Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the appellants, a group of German steel companies, challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination of a 22.9 percent antidumping duty on their steel plate products. Commerce applied an adverse inference based on the appellants' failure to provide complete manufacturer information for certain sales by their affiliated reseller, which Commerce deemed necessary for calculating the dumping margin.The U.S. Court of International Trade (Trade Court) sustained Commerce's decision, finding that the appellants did not cooperate to the best of their ability. The Trade Court noted that the appellants failed to provide reasonable alternative forms of the missing information, which could have mitigated the burden of manually retrieving the data. The court suggested that a statistical analysis or randomized sampling could have been a reasonable alternative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and held that Commerce's request for the missing manufacturer information imposed an unreasonable burden on the appellants. However, the court also found that the appellants did not propose reasonable alternative forms of the missing data as required by statute. Consequently, Commerce's application of adverse facts available was deemed permissible.The Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce's use of the highest non-aberrational net price among the disputed sales to fill the information gap, concluding that this approach was reasonable given the size of the information gap and the need to deter non-cooperation. The court found that Commerce's choice of adverse inference was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. View "AG DER DILLINGER HUTTENWERKE v. US " on Justia Law

Anthony Stuart, a Navy veteran, appealed a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) that denied him credit for his military service in computing his civilian retirement annuity. Stuart served in the Navy during three periods between 1974 and 1991 and was placed on the Permanent Disability Retirement List in 1994 with a 60% disability rating. He later entered federal civilian service and retired in 2015. Stuart did not waive his military retired pay to receive credit for his military service toward his Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) annuity.The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) initially decided that Stuart’s military service was not creditable toward his FERS annuity because he was receiving military retired pay. OPM explained that by statute, Stuart could not receive both military retired pay and FERS credit for his military service unless his military retired pay was awarded for specific reasons, which did not apply to him. Stuart sought reconsideration, but OPM affirmed its decision. Stuart then appealed to the MSPB, where an administrative judge upheld OPM’s decision, and the full Board affirmed, modifying the initial decision to clarify the analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the MSPB’s decision. The court held that under 5 U.S.C. § 8411(c)(2), Stuart’s military service could not be credited toward his FERS annuity because he was receiving military retired pay and did not meet any statutory exceptions. The court rejected Stuart’s argument that his military retired pay, calculated based on his disability percentage, was not “based on” his military service. The court found that the statute clearly barred double crediting of military service for both military retired pay and a civilian retirement annuity. View "STUART v. OPM " on Justia Law

Albert Lobo, a Deputy Sheriff in San Bernardino County, California, contracted pneumonia in early 2010, which progressed to sepsis and resulted in multiple amputations, leaving him permanently and totally disabled. He received disability retirement and workers' compensation benefits at the county and state levels between 2012 and 2014. In March 2015, Lobo filed a claim for disability-based benefits under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976 (PSOB Act) with the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Office (PSOB Office) of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Bureau) of the U.S. Department of Justice.The PSOB Office denied Lobo's claim in May 2016, a decision upheld by a hearing officer in October 2017 and the Bureau’s Director in August 2023. The denials were based on the finding that Lobo had not proven he contracted pneumonia in the line of duty. The Bureau's Director emphasized the lack of evidence showing that Lobo caught pneumonia at the jails where he worked, despite acknowledging that Lobo was permanently and totally disabled due to pneumonia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Bureau had not made sufficient efforts to obtain potentially crucial information about whether there were pneumonia-infected individuals at the jails where Lobo worked. The court noted that such information could be highly material to determining the origin of Lobo's pneumonia. Consequently, the court vacated the Director’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Bureau to make reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary information from the jails and to reassess the claim in light of any new evidence obtained. View "Lobo v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Abigail Stratton filed a petition with the Office of Special Masters under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, alleging that the Gardasil® vaccine caused her to develop postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and autonomic dysfunction. These conditions are not listed in the Vaccine Injury Table, requiring her to prove actual causation by a preponderance of the evidence. After filing a Notice of Intent to Withdraw to pursue her claim in federal district court, the Chief Special Master concluded the proceedings on the merits and later awarded her partial attorneys’ fees and costs.The Secretary of Health and Human Services opposed the fee application, arguing that Stratton did not file her petition with the good faith intent of litigating the claim and that there was no reasonable basis for her claim. The Chief Special Master found that Stratton had satisfied both the good faith and reasonable basis requirements and awarded partial fees. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed the Chief Special Master’s decision, concluding that the finding of a reasonable basis was not arbitrary and capricious, and awarded $8,876.86 for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Secretary appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Chief Special Master failed to adequately explain the determination that Stratton’s petition had a reasonable basis. The court noted that the Chief Special Master acknowledged the Secretary’s concerns about the sufficiency of the medical records but dismissed them without sufficient explanation. The Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, requiring a more detailed explanation of why the evidence provided a reasonable basis for Stratton’s claim. View "Stratton v. Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

