Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff did not meet the requirements for mental retardation in Listing 12.05C; that the ALJ characterized plaintiff's impairment as mild mental retardation at step two did not preclude the ALJ on this record from finding at step three that plaintiff did not exhibit deficits in adaptive functioning; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ash v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by American since 1988. On January 1, 2012, while working as a tower planner at O’Hare, plaintiff received a call from a friend at another airline, asking plaintiff to do something for a passenger who was scheduled to fly on American. Plaintiff requested that the catering department deliver a bottle of champagne and asked a flight attendant whether it would be possible to upgrade the passenger. The passenger was upgraded to first class. Plaintiff's employment was terminated because she upgraded the passenger and requested the champagne without proper authorization. American cited employee policies concerning dishonesty. Plaintiff applied for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Employment Security. American protested, alleging that plaintiff was ineligible because she was “discharged for misconduct connected with [her] work,” under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 820 ILCS 405/602(A). Following a hearing, a Department referee denied plaintiff’s application. The Board of Review affirmed. The circuit court reversed, finding that the actions which led to plaintiff’s discharge did not constitute “misconduct” under the strict statutory definition. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the circuit court decision, finding no illegal or intentionally tortious conduct, nor evidence of a deliberate rule violation. View "Petrovic v. Dep't of Emp't Sec." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of social security disability benefits and supplemental security income. The ALJ provided valid reasons for discounting plaintiff's subjective complaints and the court held that the ALJ's less-than-fully credible determination is supported by substantial evidence; the ALJ's residual functioning capacity (RFC) is supported by substantial evidence; and the ALJ gave proper weight to plaintiff's treating physicians where the opinions were not supported by the record as a whole. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Chaney v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Miller is a single father who, before his alleged disability, held positions as a security guard, machine operator, material handler, and night-club bouncer. In 2006, Miller visited a hospital emergency department with an injured knee. He did not return to work but applied for disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. On remand from the Appeals Council, an ALJ determined that Miller was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and did not qualify for benefits. The Appeals Council declined another review. The district court granted summary judgment, affirming the denial of benefits. Miller’s timely appeal followed. The Sixth Circuit vacated, finding the decision not supported by substantial evidence. A determination concerning Miller’s residual functional capacity (particularly his ability to stand) did not comport with the ALJ’s determination that a doctor’s assessment should be accorded significant weight; the limited discussion of Miller’s obesity arguably did not comply with SSR 02- 1p; the ALJ’s focus on isolated, often stale, portions of the record was an insufficient basis to determine that Miller could conduct work activities on a sustained basis, especially in light of the Appeals Council’s original decision to remand for failure to adequately evaluate Miller’s mental impairments. View "Miller v. Comm'r of Social Sec." on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Sledge Jeansonne Louisiana Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act, could be applied retroactively to defendant’s criminal misconduct which occurred prior to the effective dates of these statutes. Defendant Lynn Foret, a medical doctor who specialized in orthopedic surgery, pled guilty in federal court to one count of health care fraud, for criminal acts that occurred between 2003 and 2009. The trial court granted Dr. Foret’s declinatory exceptions, dismissing with prejudice, the State's action for penalties under the Sledge Jeansonne Act and dismissed with prejudice causes of action under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s rulings, finding that the conduct regulated by the substantive statute was the underlying fraud, rather than the subsequent guilty plea. Therefore, even though the State's cause of action could not have accrued until Dr. Foret pled guilty, application of the Acts nonetheless attached new consequences to his criminal misconduct, which occurred before the Acts became effective. One judge on the appellate panel dissented, reasoning the plain language of the Sledge Jeansonne Act demonstrated it was the guilty plea that gave the State Attorney General the authority to act, not the criminal activity, and because the guilty plea was entered after the effective date of the statute, its application herein would be prospective, not retroactive. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sledge Jeansonne Act was not an impermissible retroactive application of the law. After review, the Supreme Court held that both the Sledge Jeansonne Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act operated prospectively only, applying to causes of action arising after the effective date of each Act. The Court affirmed the court ofappeal ruling finding that the statutes at issue could not be retroactively applied to this defendant’s past criminal conduct. View "Louisiana v. Foret" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Leslie Taylor asked the Colorado Medicaid program to combine the benefits she received through two assistance programs to help her get to medical appointments. If approved, this combination would allow the agency to pay attendants for time driving Taylor to and from her appointments. The agency refused, and the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the refusal constituted discrimination against Taylor based on her disability. The Tenth Circuit concluded that this refusal did not constitute discriminate against Taylor based on her disability. View "Taylor v. Colorado Dept of Health Care" on Justia Law

The Department appealed a judgment awarding plaintiffs reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., for one year of private school education for their daughter, L.K. The court concluded that the Department’s refusal to discuss the bullying of L.K. with her parents during the process of developing L.K.’s individualized education program (IEP), violated the IDEA. The court also concluded that plaintiffs have met their burden to show that their choice of a private placement for L.K. was appropriate and that the equities favored reimbursing them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "T.K. v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ." on Justia Law

Parents of Seth B., a child diagnosed with autism, obtained an independent educational evaluation (IEE) and sought reimbursement. The district court subsequently ruled that the reimbursement was not warranted. The court concluded that the school board did not waive its right to refuse reimbursement and the proceedings before the district court were procedurally sound; the application of Bulletin 1508 did not violate the right to an IEE in this case; the court remanded for analysis under a substantial compliance standard where Seth’s IEE will “meet agency criteria” and merit reimbursement if it substantially complies with Bulletin 1508; but Parents will not be entitled to the full cost of the evaluation they obtained because they knew of the school board's cost cap of $3,000 and yet spent over $8,000. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Seth B. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of dual status National Guard technicians who had their benefits determined prior to the court's issuance of Petersen v. Astrue and would like to have their benefits readjusted to take advantage of the decision to avoid application of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's decision to reject the application of mandamus jurisdiction where the district court held that there is no clear, nondiscretionary duty on behalf of the SSA to apply the Peterson decision to plaintiffs. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a colorable constitutional claim on equal protection grounds that would justify the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(g)’s jurisdictional limitations. Plaintiffs’ due process claim also does not support application of an exception to 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchael v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Loveless, age 56, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits claiming that he could not work because of a shoulder impairment, diabetes, and pancreatitis. An Administrative Law Judge concluded, however, that Loveless could perform light work with restrictions. The Appeals Council and the district court upheld that determination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the ALJ erred by minimizing the opinion of Loveless’s personal physician and disbelieving his own testimony about the limiting effects of his impairments. The adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. View "Loveless v. Colvin" on Justia Law