Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her social security disability benefits. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel nor law of the case applies to plaintiff's claim. On the merits, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the current ALJ's decision where he considered and evaluated her treating physician's opinion (Dr. Kinney). The ALJ did discount some of the physician's opinion about plaintiff's marked limits on performing work at a consistent pace because it found the record did not support such conclusions. The court also concluded that the ALJ thoroughly considered the opinions of other treating sources (Dr. Heims and Dr. Stubblefield). Finally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's adverse credibility finding where the ALJ discounted plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain. In this case, plaintiff had not sought treatment for some of the complained limitations, the objective medical evidence was inconsistent with several of her allegations, there was a general lack of consistent medical treatment, and she seemed to return to the doctors only when she needed disability forms filled out. Furthermore, plaintiff was noncompliant with suggestions by her own treating physician. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Aguiniga v. Colvin" on Justia Law

For more than 40 years, participants in the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System (TVARS) received cost-of-living adjustments on top of their investment returns, pension benefits, and supplemental benefits. In 2009, with the system’s financial health in jeopardy, the TVARS board amended the rules that govern the system to cap or eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for the years 2010–2013, increase the eligibility age for cost-of-living adjustments, and lower the interest rate on a savings fund. The participants sued. None of their claims survived summary judgment. According to the district court, the plaintiffs did not have a private right of action to enforce the board’s compliance with the TVARS rules, and a Takings claim failed on the merits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part; cost-of-living adjustments are not vested, the agencies were also entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the claim that the board violated TVARS rules by reducing vested benefits. The court remanded remaining claims alleging violations of the TVARS rules because those claims are judicially reviewable in the context of this case. View "Duncan v. Muzyn" on Justia Law

Under the 2000 Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act a “covered employee” (or her survivor) is entitled to a lump sum payment of $150,000 “for the disability or death of that employee from that employee’s occupational illness,” 42 U.S.C. 7384s(a)(1). The claim adjudication process culminates in a final decision by the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), which may be challenged in court. A claimant may request to reopen his claim after a final decision by submitting new evidence of covered employment or exposure to a toxic substance or identifying a change in medical guidelines. Berry sought benefits based on his father’s employment. After FAB denied his application for lack of proof that his father worked at a covered facility, Berry did not seek reconsideration or judicial review; 10 years later, Berry filed a request to reopen, stating that he had new evidence of employment. The request was denied. Berry sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed, find the refusal to reopen “not a final agency action,” 5 U.S.C. 704. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. While the decision not to reopen satisfied the Supreme Court’s test for “final agency action,” and was not the type of decision that Court has recognized as “committed to agency discretion,” the court properly dismissed because the request was not actually based on new evidence, but alleged a material error in the initial decision. Under Supreme Court precedent, reopening requests based on material error are “committed to agency discretion” and unreviewable. View "Berry v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that defendants submitted false certifications under 42 C.F.R. 422.504(l)(l)2), by conducting retrospective reviews of medical records designed to identify and report only under-reported diagnosis codes (diagnosis codes erroneously not submitted to CMS despite adequate support in an enrollee’s medical records), not over-reported codes (codes erroneously submitted to CMS absent adequate record support). The district court denied relator leave to file a proposed fourth amended complaint. The court concluded that the district court erred by concluding that amendment would be futile where relator's proposed fourth amended complaint asserts a cognizable legal theory. Relator alleged that Medicare Advantage organizations design retrospective reviews of enrollees’ medical records deliberately to avoid identifying erroneously submitted diagnosis codes that might otherwise have been identified with reasonable diligence. The court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend based on undue delay. In this case, leave to amend is proper given the early stage of litigation, relator does not seek to assert a new legal theory, and this is relator's first attempt to cure deficiencies. Therefore, because the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend, the court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded with instructions. View "Swoben v. United Healthcare" on Justia Law

The amount of additional Medicare reimbursements that a hospital is entitled to receive for serving a disproportionate share of low-income patients depends, in part, on the number of days that the hospital served patients who were “eligible for medical assistance under a State plan approved under [the Medicaid statute].” 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(II). Kentucky hospitals contend that because Kentucky has chosen in its Medicaid plan to award additional Medicaid funds to hospitals based on how many days they treat patients who are eligible for the Kentucky Hospital Care Program (KHCP), a state program that provides medical coverage to low-income individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid, KHCP patient days should be counted in the calculation of the additional Medicare reimbursements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed rejection of the state’s argument on summary judgment, stating that the statutory term “eligible for medical assistance under a State plan approved under [the Medicaid statute]” is synonymous with “eligible for Medicaid” and KHCP patients are, by definition, not eligible for Medicaid. View "Owensboro Health, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

