Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

In 2009, plaintiff applied for an IT specialist position with the Miami VA Healthcare System. He did not get the job and, after exhausting rights before the Department of Labor, filed an appeal, asserting that the VA violated his rights relating to veteran's preference. The AJ concluded that the Merit Systems Protection Board had no authority to review the merits of the VA’s non-selection of plaintiff. The Board agreed. The Federal Circuit vacated. There is no way to determine whether the Veterans' Preference Act (58 Stat. 390) has been violated without examining the grounds for non-selection. The Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the VA properly afforded plaintiff the right to compete for the job and properly determined, in accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d), that he was not qualified for the position View "Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

In 2008, Chrysler offered a buyout program to employees in Kokomo, Indiana. Those employees then applied for unemployment benefits under Indiana's Unemployment Compensation Act. The Indiana Department of Workforce Development denied the claims. The Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development ultimately awarded benefits under a narrow provision of the Act. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Board's application of the provision was erroneous and inconsistent with the statute. The Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the court of appeals. The Court then affirmed the decision of the Board, holding that the Board properly applied the law to its findings of fact, and the Board's conclusion that the employees were eligible for benefits was reasonable in light of the evidence before it. View "Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Bd. of the Dep't of Workforce Dev." on Justia Law

Respondent-Appellant Pneumotech, Inc. appealed the Industrial Commission's determination that its former employee, Petitioner-Appellee Angela Hopkins, was eligible for unemployment benefits. Pneumotech hired Petitioner as a bookkeeper and receptionist on July 3, 1995. She worked at Pneumotech until June 22, 2010, when her supervisor fired her. The same month, Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Idaho Department of Labor. At the hearing, Pneumotech presented testimony that Petitioner was discharged because: (1) for two years she had been habitually late for work; (2) she took time off without supervisor permission; (3) she took sick time off but went to the water park instead; (4) she spent time at work playing video games and talking on her cell phone; and (5) she failed to help train a new employee when asked. Petitioner denied all of these accusations, including that her supervisor had repeatedly warned her that her conduct was unacceptable. In fact, the supervisor testified that Petitioner never received a written warning or suspension, and in January 2009, she received a $2-per-hour raise. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Commission did not abuse its discretion or violate Pneumotech's right to procedural due process in denying the company's request for a new hearing. Furthermore, substantial and competent evidence supported the Commission's decision to uphold Petitioner's award of unemployment benefits. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Hopkins v. Pneumotech, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a bookkeeper, part-time receptionist, and house-cleaner, developed reflexive sympathetic dystrophy after she fell. After reducing her hours, she stopped working in April 2008. Her application for disability benefits and SSI was denied in June 2008. In June 2009, she had a hearing before an ALJ, who denied her applications, finding that she was not disabled because she had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work with certain limitations and that jobs meeting those criteria were available. Eight months later, the Appeals Council denied review. The district court held that the ALJ's RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the ALJ adequately explained the decision and properly relied on a 2008 report by the state agency medical consultant. View "Chandler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

