and "extraordinary circumstances" to excuse his untimeliness. Instead, the BIA independently analyzed both exceptions and agreed with the IJ that petitioner met neither of them. Further, the issue of whether a "material" change in circumstances affected petitioner's eligibility for asylum was not a reviewable question of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition because it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the application for asylum was untimely. View "Goromou v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law