News

Case Summaries

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.

More...

ERISA

[05/16] Zirnhelt v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co.
In a pension-benefits case, dismissal of plaintiff's benefits claim, fiduciary breach claim, and an award to plaintiff based on defendant's failure to provide her with plan documents in a timely manner are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's allegation that the plan language was ambiguous regarding an age clause could not trump the clear language of the plan; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in a denial of plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim since it can only apply to ambiguous plan provisions; 3) plaintiff's fiduciary breach claim was time barred; 4) the district court was correct in concluding that plaintiff was a participant in the plan and therefore entitled to certain documents; and 5) the court did not abuse its discretion as to the $10,500 penalty for a 424 day delay in producing the documents, since the company had a good faith belief that plaintiff had withdrawn her request for the documents.

[05/13] Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co.
In a suit for collection of withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), a ruling finding that a proof of claim filed in 1999 in Chapter 7 bankruptcy constituted a statutory demand and cut off defendant's right to contest liability is affirmed where: 1) statutory notice and demand were not met when the plaintiffs filed the notice in Chapter 7 bankruptcy since it must be sent to the employer and Chapter 7 involves a trustee who is neither an agent of the debtor nor a fiduciary of the debtor; 2) notice to former members of the controlled group does not constitute constructive notice for the rest of the group; and 3) the notice did eventually get to the controlled group and they waived arbitration by not initiating the procedure and waiting until they were sued. However, the issue of damages is vacated and remanded where: 1) summary judgment granted to plaintiffs was not based on the motion presented by the plaintiffs; 2) plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to argue their case before summary judgment was granted on the issue of accelerated debt; 3) issues of liquidated damages depends on whether the debt was ever accelerated and when it acceleration occurred; and 4) payments by defendant should have applied first to accrued interest and then the principal.

[05/07] Trujillo v. PacifiCorp
In an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ERISA, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiffs raised the necessary inference of discriminatory motive to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination through evidence that defendant monitored plaintiffs' son's health care costs, and that defendant was concerned to cut down on overall health care costs; 2) there was temporal proximity between the relapse of the plaintiff's son's cancer and the investigation by defendant for time theft; 3) defendant was not able to present a legitimate business reason since it treated similarly-situated employees differently; and 4) there were several irregularities in defendant's investigation of plaintiffs for time theft.

[05/01] U.S. v. Jackson
Defendants' convictions and sentences for bank fraud are affirmed where: 1) unpaid employer contributions to a company's ERISA plan constitute plan assets; 2) defendants were guilty of ERISA theft regardless of whether they were fiduciaries; 3) there was sufficient evidence to support their convictions; 4) the fraud-loss amount resulting in a seventeen-level increase to the offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was not miscalculated; and 5) there was no error with the increase of the offense level based on defendants' actions.

[04/29] Williams v. Interpublic Severance Pay Plan
In a suit under ERISA, summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed where: 1) there is no de novo review of the decision since the court must defer to the language of the trust; and 2) plaintiff does not qualify for benefits under a severance pay plan since he was offered a position similar with a salary equal to the previous one excluding fringe benefits.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

[12/05] Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.

[11/21] Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
In a subrogation action brought by an ERISA Fund wherein one of its members sought to have her medical expenses from an automobile accident paid by the Fund, summary judgment for plan administrators is affirmed whereby: 1) the Fund's state law subrogation claim was preempted by ERISA section 514, as the claim "relates to" the ERISA plan; and 2) the Fund's subrogation claim duplicated or supplemented a civil enforcement remedy available to the Fund under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.

More...

Government Benefits

[05/12] Mansfield v. Peake
A decision determining the earliest effective date for claimant's award of VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. section 1151 is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a determination that an earlier Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim did not constitute an informal claim for section 1151 benefits; and 2) whether a delay in processing the claim amounted to a denial of due process.

[05/09] U.S. ex rel Fried v. W. Independent Sch. Dist.
Dismissal of a claim under the False Claims Act for Social Security fraud is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims were based on publicly disclosed information; and 2) plaintiff was not the original source of the information since he failed to show that it was qualitatively different from that which had already been discovered.

[05/07] Wrenn v. Astrue
A district court's determination that the combined attorney's fees for representation before the Social Security Administration (SSA) and on appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner and the court have the authority to independently determine the appropriate attorney's fees, and the 25% limitation on fees for court representation is not itself limited by the amount of fees awarded by the Commissioner.

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[05/05] Reeves v. Astrue
An award of attorney's fees granted under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d)(1)(A) belongs to the "prevailing party", which is the party and not the party's attorney.

More...