Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

In 2008 plaintiff began having back pain that radiated to his legs due to a herniated disk and mild arthritis in his lumbar spine region; he also suffers from narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea, migraine headaches, numbness in his right leg, fibromyalgia, left-knee pain, and fatigue. He has limited mobility Dr. Imlach, his primary treating physician, concluded that the plaintiff’s conditions limited him to standing for a total of no more than half an hour, and sitting for no more than an hour, in an 8-hour workday and that plaintiff’s medications markedly limit the plaintiff’s ability to sustain concentration and pace. Plaintiff lives with his parents; he weighs 280-310 pounds, with a height of 6’2” to 6’3”. An administrative law judge denied his application for Social Security Disability benefits and the district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the ALJ failed to explain why she gave little weight to Imlach’s findings and erred in finding the plaintiff not credible on the ground that he had “not been forthright in his allegations of … inability to perform work related activities.” The court concluded that plaintiff does not appear to be capable of any full-time gainful employment, given his hypersomnia. View "Allensworth v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of their minor son seeking attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B), fee-shifting provision. The district court held that plaintiffs were the prevailing party by virtue of having obtained a “stay-put” order under the IDEA and awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees. The court held that plaintiffs are not the prevailing party by virtue of having invoked the IDEA's stay-put provision and the court concluded that its holding is consistent with several other circuit courts that have addressed the issue. Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the ALJ’s stay-put order was not a ruling on the merits; nor is the stay-put order a “similar form of judicially sanctioned relief” sufficient to confer prevailing party status; the court disagreed with the district court’s reasoning that the stay-put order was essentially a preliminary injunction and that pursuant to the court's case law in this context, plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees; and, in Davis v. Abbott, the court recently reiterated the importance of a party having achieved relief on the merits for the purposes of determining prevailing party status in the context of interlocutory injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment for defendants. View "Tina M. v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

