Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A school board in Pennsylvania approved a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a teachers’ association during a meeting, even though this agreement was not included on the agenda published at least 24 hours before the meeting, as required by the state’s Sunshine Act. The board justified the late addition by explaining that the teachers’ association had only approved the CBA earlier that same day. The board amended the agenda during the meeting by majority vote to include the CBA, then voted to approve it. A local resident challenged this action, arguing that it violated the Sunshine Act’s notice requirements.The Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas consolidated the actions and granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, finding that the board’s majority vote to amend the agenda during the meeting satisfied the statutory exception permitting such changes. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed in part, interpreting Section 712.1 of the Sunshine Act to provide only three substantive exceptions to the 24-hour notice rule and treating the “majority vote” provision as a mere procedural mechanism, not a standalone exception. The Commonwealth Court concluded that the board’s action violated the Act.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether Section 712.1 provides four independent exceptions to the notice requirement, or only three. The court held that the statute’s plain language creates four separate exceptions, including the majority vote provision, which allows an agency to add items to the agenda during a meeting by majority vote and subsequently take official action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the school district, holding that the board’s actions complied with the Sunshine Act. View "Coleman v. Parkland School District" on Justia Law

Several insurance companies initiated a federal lawsuit against a licensed acupuncturist, three professional service corporations under his control, and two unlicensed individuals. The insurers sought a declaration that one of the corporations was not entitled to no-fault insurance reimbursement for services rendered, alleging the corporation engaged in a scheme to pay unlicensed individuals for patient referrals. The payments allegedly violated New York’s professional conduct rules but did not involve the transfer of control over the corporation to unlicensed persons.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the acupuncturist and his corporations had engaged in an unlawful fee-splitting and kickback scheme, violating New York law. The court ruled that this professional misconduct rendered the corporation ineligible for no-fault reimbursement under the relevant Department of Financial Services (DFS) regulation and granted summary judgment for the insurers. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the referral fees were paid but found it unclear whether this type of professional misconduct made the provider ineligible for reimbursement under the regulation. It certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether such misconduct, absent ceding control to unlicensed persons, permits denial of no-fault benefits.The New York Court of Appeals held that the DFS regulation does not authorize insurers to deny no-fault reimbursement based solely on a provider’s alleged professional misconduct, such as paying for patient referrals, unless that misconduct amounts to a failure to meet a foundational licensing requirement—specifically, surrendering control of the professional practice to unlicensed individuals. The court deferred to DFS’s longstanding interpretation that only licensing violations resulting in loss of eligibility to practice, as determined by regulators, justify denial of reimbursement. The court answered the certified question in the negative. View "Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mayzenberg" on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization based in Queens purchased a 73-acre parcel in the Town of Callicoon, Sullivan County, in 2018. Although the organization originally intended to use the property as a retreat center, testimony established that its actual use involved farming vegetables on about one cleared acre for charitable distribution to low-income residents in Queens. Occasional overnight stays involved religious activities, but there was no evidence of regular organized religious services or use as a retreat center. The Town Supervisor, who lived nearby and farmed part of the property without a formal agreement, confirmed the farming use but did not observe overnight retreats.After the Town Assessor denied a religious use tax exemption for the property for the 2021 tax year, the organization filed a grievance complaint, which was denied by the Town’s Board of Assessment Review. The organization then initiated an RPTL article 7 proceeding in Supreme Court, challenging the denial. A similar process occurred for the 2022 tax year, and both proceedings were joined. Supreme Court held a nonjury trial, found all witnesses credible, credited the organization’s testimony about actual use, and granted the petitions for both tax years, concluding the property was exempt. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, with one Justice dissenting.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the lower courts applied the correct legal standards: the burden to prove entitlement to exemption rests with the party seeking it, while the burden to prove a zoning violation rests with the municipality. The Court of Appeals found record support for Supreme Court’s factual findings and concluded that the Town failed to prove a zoning violation sufficient to defeat the exemption for both years. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Matter of First United Methodist Church in Flushing v Assessor, Town of Callicoon" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers in Albany County, Wyoming, arrested an individual who had an outstanding warrant and was found in possession of controlled substances. During the arrest, officers located his truck, had a K9 unit alert to it, and towed it to an evidence bay. After obtaining a warrant, they searched the truck and seized substances later determined not to be illegal drugs. The truck was then released by law enforcement to a towing company, where it was placed in storage pending payment of fees. The owner was not notified of this arrangement until several months later. By the time he learned of the truck’s location, storage fees had accumulated to an amount he could not pay, and the truck was eventually sold at auction. The owner asserted he never received notice that the truck could be sold to cover the fees.The District Court of Albany County heard the owner’s pro se motion for return of the truck or, alternatively, for compensation equal to its value. The State responded that it no longer had possession of the vehicle, as it had been released to the towing company and not seized for forfeiture. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to order return of property it no longer possessed or to award money damages under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that a court has no jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to order the return of property or award damages when the government no longer possesses the property. The court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under this rule and that any claim for damages must proceed as a separate civil action under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "Bressette v. State" on Justia Law