Two Italian pasta manufacturers, La Molisana S.p.A. and Valdigrano Di Flavio Pagani S.r.L., challenged the United States Department of Commerce's final results from the twenty-third administrative review of an antidumping order on certain pasta from Italy. The dispute centered on Commerce's methodology for determining the protein content of pasta, which affects the classification of pasta as either standard or premium quality. Commerce used the protein content listed on product labels, which is subject to U.S. FDA rounding rules and different nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors in the U.S. and Italy. La Molisana argued that this methodology caused inaccuracies in comparing pasta products.The United States Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's final results, concluding that La Molisana had not demonstrated that the alleged flaws in Commerce's methodology were commercially significant. The court found that Commerce's reliance on packaging labels for protein content fostered transparency and consistency, and that La Molisana's evidence, including a market report and a new definition from the Bologna Grain Exchange, was insufficient to compel a change in the protein breakpoint from 12.5% to 13.5%.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that Commerce's methodology failed to compare products based on identical physical characteristics, as required by statute. The court held that the FDA rounding rules and different nitrogen conversion factors introduced inaccuracies that Commerce could not dismiss as commercially insignificant. However, the court agreed with Commerce and the Trade Court that La Molisana's evidence did not provide a compelling reason to change the protein breakpoint. The Federal Circuit vacated the Trade Court's judgment regarding the rounding rules and nitrogen conversion factors, affirmed the judgment on the protein breakpoint, and remanded for further proceedings. View "La Molisana S.p.A. v. United States" on Justia Law

