Case Summaries

Government Benefits

[07/22] Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers' Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles
In a case brought by certain retired deputy sheriffs challenging Los Angeles county's policies concerning payment for excess accumulated vacation hours, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the policy discriminated against deputies suffering work-related injuries in violation of Labor Code section 4850.

[07/17] Tommasetti v. Astrue
Denial of claimant's application for Social Security benefits based on a claim that he was unable to work because of lower back pain and diabetes is affirmed where: 1) an ALJ provided "clear and convincing" reasons for rejecting claimant's testimony as not credible; 2) the ALJ provided "specific and legitimate" reasons based on substantial evidence for her partial rejection of a treating physician's opinion; and 3) although the ALJ erred in finding that claimant could perform past work, the error was harmless since it was properly found that he could perform other work in the economy.

[07/17] Eichstadt v. Astrue
An appeal from a denial of Social Security disability benefit claim is upheld where the plaintiff, who had been out of the workforce for 17 years before filing her claim, failed to produce evidence that the medical condition for which she was claiming benefits had arisen during the time when she was insured by Social Security.

[07/16] Hayward v. US Dep't of Labor
In an administrative proceeding to determine survivor benefits under the Energy Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, denial of benefits is affirmed where: 1) the risk model used to calculate the probability of causation for all types of prostate cancer accounted for the rarity of sarcomatoid carcinoma; and 2) defendant correctly concluded that evidence submitted by plaintiff was inapplicable to her husband's case.

[07/16] In re Marriage of Sonne
In a marriage dissolution proceeding, a conclusion that repurchased service credits for husband's years of service to his employer prior to his wife were community property is affirmed where the repurchase of service credits involved the commingling of separate and community property in the use of community funds to purchase the service credits. However, assignation to the wife of the entire survivor benefit of which she was the irrevocable beneficiary is reversed and remanded where the husband was only compensated for the cost of the survivor benefits when its value far exceeded its cost.

[07/15] Texas Clinical Labs Inc. v. Leavitt
In a complaint seeking review of a decision denying appellants additional interest on principal of a Medicare reimbursement judgment, and asserting that appellee deprived them of specific entitlements under the Social Security Act, dismissal with prejudice is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) each Texas corporation has the right to prosecute to conclusion the proceedings begun while it was still authorized to do so under Texas law; 2) the claim for additional interest was established on the date their Medicare reimbursement claim arose; and 3) appellants' amended complaint relates back to the filing of their original complaint and are not time barred by a 60-day limitation within which to seek judicial review. However, dismissal of appellant's due process claims is affirmed on alternate grounds as the claims were time barred.

[07/14] US v. Bourseau
A judgment holding two psychiatric hospital operators and their single-employee corporations jointly and severally liable to the government for violations of the False Claims Act is affirmed where: 1) defendants are liable under the reverse false claims provision of the FCA for the submission of false statements in cost reports for various years; 2) the government sustained actual damages and was entitled to treble damages and civil penalties.

[05/30] Adena Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt
In plaintiffs-hospitals' action claiming that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should include the beneficiaries of a state mandatory charity health care program when calculating the monies hospitals were due under the Medicare program for the elderly and the disabled, a judgment for plaintiffs-hospitals is reversed where: 1) section 5112.17(B) of HCAP is not part of the Ohio state plan approved under Medicaid because an approved plan must pay providers for the care of eligible patients, and section 5112.17(B) requires care for indigents without payment; and 2) HCAP patients do not obtain "medical assistance" within the meaning Medicare since the term is defined under Medicare as "payment of part or all of the cost" of medical "care and services" for a certain set of individuals, whereas the HCAP does not entail any payment.

[05/21] Robson v. Astrue
Denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act for alleged disability due to post polio syndrome is affirmed where: 1) questions posed to a vocational expert contained all the concrete consequences of claimant's physical deficiencies during the relevant time period; and 2) vocational expert's response provided substantial evidence to support a finding that claimant could perform sedentary work.

[05/21] Katosh v. Sonoma County Employees' Ret. Ass'n
In a case addressing the meaning of the term "regular compensation" provided in Government Code section 31724 for purposes of determining the effective date of a disability retirement, the court of appeals finds that "regular compensation" in section 31724 includes compensation received for sick leave and vacation when taken by plaintiff-employee as time off.

More...

Elder Law

[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

[03/10] Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC
In an action brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify defendants against claims in an Arkansas state court action, summary judgment determining such duties is affirmed where the district court did not err by deciding that: 1) the only claim in the underlying lawsuit covered under insurer's policy was an estate's breach of contract claim against nursing home facility owner; 2) insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify owner on that claim and therefore also a duty to defend it on all of the estate's claims against it; and 3) insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify appellant-employee of the nursing home's management company.

[02/15] Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Crocker
Under Texas law, an insurer has no extra-contractual duty to notify an additional insured of available liability coverage and provide an unsought, uninvited, unrequested, unsolicited defense. Further, an insurer's actual knowledge that an additional insured has been served with process does not establish as a matter of law that the insurer has not been prejudiced by the additional insured's failure to notify the insurer of the receipt of process.