A high-speed police pursuit in Iowa ended with a motorcycle crash that left the rider, Augustin G. Mormann, paralyzed and ultimately led to his death after life support was withdrawn. The chase began when an Iowa State Trooper attempted to stop Mormann for speeding, but he fled, weaving through traffic and entering residential neighborhoods. The trooper disengaged due to safety concerns, but Manchester police officer James Wessels continued the pursuit at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour. During the chase on a county road, Wessels’s police cruiser struck Mormann's motorcycle, leading to a crash that caused catastrophic injuries. Mormann was hospitalized, tested positive for methamphetamine, and died after choosing to discontinue life support. His family subsequently filed a civil suit against Wessels and the City of Manchester.In the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, the plaintiffs asserted claims including constitutional violations and, ultimately, common law assault and battery. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims after a change in Iowa law but allowed the assault and battery claims to proceed to trial. The jury found Wessels liable for both torts, awarding $4.25 million in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The court denied post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that emergency response immunity under Iowa law does not shield a municipality or its officer from liability when the officer acts with reckless disregard for safety, as found by the jury. The court also concluded that the assault and battery claims were sufficiently pleaded under Iowa’s notice pleading standard, that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, and that the admission of the decedent’s dying declaration and evidence regarding police recording policies was proper. The punitive damages award was also upheld. View "Mormann v. City of Manchester, Iowa" on Justia Law

A group of long-term care providers and their associated management company filed cost reports for 2015 with the Mississippi Division of Medicaid (DOM), reporting dividends received from three insurance companies as “other income” rather than offsetting them against insurance costs. This reporting practice had been consistently followed and accepted by DOM for over two decades. When DOM audited the 2015 cost reports around 2018, it changed its approach by offsetting these dividends against current insurance costs, thereby affecting reimbursement rates for services provided by the providers.After DOM made these adjustments, the providers sought reconsideration, but DOM upheld its decision. The providers then pursued an administrative appeal, where a hearing officer found DOM’s adjustments supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, recommending affirmation of DOM’s actions. DOM’s executive director adopted this recommendation. The providers appealed to the Hinds County Chancery Court, which affirmed DOM’s decision, concluding that the State Plan required reference to the Provider Reimbursement Manual (PRM) for guidance, and that DOM acted within its authority and did not violate any statutory or constitutional rights. The chancellor also found no evidence of a written internal policy regarding the treatment of such dividends.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether DOM’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, whether public notice of the change was required, and other issues. The Court held that DOM’s abrupt reversal of its long-standing unwritten internal policy, without reasonable explanation or public notice, was arbitrary and capricious. The Court further found that public notice was required under federal regulations for significant policy changes affecting payment rates. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the decisions of DOM and the chancery court and rendered judgment in favor of the providers. View "Hattiesburg Medical Park Management Corp. v. Mississippi Division of Medicaid" on Justia Law

A patient received treatment for diabetes at VA facilities from 2016 to 2022. In early 2020, he reported worsening symptoms and expressed dissatisfaction with his medical care, believing negligence contributed to his condition. Two years later, he filed a complaint with the Office of the Inspector General, alleging improper diagnosis and treatment at VA facilities. He also submitted a Standard Form-95 (SF-95) to the Office of the General Counsel, naming himself as claimant and his wife as a witness and property owner. The agency denied his claim, and he was informed of his right to sue. The couple then filed a pro se lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligent medical care caused kidney disease. Subsequently, the wife filed her own SF-95, asserting power of attorney, but the agency denied this claim as duplicative and because the couple had already sought judicial remedy.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the wife’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissed both plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred, and denied leave to amend as futile. The plaintiffs objected, but the district court adopted the recommendations and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court erred in finding the wife failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her property damage claim, because the administrative filing gave sufficient notice for that claim. However, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the alternative ground that all claims were barred by the FTCA’s statute of limitations, as the plaintiffs’ injuries and property damages were or should have been known more than two years before the administrative claims were filed. The denial of leave to amend was also affirmed. View "Ellsworth v. Dallas Texas Department of Veteran Affairs" on Justia Law