Larry B. Herrington, a veteran who served in the U.S. Air Force, filed a claim in September 2009 for service connection for several gastrointestinal conditions, including Barrett’s disease, chronic gastritis, reflux disease, and hiatal hernia. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office awarded service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with a non-compensable evaluation. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) later awarded a 30% evaluation for GERD by analogy to the diagnostic code for hiatal hernia, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7346, but denied an evaluation in excess of 30%.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the Board’s selection of DC 7346 was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Mr. Herrington appealed this decision, arguing that the Veterans Court should have applied a de novo standard of review rather than the deferential standard set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the selection of an analogous diagnostic code for rating unlisted conditions involves questions of fact or the application of law to facts, which requires a deferential standard of review. The court concluded that the Veterans Court applied the correct standard of review and affirmed the decision of the Veterans Court. The Federal Circuit held that the Board’s selection of DC 7346 for rating Mr. Herrington’s GERD was appropriate and supported by the evidence. View "HERRINGTON v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Kevin Steele, a Marine veteran, filed an original claim in 1991 for a head injury sustained during service, which he attributed to a 1980 training incident. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examiner noted that Steele experienced occasional headaches as a residual of the head injury but deemed them non-disabling. The VA Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for the scar on Steele's scalp but did not explicitly address the headaches in its decision. Steele did not appeal this decision.In 2013, Steele filed a new claim for various conditions, including traumatic brain injury (TBI), and was awarded a 50% disability rating effective from March 6, 2013. In 2016, he filed a claim for service connection for headaches, which the RO granted with an effective date of October 14, 2015. The Board of Veterans Appeals later adjusted the effective date to March 6, 2013. Steele appealed, arguing that his 1991 claim for headaches remained open and should entitle him to an earlier effective date.The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Steele's 1991 claim for headaches was implicitly denied and thus finally adjudicated in 1991. The court applied the implicit denial rule, which provides that a claim can be deemed denied if the VA's decision provides sufficient notice that the claim was considered and rejected. The court found that the 1991 RO decision and notice letter provided Steele with reasonable notice that his claim for headaches was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court's decision, agreeing that the Board and the Veterans Court did not legally err in their application of the implicit denial rule. The court held that the reasons provided for the explicit denial of Steele's head injury claim in 1991 were sufficient to implicitly deny the related claim for headaches, thus closing off the earlier filing date. View "STEELE v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., and Marmen Energy Co. (collectively, “Marmen”) appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (CIT) decision that sustained the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) final determination of a 4.94% dumping margin for utility-scale wind towers from Canada. Commerce had initiated an antidumping (AD) investigation in July 2019, and in June 2020, issued its final AD determination. Marmen challenged Commerce’s decision on three grounds: the weight-averaging of steel plate costs, the rejection of a USD-to-CAD cost reconciliation, and the use of the average-to-transaction (A-to-T) methodology based on Cohen’s d test.The CIT affirmed Commerce’s weight-averaging of Marmen’s steel plate costs but remanded the case on the other two issues. Commerce again rejected the USD-to-CAD cost reconciliation on remand, arguing it would double count an exchange-rate adjustment. Commerce also maintained its use of Cohen’s d test, despite concerns raised by the Federal Circuit in Stupp Corp. v. United States. The CIT sustained Commerce’s determination on both issues, leading to Marmen’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Commerce’s rejection of the USD-to-CAD cost reconciliation was not supported by substantial evidence, as the proposed adjustment did not duplicate other adjustments and was reliable. The court also concluded that Commerce’s use of Cohen’s d test was unreasonable because the data did not meet the necessary assumptions of normal distribution, equal variability, and sufficient size. The court vacated Commerce’s calculated dumping margin and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "MARMEN INC. v. US " on Justia Law

Target Corporation (Target) imported goods subject to an antidumping duty order and paid duties at a lower rate than specified in a final judgment. The United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs) later realized the error but did not correct it within the statutory 90-day window. The United States Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered Customs to reliquidate the entries at the correct rate, despite the statutory finality provisions.In the lower court, the CIT granted the government's motion to dismiss Target's challenge to the reliquidation, relying on its previous decision in Home Products International, Inc. v. United States. The CIT held that it had the authority to enforce its judgments and that the principle of finality in 19 U.S.C. § 1514 did not bar correcting Customs' errors in liquidating entries covered by a trade action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the CIT's decision. The Federal Circuit held that the case was governed by its precedent in Cemex, S.A. v. United States, which established that Customs' liquidation decisions, even if erroneous, are final and conclusive under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) unless specific statutory exceptions apply. The court rejected the CIT's interpretation that it could use its equitable powers to override the statutory finality provisions. The Federal Circuit emphasized that Congress has carefully crafted a statutory scheme for finality and that any remedy for the harshness of the statute should come from Congress, not the courts. View "TARGET CORPORATION v. US " on Justia Law

United Water Conservation District (United) filed a lawsuit against the United States, seeking just compensation for an alleged taking under the Fifth Amendment. United claimed that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) required it to increase the amount of water bypassing its diversion dam to protect an endangered species of trout, resulting in a loss of water that United could otherwise use for beneficial purposes.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed United's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that the claim should be evaluated as a regulatory taking. The court reasoned that United had not yet exhausted its administrative remedies by applying for and being denied an incidental-take permit under the Endangered Species Act, making the claim not ripe for adjudication.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed that United's claim was regulatory in nature, as the NMFS's actions did not constitute a physical appropriation of water already diverted by United. Instead, the actions required more water to remain in the river, representing a regulatory restriction on United's use of the water. The court held that United's claim was not ripe because it had not yet obtained a final agency action by applying for and being denied an incidental-take permit. Therefore, the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate. View "UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT v. US " on Justia Law