Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Two licensed wrecker services in Connecticut were summoned by state police to remove a severely damaged tractor trailer from a highway accident. The wrecker services used specialized equipment, including a costly rotator truck, to recover and tow the vehicle, then transported it to their storage facility. They sent an itemized invoice to the vehicle owner’s insurer, which included charges for the use of special equipment and supervisory personnel. The insurer paid the invoice under protest and subsequently filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, arguing that the charges were excessive and not permitted under state regulations.A Department of Motor Vehicles hearing officer determined that the wrecker services had overcharged for their nonconsensual towing services by using their own rate schedule based on equipment rather than the hourly labor rate set by the commissioner. Most equipment-based charges were disallowed, and the wrecker services were ordered to pay restitution and a civil penalty. The Superior Court dismissed the wrecker services’ administrative appeal, finding the hearing officer’s conclusions supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the regulations required fees for exceptional services to be based solely on the hourly labor rate, excluding equipment costs.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the relevant regulation, § 14-63-36c (c), was ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted to allow wrecker services to charge additional fees for exceptional services, including costs associated with special equipment, provided those fees are itemized and posted in accordance with regulatory requirements. The Court held that prohibiting such charges would prevent wrecker services from recouping necessary costs and could undermine the availability of exceptional towing services. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation. View "Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

An employee at a hospital operated by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA Health) photographed confidential patient information and posted it to his personal Instagram account, despite having received training and signing agreements to protect patient privacy. Although the employee redacted some information, personal details of ten patients remained visible. The hospital responded by placing the employee on administrative leave, ultimately terminating him, notifying affected patients, and reiterating privacy policies to staff. No patients reported adverse consequences from the disclosure.The California Department of Public Health investigated and imposed a $75,000 penalty on the hospital, finding a violation of Health and Safety Code section 1280.15, which requires health facilities to prevent unauthorized disclosure of patient medical information. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department’s finding and penalty, interpreting section 1280.15 as imposing strict liability for any unauthorized disclosure, regardless of whether the hospital had implemented appropriate safeguards. The ALJ noted that the Department did not find a violation of section 1280.18, which requires reasonable safeguards, but still held the hospital responsible. The Department adopted the ALJ’s decision.The Regents of the University of California challenged the decision in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, seeking a writ of administrative mandate and declaratory relief. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital, holding that a violation of section 1280.15 cannot occur without a concurrent violation of section 1280.18, thus importing a reasonableness standard into section 1280.15. The court ordered the Department to vacate its decision and remanded the matter.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that section 1280.15 is not a strict liability statute; liability requires a failure to implement reasonable safeguards as mandated by section 1280.18. The hospital was not liable absent proof of such a failure. View "Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. State Dept. of Public Health" on Justia Law

The case concerns a rule issued by the Federal Maritime Commission in 2024 to address concerns about demurrage and detention charges in maritime shipping. These charges are imposed by ocean carriers and marine terminal operators on shippers, truckers, and other entities for delays in the movement or return of shipping containers. The rule sought to clarify which parties could be billed for these charges, limiting invoices to those in a contractual relationship with the billing party—typically shippers or consignees. However, the rule categorically excluded motor carriers from being billed, even when they had a direct contract with the ocean carrier.Prior to review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Maritime Commission promulgated the rule and responded to public comments. Initially, the Commission suggested that motor carriers in contractual privity could be billed, but later issued a correction stating that motor carriers could not be billed under any circumstances, regardless of contractual relationship. The World Shipping Council, representing ocean carriers, petitioned for review, arguing that the rule was arbitrary and capricious, among other challenges.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Commission’s rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that the Commission failed to reasonably explain its exclusion of motor carriers from the set of billable parties, despite its stated rationale of limiting billing to those in contractual privity. The court granted the petition for review, severed and set aside the portion of the rule (46 C.F.R. § 541.4) that confined billing to shippers or consignees, and left the remainder of the rule intact. View "World Shipping Council v. FMC" on Justia Law