[02/08] Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc.
In an action claiming, inter alia, unlawful retaliation when 62-year-old plaintiff was fired three months after he filed a charge with the EEOC that alleged both age and national-origin discrimination, a judgment and an award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest for plaintiff are affirmed over claims that: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or prove that defendant's proffered reason for terminating him was a pretext to hide retaliation; 2) a paralegal's fees and expenses to attend certain depositions were unnecessary and unreasonable; 3) billing descriptions were insufficient; and 4) plaintiff had only limited success on his various claims.

[01/25] Living Ctrs. of Texas, Inc. v. Penalver
In a wrongful death suit, a court of appeals judgment affirming a ruling in favor of plaintiff is reversed where a jury argument that compared defendant's lawyer's attempts to minimize damages to a World War II Nazi program, in which elderly and infirm persons were used for medical experimentation and killed, was improper and incurable.

[12/24] Warfield v. Summerville Senior Living, Inc.
In action for elder abuse and other claims, denial of petition to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration agreement plaintiff's husband had signed is affirmed over claims that: 1) even though plaintiff's husband did not hold a power of attorney when he signed the arbitration agreement, he nonetheless had the authority, either as her ostensible agent or as her spouse, to bind her to the agreement; and 2) plaintiff is estopped to deny the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

[09/07] Ruehl v. Viacom, Inc.
In an action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), denial of defendant-Viacom's motion for summary judgment is reversed where the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies before the EEOC was saved by equitable tolling or, in the alternative, that it was excused by application of the "single filing rule."

[09/06] Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co.
In a second appeal in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case, a judgment denying defendant's amended motion for judgment as a matter of law, and awarding plaintiff various forms of relief, is affirmed in part as to the denial of the motion for JMOL, and awards of back pay, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, and costs. However, the judgment is reversed in part as to claims for reinstatement and interim monthly front pay and vacated as to a claim for lump sum front pay.

More...

Health Law

[07/23] Gil v. Reed
In an inmate's negligence, malpractice, and civil rights suit against prison medical staff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the record contained sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material fact on: 1) inmate's Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and 2) whether defendants had met the standard of care, using the state-law standard as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

[07/22] Crawley v. Dinwiddie
Denial of habeas relief is affirmed where there is no clearly established federal law relevant to petitioner's claim that his counsel was ineffective in accommodating petitioner's preference to be found competent, despite his personal misgivings and the contrary opinions of a doctor and the prosecutor.

[07/22] Ryan v. US
In a suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claiming that two plaintiffs were switched at birth in 1946 and sent home with the wrong mothers due to the government's negligence, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where, upon consideration of the record and equitable arguments, the statute of limitations was properly found to bar the action.

[07/22] Paul v. US
Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is affirmed over claims regarding whether: 1) trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of his mental, medical, and physical history; 2) they were ineffective for failing to investigate and assert his incompetence to stand trial; and 3) petitioner has a constitutional right to competence during federal habeas corpus proceedings and, if so, whether the right was violated.

[07/22] Chein v. Drug Enforcement Admin.
DEA's revocation of petitioner-physician's practitioner's registration and denial of his application for a registration to export Schedule III and Schedule IV substances are affirmed where petitioner failed to demonstrate that his revocation represents a "flagrant departure from DEA policy and practice" in analogous cases.

[07/22] US v. George
Conviction for bank robbery is affirmed where a denial of defendant's request to cross-examine a witness about her bipolar disorder did not violate the Confrontation Clause, absent a showing by defendant that such questioning would help demonstrate that the witness was incompetent or dishonest.

[07/21] Simmons v. Ghaderi
In a breach of contract action arising from a medical malpractice suit, wherein plaintiffs sought to enforce an oral settlement agreement allegedly formed during mediation, a ruling upholding a decision to admit evidence relating to the mediation proceedings is reversed where: 1) the court of appeal improperly relied on the doctrine of estoppel to create a judicial exception to the comprehensive statutory scheme of mediation confidentiality; and 2) the evidence relating to the mediation proceedings should not have been admitted at trial.

[07/21] Smith v. Selma Cmty. Hosp.
In a matter concerning the termination of doctor-plaintiff's medical staff membership and hospital privileges, grant of doctor's petition for writ of mandate reinstating a judicial review committee's decision in his favor is affirmed where, in reversing the committee's decision, the governing board: 1) wrongly concluded that the judicial review committee did not make the findings of fact required by the bylaws; 2) erred in concluding that the judicial review committee considered irrelevant and inappropriate evidence; 3) erred in concluding that the judicial review committee was obligated to accept as true the findings of two other hospitals that terminated doctor-plaintiff's privileges; and 4) misapplied the substantial evidence rule.

[07/21] Bandana Trading Co., Inc. v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc.
In an action for breach of contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the trial court erred when it refused to remove a juror for misconduct after the juror applauded by clapping her hands during defendant's rebuttal argument; 2) defendant was entitled to a new trial because the same juror committed misconduct during deliberations when she injected technical knowledge into the deliberations, intimidating other jurors and rushing them into a verdict.

[07/18] In re Sims
In an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force, inmate's petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order requiring him to produce his mental health records is granted because: 1) a plaintiff does not forfeit the psychotherapist-patient privilege merely by asserting a claim for injuries that do not include emotional damage, or by stating that he suffers from depression or anxiety for which he does not seek damages; 2) a plaintiff may withdraw or formally abandon all claims for emotional damages to avoid forfeiting the psychotherapist-patient privilege; and 3) a party's psychotherapist-patient privilege is not overcome when his mental state is put in issue only by another party.

More...