O’Connor-Spinner, age 47, suffers from depression and several physical impairments, including degenerative disk disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, sleep apnea, “restrictive lung disease,” and obesity. Several times since 2001 she has applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. In 2010, the Seventh Circuit invalidated the Social Security Administration’s denial of her 2004 request for benefits, noting that the ALJ had not asked a testifying vocational expert to assess how O’Connor-Spinner’s employment prospects would be affected by her moderate limitation on concentration, persistence, and pace, and had ignored a psychologist’s opinion that O’Connor-Spinner also faces a moderate limitation on her ability to accept instructions from, and respond appropriately to, supervisors. On remand, a different ALJ contradicted his colleague and declared that O’Connor-Spinner’s depression is not, and never was a severe impairment. The Seventh Circuit again vacated and remanded, stating that the medical evidence contradicts the ALJ’s assertion. The court noted symptoms including recurring agitation, impulsivity, fatigue, crying spells, and two or three “explosive episodes” weekly involving violent behavior and memory blackouts. View "O'Connor-Spinner v. Colvin" on Justia Law

In 42 U.S.C. 433, Congress authorized the President to enter into social security coordination agreements - known as totalization agreements - with other countries. This case involves a totalization agreement between the United States and France. At issue is whether or not two French taxes enacted into law after that totalization agreement was adopted amend or supplement the French social security laws covered by the agreement, and thus fall within the agreement’s ambit. The court concluded that the trial court committed legal error in declaring the status of those French laws not by analyzing the text of the totalization agreement or the understanding of the parties, but by resorting to American dictionaries. The court reversed and remanded because insufficient consideration was given to the text and the official views of the United States and French governments. View "Eshel v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB). Plaintiff alleged disability due to diabetes mellitus, heart problems, fatigue, and chest, back and leg pain. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff has the residual functioning capacity to perform sedentary work; the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of plaintiff's physician, Dr. Johnson, based upon lack of support in the examination record; the ALJ adequately explained that he discounted plaintiff's description of limited daily activities because it could not be adequately verified, was inconsistent with the “relatively weak medical evidence,” and was not supported by corresponding specific restrictions on activities imposed by a treating physician; and the ALJ did not err in accepting the testimony of the vocational expert where the testimony constituted substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding at step five of the sequential evaluation process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Boyd v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against United Healthcare, alleging claims of unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and financial elder abuse. Plaintiff had enrolled in a private health plan offering benefits to persons 65 and over as well as disabled persons under the federally funded Medicare Advantage program, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 et seq. After he went to an urgent care center outside of the plan's network, he was forced to pay a $50 copayment instead of the $30 copayment for in-network centers. Plaintiff alleged that the plan’s marketing materials misled him (and other enrollees) as to the availability of in-network urgent care centers (and their smaller copayments) and that the absence of any in-network urgent care centers in California rendered the plan’s network inadequate. The court concluded that plaintiff’s misrepresentation and adequacy-of-network based claims was expressly preempted by the preemption clause applicable to Medicare Advantage plans, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-26(b)(3). The court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims, to the extent they challenge a denial of benefits, are subject to dismissal because plaintiff did not first exhaust his administrative remedies under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), (h) and 1395ii. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Roberts v. United Healthcare" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the New Hampshire Supreme Court's review called for the Court to determine the constitutionality of New Hampshire Administrative Rules, He-W 654.04(c). The rule required DHHS to include a child’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in the calculation of a family’s eligibility for benefits under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), as administered by the State’s Financial Assistance to Needy Families program (FANF). Plaintiffs Carrie Hendrick and Jamie Birmingham were mothers whose children received SSI and FANF benefits, and whose benefits were ultimately cut by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their children, seeking a declaratory judgment that DHHS’s “inclusion of children’s SSI in FANF assistance group income is unlawful and void” pursuant to applicable federal law. In addition, plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Rule He-W 654.04 “is invalid because it impairs [their] legal rights.” Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction enjoining DHHS from including children’s SSI in FANF assistance group income and an award of attorney’s fees “because this litigation will result in a substantial benefit to the public.” After requesting that the Solicitor General of the United States file an amicus brief in this matter, and after reviewing that brief, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the Supremacy Clause did not permit the State to redirect federal benefits as required by Rule He-W 654.04(c). The rule, by counting a disabled child’s SSI benefits as income available to the child’s “assistance group,” treated the child’s benefits as a source of income for the entire household. The rule, thereby, reduced a household’s TANF benefit by one dollar for every dollar in SSI that was received by a disabled child in the household. Because the rule “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” the New Hampshire Court held that Rule He-W 654.04(c) was preempted by federal law and, thus, invalid to the extent that it required inclusion of children’s SSI as income to the TANF assistance group for the purpose of determining eligibility for TANF benefits. View "Hendrick v. New Hampshire Dept. of Health & Human Svcs." on Justia Law