In 2011, the California Legislature adopted legislation which dissolved the redevelopment agencies (RA's) that had been formed by municipalities throughout the state under the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). Before their dissolution, the operations of RA's were funded by way of so-called "tax increment" financing. Shortly before the Legislature dissolved RA's, plaintiffs-appellants Virginia Macy, a low-income resident of the city; Libreria Del Pueblo, Inc.; and California Partnership filed a petition for a writ of mandate against the Fontana Redevelopment Agency alleging the agency failed to provide the low- and moderate-income housing required under the CRL. Plaintiffs asked for relief in the form of the payment of $27 million into the agency's low- and moderate-income housing fund (LMIHF). AB 26 created successor agencies that were given responsibility over certain obligations of each dissolved RA. Importantly, under the dissolution legislation, the liability of successor agencies was limited to the value of the assets those agencies received from their respective predecessor RA's. After enactment of AB 26, plaintiffs amended their petition and added defendant and respondent City of Fontana (the city), initially in its role as the successor agency provided by AB 26, and later also in its separate capacity as a municipal corporation. In its capacity as a municipal corporation, the city filed a demurrer to the petition, arguing that under AB 26 only a successor agency may be held liable for the preexisting obligations of an RA. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed: the low- and moderate-income housing were never the liabilities of municipalities and their general funds. "An extension of RA statutory liabilities to municipalities and their general funds would require a very clear expression of the Legislature's intention to depart from the historical treatment of low- and moderate-income housing obligations; no such expression appears in AB 26 or later amendments to the dissolution legislation." View "Macy v. City of Fontana" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Michael Allman applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming he could not work due to spina bifida, a shunt in his brain, chronic back pain, headaches, depression, and anxiety. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) permitted him to perform a number of jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, defeating his disability claim. At step two of the applicable five-step sequential evaluation, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's headaches were not a “severe impairment” within the meaning of the Social Security Act and its corresponding regulations. Nevertheless, the ALJ discussed and considered plaintiff's headaches in assessing his RFC to work. After the ALJ denied his claim, the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed after adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and overruling plaintiff's objections. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his headaches qualified as a severe impairment and that the ALJ had provided sufficient bases for not assigning more weight to his doctor's opinion. On appeal, plaintiff challenged, among other things, the district court’s findings regarding the ALJ’s determinations at steps two and four. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Allman v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Stark worked at GM for over 10 years as a yard driver. Her back pain started in 2000, when she underwent her first of three surgeries. She has been diagnosed with degenerative disc disease, nerve root irritation, moderate-to-severe spinal stenosis, and possible radiculopathy. Stark underwent numerous nonsurgical treatments for pain, including epidural spinal injections and a nerve root block, with a regimen of Neurontin, Darvocet, Celebrex, Oxycocone, Avinza, physical exercises, and physical therapy. Stark’s pain control was “fair-to-poor.” She stopped working in 2009. A doctor assessed that Stark could do light physical demand activities based on her full range of motion and ability to squat, kneel, and walk. A medical consultant estimated that Stark occasionally could lift or carry 20 pounds and sit for about 6 hours in an 8-hour day. At a 2012 hearing, Stark testified to a “tremendous amount of pain every day.” She could no longer take narcotic pain relievers because of a hepatitis C diagnosis. An ALJ denied benefits, finding that “the objective evidence does not substantiate the extreme symptoms and limitations to which she testified” and that her testimony regarding daily activities “demonstrates a level of daily function not inconsistent with light work activity.” The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the credibility analysis flawed. View "Stark v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq., and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. The court concluded that the errors identified by plaintiff show the ALJ failed to consider Mental Impairment Listing 12.07 Somatoform Disorders (including Conversion Disorder) when assessing her residual functional capacity; the ALJ failed to evaluate fully the vocational expert's testimony; the testimony of plaintiff's sister-in-law reflects on the severity of plaintiff's impairments and the ALJ's failure to address this testimony was not harmless nor an arguable deficiency in opinion-writing technique; and the ALJ erred by disregarding the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician and improperly accorded great weight to statements in the physician's treatment notes indicating that plaintiff demonstrated improvement without acknowledging that plaintiff's symptoms waxed and waned throughout the substantial period of treatment. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions. View "Nowling v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s 1998 dislocation of a kneecap required implantation of a steel plate; a year later a shattered femur required implantation of a steel rod from hip to knee. In 2011, he fractured an ankle. A podiatrist inserted a bar with pins in the ankle and later repeated the procedure. Months later, plaintiff’s ankle pain returned and he was prescribed Vicodin and Percocet, providing limited relief. Two treating physicians reported that he could sit, stand, and walk for only 15 minutes at a time and for no more than one hour in an eight-hour work day; that he could lift a weight of 10-20 pounds only occasionally; and that he could not reach up with his right arm at all. One reported that plaintiff was “fully and completely disabled” with constant and worsening pain that caused constipation, drowsiness, and upset stomach, with a “poor” prognosis. An ALJ denied social security disability benefits, noting that the medical records varied from the reports and finding that plaintiff’s injuries were severe, but he could perform unskilled sedentary jobs. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The question was not whether plaintiff was less disabled than he was four years ago, but whether he was sufficiently recovered to hold down a 40-hour-a-week job; the ALJ did not adequately explain what jobs plaintiff might be capable of. View "Forsythe v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Morris worked as a coal miner for nearly 35 years, 19 years underground. Morris’s breathing difficulties caused him to leave work. In 2006, Dr. Cohen diagnosed him with pneumoconiosis (black lung disease). Eighty Four Mining’s physician also examined Morris, but determined that Morris’s breathing difficulties were caused by smoking and that there was no radiographic evidence of pneumoconiosis. In 2008, aPennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Judge denied benefits. Morris did not appeal. Morris’s breathing problems worsened; a doctor put him on oxygen nearly full-time. In 2011, Morris sought Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901, benefits. He did not rely upon the 2006 report that had been discredited, but on a 2011 arterial blood gas study and pulmonary function testing that supported a finding of black lung disease. In 2013, an ALJ granted BLBA benefits, rejecting a timeliness challenge and reasoning that a denial of black lung benefits due to the repudiation of the claimant’s pneumoconiosis diagnosis renders that diagnosis a “misdiagnosis” and resets the three-year limitations period for subsequent claims. Morris sufficiently established the existence of pneumoconiosis through medical evidence obtained after 2010 and Eighty Four failed to adequately explain why Morris’s years of coal dust exposure were not a substantial cause of his impairment. The Benefits Review Board affirmed, citing judicial estoppel as precluding the timeliness argument. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Eighty Four Mining Co. v. Morris" on Justia Law

Stage slipped two discs while working in a factory in 1985. She continued working. Her pain became more severe. By 2007, she had been diagnosed with arthritis in her back, hips, left leg, and shoulders; spinal degeneration; a tear in a disc joint; and mild degenerative disc disease. Stage is 5’6” tall and weighed over 200 pounds and also suffered from hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and hypothyroidism, which made her obesity difficult to control. Stage applied for benefits, claiming that debilitating back and hip pain rendered her unable to work after October 2009. Her last job was general kitchen work at a residential‐care facility. She had previously worked as a cook, bartender, and factory laborer. The district court upheld denial of her application for supplemental security income, disability insurance benefits, and disabled widow’s benefits. Stage was then 56 years old. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the ALJ discounted significant new evidence submitted after an agency doctor reviewed Stage's medical records, gave little weight to her treating physician’s opinion, discredited her testimony about pain without adequate support, and overstated her residual functional capacity. The ALJ’s evaluation of her medical evidence was unreasonable; substantial evidence did not support his finding that she remained capable of performing light work. View "Stage v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Cadillac Place (former General Motors Building), a Detroit office complex, is home to state offices, a court of appeals, a restaurant, a gift store, and even a barber shop. It is owned by Michigan Strategic Fund, a public entity, and leased by the state. Babcock, an attorney, s disabled due to Friedreich’s Ataxia, a degenerative neuromuscular disorder that impairs her ability to walk. She worked in Cadillac Place. Babcock alleged that its design features denied her equal access to her place of employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act , 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794(a). The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal. Babcock did not identify a service, program, or activity of a public entity from which she was excluded or denied a benefit. The court noted the dispositive distinction between access to a facility and access to programs or activities. Babcock only identified facilities-related issues. View "Babcock v. State of Mich." on Justia Law