A Swiss healthcare company entered into a contract with the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to modernize and operate a medical clinic. After the relationship deteriorated, with Equatorial Guinea refusing to allow the company to run the clinic, the company initiated arbitration in Switzerland and was awarded damages. The parties settled the first arbitration, but the company later sought further damages in a second arbitration. Equatorial Guinea challenged the arbitrators’ jurisdiction, arguing that the contract’s dispute-resolution clause required the company to first seek relief in Equatoguinean courts before pursuing international arbitration. The arbitral panel found the clause ambiguous but ultimately concluded that exhaustion of local remedies was not required and awarded the company over $9 million.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the company’s petition to confirm the arbitral award. The court found it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s arbitration exception. On the merits, the court deferred to the arbitrators’ interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina, and confirmed the award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction but disagreed with its deferential approach to the arbitrators’ interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause. The appellate court held that, in this context, the question of whether exhaustion of local remedies was required is a substantive arbitrability issue for courts, not arbitrators, to decide. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve the proper interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause. View "Marseille-Kliniken AG v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea" on Justia Law

Texas submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012, asserting that its emissions did not significantly contribute to ozone pollution in downwind states and therefore no additional mitigation was necessary. The SIP included charts of declining ozone levels in certain metropolitan areas, a brief discussion of wind patterns, a map of 2010 ozone levels, and some raw measurement data, but did not analyze or quantify Texas’s impact on other states’ air quality. Texas’s submission focused on areas geographically close to Texas and did not address whether its emissions might interfere with maintenance of air quality standards in other states.After determining the SIP was technically complete, the EPA delayed substantive review pending the Supreme Court’s decision in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., which clarified the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision. During the delay, EPA provided Texas with updated modeling data showing that Texas emissions contributed to downwind ozone problems, but Texas did not supplement its SIP. In 2016, EPA formally disapproved the SIP, finding it failed to address statutory requirements, particularly by not evaluating impacts on maintenance areas and by relying on outdated control measures. Texas and industry groups petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, arguing EPA’s process was procedurally and substantively flawed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that EPA’s review complied with statutory and procedural requirements, and that the agency acted within its authority in disapproving the SIP. The court found EPA’s reasoning was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the SIP’s failure to analyze Texas’s impact on all relevant downwind areas, including maintenance areas, justified disapproval. The court also rejected arguments that EPA was required to approve the SIP due to procedural delays or reliance on updated data. View "State of Texas v. EPA" on Justia Law

On June 23, 2019, a multi-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 59 in Birmingham, Alabama. John Daniels, Jr. lost control of his car after being struck by another vehicle and crashed into the concrete median, where his car was subsequently hit by other vehicles. Nicholas Raynard Smith, Jr., riding a motorcycle with a companion, approached the accident scene and collided with Daniels’s car, suffering severe injuries. There was conflicting evidence about whether the streetlights near the accident site were operational at the time, but it was undisputed that two specific streetlights were not working when first responders arrived. Smith alleged that the City of Birmingham was responsible for maintaining those streetlights and had been on notice of lighting problems in the area.Smith filed suit in the Jefferson Circuit Court, asserting claims of negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention against the City. The court dismissed Smith’s wantonness and recklessness claims, leaving only the negligence-based claims. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to municipal and substantive immunity. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that factual questions remained regarding the City’s notice of the lighting issue and whether the inoperable streetlights proximately caused Smith’s injuries.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the City’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that the City was entitled to substantive immunity on Smith’s negligence claim, concluding that a municipality’s voluntary maintenance of streetlights for public safety does not create a legal duty to individual motorists. The Court also noted Smith’s concession that his negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention claim should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the City’s petition and directed the circuit court to enter summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Ex parte City of Birmingham PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS" on Justia Law

Eckard Brandes, Inc. performed sewer pipeline cleaning, closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection, and occasional repairs for public works projects in Hawai‘i. Historically, the company paid employees performing cleaning and inspection at a lower company rate, based on a 2005 letter from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) stating that such work was not considered “construction” under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 104 and thus not subject to prevailing wage requirements. Employees performing repairs were paid at the higher Laborer I or II rates. Scott Foyt, an employee, operated a Vactor truck for cleaning and occasionally assisted with inspection and repairs. He was paid the lower rate for cleaning and inspection, and the Laborer I or II rate for repairs.After Foyt filed a wage complaint, the DLIR investigated and determined that he should have been paid the higher Truck Driver prevailing wage for all work involving the Vactor truck, issuing a Notification of Violation and assessing back wages and penalties against Eckard Brandes. The company appealed, arguing it reasonably relied on the 2005 DLIR guidance. The Hearings Officer upheld the DLIR’s position, finding Foyt was misclassified and owed back wages.Eckard Brandes appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which reversed the DLIR’s decision, holding that the company’s reliance on the 2005 letter was reasonable and that the DLIR could not retroactively apply its new interpretation. Foyt appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court’s decision, agreeing that retroactive application was arbitrary and capricious.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i affirmed the ICA’s judgment, holding that under the circumstances, the DLIR was estopped from penalizing Eckard Brandes for relying on its prior interpretation. The court found that equitable estoppel applied because the company reasonably relied on the agency’s affirmative representations. View "Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations" on Justia Law