Riverdale Mills Corporation operates a wire mesh manufacturing facility in Northbridge, Massachusetts. In 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted two investigations at Riverdale’s facility, which resulted in citations alleging violations of safety and health standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Riverdale contested these citations, and after a consolidated hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) in 2021, the ALJ affirmed three citation items while vacating or withdrawing the others.Subsequently, in December 2023, Riverdale applied to the ALJ for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). To establish eligibility for this recovery, Riverdale submitted its 2019 balance sheet as evidence, along with a motion to seal the document due to alleged confidential business information. The Secretary of Labor opposed the motion, arguing Riverdale had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for sealing. After considering submissions from both parties, the ALJ denied Riverdale’s motion to seal, applying balancing tests from D.C. Circuit and First Circuit case law and concluding Riverdale had not shown compelling reasons to overcome the presumption of public access. Riverdale attempted to appeal this denial to the OSHRC Commission, but the Commission automatically dismissed the appeal for lack of quorum.Riverdale then sought interlocutory review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The First Circuit assumed interlocutory jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and reviewed the ALJ’s denial for abuse of discretion. It held that Riverdale had waived certain arguments by not raising them earlier and determined the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion to seal, finding Riverdale failed to meet its burden to justify sealing the balance sheet. The petition for review was denied. View "Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Chavez-DeRemer" on Justia Law

Rosa A. Camacho, a retired Class II member of the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund, claimed that she was entitled to cost-of-living allowances (COLAs) as part of her retirement benefits. When Camacho entered the Retirement Fund in 1980, COLAs were not part of the retirement package. In 1989, the Commonwealth legislature amended the Retirement Fund Act to provide a two percent COLA. Over the years, this provision was repeatedly modified, suspended, and ultimately repealed in 2011. The Commonwealth’s financial difficulties led to a class action and a subsequent settlement agreement in 2013, which entitled participants to 75% of their “Full Benefits,” as defined by statute or guaranteed by the Commonwealth Constitution.The United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands held that Camacho was not entitled to COLAs under the settlement agreement, reasoning that COLAs were not constitutionally protected benefits at the time she joined the Retirement Fund and were discretionary by statute as of 2013. Camacho appealed, arguing that the statutory introduction of COLAs during her membership created a protected right under Article III, section 20(a) of the Commonwealth Constitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the question of whether section 8334(e) of the Retirement Fund Act conferred a constitutionally protected accrued benefit in the form of COLAs for Class II members employed when the Act took effect. The Commonwealth Supreme Court answered in the negative, finding that COLAs were legislative policy adjustments and not protected contractual benefits. In accordance with this interpretation, the Ninth Circuit held that Camacho did not acquire a constitutionally protected right to COLAs under section 8334(e). The district court’s decision was affirmed. View "Camacho v. Northern Mariana Islands Settlement Fund" on Justia Law

An individual incarcerated in a county jail in Alabama died after several months in custody, during which his mother, acting as administrator of his estate, alleges he was denied adequate medical care. The county jail had contracted with a private company, Preemptive Forensic Health Solutions, to provide all inmate medical care, even though the company employed no physicians and was allegedly incompetent. Prior to the decedent's death, multiple inmates had died under this company's care, and concerns about inadequate medical treatment became a significant issue in a local sheriff’s election. Despite these concerns and the new sheriff’s efforts to terminate the contract, the county continued and even renewed the agreement with the company, retaining exclusive control over its continuation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment to the county, holding that Alabama law limited the county's role to funding inmate healthcare, not providing it, and thus precluded liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court determined that only the sheriff was responsible for administering medical care in the jail and that the county had fulfilled its statutory duty by paying for services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed this decision. The appellate court held that, under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York and Ancata v. Prison Health Services, Inc., a county can be liable under § 1983 if it adopts or maintains a policy or custom that results in deliberate indifference to inmates' constitutional rights. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the county’s policy of contracting with an incompetent provider—and preventing the sheriff from changing it—could have caused the decedent’s Eighth Amendment violation. The court ruled that Alabama law does not bar such liability and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Smothers v. Childers" on Justia Law