Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Heinzelman, born in 1971, received a flu vaccine in 2003, and within 30 days, was hospitalized for Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. She was previously employed full-time as a hairstylist earning $49,888 per year. Due to her injury, Heinzelman will never be able to work again and is eligible to receive SSDI benefits of approximately $20,000 per year. In 2007, she sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 to 300aa-34. A special master rejected the government’s argument that her eligibility for SSDI benefits should be considered in determining compensation under the Vaccine Act, finding that SSDI is not a "federal . . . health benefits program" within the meaning of section 300aa-15(g), and awarded $1,133,046.08, plus an annuity to cover future medical expenses. According to the government, Heinzelman's lost earnings award would have been roughly $316,000 less had the special master taken her anticipated SSDI benefits into account. The Claims Court and the Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Heinzelman v. Sec'y Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for social security fraud pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(5). The court held that the district court committed no reversible error in the formulation of jury instructions; the district court acted within its discretion when it admitted computer-generated records into evidence; the prosecutor's comments did not warrant reversal of defendant's conviction; the district court committed no error when it denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(5) was not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Berry" on Justia Law

Appellant sought disability insurance benefits for his ongoing back pain, lower extremity problems, neck pain, sleep apnea, and anxiety. An ALJ upheld the Commissioner's denial of benefits after concluding that appellant maintained the residual function capacity (RFC) to perform light work and the district court affirmed. The court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed. View "Renstrom v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Five Medicaid recipients filed a class action against the District, alleging that the District systematically denied Medicaid coverage of prescription medications without providing the written notice required by federal and D.C. law. The district court dismissed the case on the pleadings, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. At least with regard to one plaintiff, John Doe, the allegations sufficiently established injury, causation, and redressability and the court concluded that Doe had standing to pursue his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Therefore, the court had no need to decide whether the other plaintiffs had standing and reversed the judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "NB, et al. v. DC, et al." on Justia Law

This case began as a dispute over the results of CM's special education evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. At issue on appeal was: (1) the ALJ's dismissal of several of CM's claims against Lafayette prior to holding a due process hearing; and (2) the district court's dismissal of MM's, CM's parents, separate claims against the California Department of Education (CDE). The court held that the district court correctly dismissed MM's claims against Lafayette challenging the ALJ's statute of limitations ruling as being premature. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the fourth claim as duplicative and correctly held that the CDE had no authority to oversee the individual decisions of OAH's hearing officers. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "M. M., et al. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., et al." on Justia Law

In 1995, two non-profit hospitals consolidated to form Pinnacle. Pinnacle subsequently submitted a Medicare reimbursement claim for the losses the hospitals had incurred through the sale of their depreciable assets in the consolidation. The Administrator denied Pinnacle's claim, and that order became the final decision of the Secretary. On Pinnacle's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., challenge, the district court upheld the Secretary's decision in full. Because the Secretary's interpretation of the relevant Medicare regulations was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation, the court concluded that the Secretary reasonably applied the bona fide sale requirement to a reimbursement request from a participant in a "statutory merger." The court also held that the Secretary's finding that the bona fide sale requirement applied to consolidations involving non-profit Medicare providers, like Pinnacle, was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Finally, substantial evidence supported the Secretary's finding that Pinnacle did not satisfy the bona fide sale requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Pinnacle Health Hospitals v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the denial of plaintiff's claim of social security disability benefits. At issue was whether the ALJ's handling of an ex parte contact was error, and if so, whether it was harmless. Because the ALJ erred by considering the ex parte evidence without allowing a supplementary hearing, the court was required to evaluate whether there was prejudice. The court concluded that there was no prejudice from the error where, considering the record as a whole, and the ALJ's explanation of his decision, the court was convinced that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the decision would have been any different without the ex parte communication. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ludwig v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Suppliers appealed the district court's dismissal of their action against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Suppliers challenged a regulation addressing the "applicable financial standards" that a durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) supplier must meet to be eligible for a Medicare contract under the competitive process established in 42 U.S.C. 1395w-3 (DMEPOS Statute). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on the ground that section 1395w-3(11) precluded judicial review of the Secretary's financial standards regulation and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. View "Texas Alliance For Home Care, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

Cybriwsky served as Turner's attorney to obtain social security disability benefits. The representation agreement relieved Turner of the obligation to pay if they did not win the case, but assigned to Cybriwsky any fees that the court may award under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. 2412. After holding a hearing, the Commissioner denied Turner's benefits request. The district court reversed and remanded and Turner sought attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The district court denied this motion, finding that Turner did not “incur” fees as a result of the remand and that the assignment was void under the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3727. The Sixth Circuit reversed. A "sentence-four remand," 42 U.S.C. 405(g), like the remand at issue, makes the plaintiff a "prevailing party" under the EAJA. The award is consistent with the purposes of EAJA. Litigants "incur" fees under the EAJA when they have an express or implied legal obligation to pay over such an award to their legal representatives, regardless of whether the court subsequently voids the assignment provision under the AAA. View "Corns v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

Respondent gave birth to twins conceived through in vitro fertilization using her deceased husband's frozen sperm. Respondent applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins, relying on 42 U.S.C. 416(e) of the Social Security Act, which defined child to mean, inter alia, "the child or legally adopted child of an [insured] individual." The Social Security Administration (SSA), however, identified subsequent provisions of the Act, sections 416(h)(2) and (h)(3)(C), as critical, and read them to entitle biological children to benefits only if they qualified for inheritance from the decedent under state intestacy law, or satisfied one of the statutory alternatives to that requirement. The Court concluded that the SSA's reading was better attuned to the statute's text and its design to benefit primarily those supported by the deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime. And even if the SSA's longstanding interpretation was not the only reasonable one, it was at least a permissible construction that garnered the Court's respect under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. View "Astrue v. Capato" on Justia Law