An employee, injured on the job, returned to work and presented a specialist's note, restricting her lifting. After five days her supervisor told her that her restrictions made it impossible for her to work and advised her to seek permanent disability. She submitted copies of additional doctors' notes in an effort to be reinstated, but the company concluded that the notes contained conflicting dates, contradictory answers on whether the medical condition was work related, ambiguities about the employee's ability to lift, and illegible content. The employee did not respond to requests for clarification, but filed a Workers' Compensation lawsuit and contacted the EEOC. She then filed suit, and, during discovery, turned over new copies of the notes. After plaintiff failed to produce originals at trial, there was conflicting testimony about the existence and location of originals. The district court declared a mistrial. Plaintiff sent the original notes to the court five days later. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, based on spoliation of evidence. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. It is not clear that plaintiff intentionally withheld the documents or that the company suffered severe harm. View "Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants Phillip Grimsley and Roger Mowers were retired and later rehired employees of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). As employees, they were members of the Police Officers Retirement System. As part of the rehire process, SLED required Appellants to sign a form which provided that they would take a pay cut in the amount it would cost SLED to pay "the employer portion" of retirement. According to their suit, Appellants claimed that provision was contrary to state law, which assigned the responsibility for the employer portion of the retirement to the employer. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Appellants brought suit against SLED and the State, seeking a declaratory judgment and asserting causes of action for a violation of S.C. Code Ann. section 9-11-90 and for unlawful takings. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the South Carolina Retirement Contribution Procedures Act (Retirement Act), which Appellants challenged on appeal to the Supreme Court. Appellants additionally appealed the trial court's alternative ruling dismissing their unlawful takings claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Appellants and found the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint: "Appellants have asserted a cognizable property interest rooted in state law sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. In so finding, [the Court] also [held] the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants' unlawful takings claim." View "Grimsley v. So. Carolina Law Enforcement Div." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Conger appealed the Commissioner's denial of his application for supplemental social security income benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in 2005 alleging he was unable to work because of degenerative disk disease, spondylosis, arthritis, depression, and problems sleeping. His application was denied at the administrative level after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ further found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform simple and routine medium exertional work that required no more than occasional stooping and no contact with the public. After the Appeals Council denied his request for review, Plaintiff filed his complaint in the district court. The district court adopted the report and affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the ALJ's RFC finding and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Court affirmed the district court and Commissioner's rulings. View "Conger v. Astrue" on Justia Law

The primary question in this case was whether a workplace injury that Plaintiff Nancy Petock characterized as an aggravation or worsening of an earlier compensable injury can give rise to a new three-year period in which she could demand reinstatement or reemployment. The trial court held that it could not and granted Defendant Asante's (dba Asante Health System) summary judgment motion. Although the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that an aggravation of an earlier injury cannot give rise to new reinstatement rights, it concluded that there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff had sustained a "new and separate injury" in 2005 that would give rise to those rights, and remanded the case. On review, Plaintiff argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that an aggravation of an earlier injury cannot give rise to a right to reinstatement under ORS 659A.043 or a right to reemployment under ORS 659A.046. Though the Supreme Court disagreed with some of the appellate court's reasoning, it affirmed the decision to reverse the trial court for further proceedings: "Even if defendant were correct that the same facts cannot give rise to an aggravation claim and a compensable injury claim (a proposition with which [the Court] noted our disagreement), [the Court] fail[ed] to see the relevance of that proposition in the context of defendant's summary judgment motion. On this record, Plaintiff was free to argue that her 2005 injury was a compensable injury." View "Petock v. Asante" on Justia Law

After Employee was unable to successfully complete her necessary training, Employer gave her the option to resign immediately or to be placed on a thirty-day unpaid leave of absence. Employee opted to resign immediately and thereafter sought unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Workforce Development denied Employee's application for benefits on the grounds the Employee voluntarily left employment and did so without good cause. An ALJ concluded (1) Employee did not voluntarily quit her position but was constructively discharged, and (2) Employee was disqualified from receiving benefits because she had breached a duty reasonably owed to her employer, which breach constituted just cause for her termination. The Unemployment Insurance Review Board adopted and approved the ALJ's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Employee's claim, holding (1) the Board's finding that Employee breached a duty reasonably owed to Employer was reasonable; and (2) it was reasonable for the Board to find that Employee was discharged for just cause and was therefore ineligible for benefits. View "Recker v. Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev. Review Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Zaricor-Ritchie appealed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and Supplement Security Income. Plaintiff claimed she was disabled by bipolar disorder and depression. After administrative denials of her claims for benefits, she had two hearings before an ALJ, who concluded she was not disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process. Plaintiff raised three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical source evidence; (2) the ALJ erred in his credibility assessment; and (3) the ALJ failed to perform a proper analysis in concluding that she could return to her past relevant work as a dishwasher. Taking each of Plaintiff's arguments in turn, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ's analysis was sufficient to support its decision. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits. View "Zaricor-Ritchie v. Astrue" on Justia Law