Two police officers employed by a city were injured in separate incidents while on duty. After their injuries, both received payments from the city under section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act, which provides that eligible employees unable to work due to a duty-related injury must continue to be paid “on the same basis” as before the injury, without deductions from sick leave, compensatory time, or vacation. The city continued to pay their salaries as before, including withholding federal and state income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. The officers filed suit, alleging that the city violated the Disability Act by withholding employment taxes and, for one officer, by deducting accrued leave time.The Circuit Court of Tazewell County granted summary judgment for the officers, finding that section 1(b) prohibited the withholding of employment taxes and required payment of “gross pay.” The court also found the city had improperly deducted leave time and held that the ten-year statute of limitations for breach of contract applied, awarding damages and fees to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed, holding that section 1(b) does not prohibit withholding employment taxes, and that the five-year statute of limitations applied. The appellate court also found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether leave time was improperly deducted and remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment. The court held that section 1(b) of the Disability Act does not prohibit a public employer from withholding employment taxes from payments made to an injured employee under that provision. The court reasoned that the statute’s language requires payment “on the same basis” as before the injury, which includes continued tax withholding, and expressly prohibits only certain deductions, not taxes. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the leave time deduction claim. View "Bitner v. City of Pekin" on Justia Law

A licensed clinical therapist and his employer provided substance abuse rehabilitation services to a physician whose medical license had been suspended. When the physician later sought reinstatement of his license, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation requested the therapist’s personal notes from the rehabilitation program as part of the administrative proceedings. The therapist and his employer refused, asserting that the notes were protected under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act. They sought a protective order in the Circuit Court of Cook County to prevent disclosure of the notes.The circuit court conducted an in camera review and agreed that the notes were protected, issuing a protective order barring the Department from obtaining them. The court also awarded the plaintiffs attorney fees and costs under section 15 of the Confidentiality Act. The Department did not challenge the protective order but appealed the award of attorney fees and costs, arguing that such an award was barred by sovereign immunity. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the circuit court’s award, holding that the fees and costs were ancillary to the injunctive relief and thus not barred by sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed the case to determine whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to award attorney fees and costs against the Department. The court held that, absent an explicit statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, Illinois courts lack jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments against the State for attorney fees and costs. The court found that section 15 of the Confidentiality Act does not contain such a waiver. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and the portion of the circuit court’s judgment awarding attorney fees and costs, but did not disturb the protective order itself. View "Lavery v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation" on Justia Law

An electric utility company operating both within and outside Oregon was subject to central assessment for property tax purposes. For the 2020-21 tax year, the company and the Oregon Department of Revenue disagreed on the company’s overall value and the portion attributable to Oregon. The dispute centered on the methods used to determine real market value, specifically whether certain deductions and valuation models used by the company’s appraiser were consistent with the Department’s adopted standards. The Department relied on an administrative rule that incorporated the Western States Association of Tax Administrators (WSATA) Handbook, which prescribes valuation methods for centrally assessed properties.The Oregon Tax Court heard the case and considered expert testimony from both parties. The Department argued that the WSATA Handbook, as adopted by administrative rule, was binding and should control the valuation methods used. The company contended that the Tax Court, conducting a de novo review, was not bound by the Handbook. The Tax Court agreed with the company, holding that it was not required to defer to the Department’s rule and could determine real market value using other methods if it found them more accurate. The court ultimately adopted some of the company’s valuation approaches and set a value lower than the Department’s assessment.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case on appeal. It held that, absent a finding that the Department’s rule is invalid on its face or as applied, the rule has the force of law and must be given legal effect by the Tax Court. The Supreme Court found that the Tax Court erred by not treating the Department’s rule as binding unless its application would conflict with constitutional or statutory definitions of real market value. The Supreme Court reversed the Tax Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. View "PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law