Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Federal employees are entitled up to 15 days each year of military leave to attend training as a member of a reserve of the armed forces or National Guard. 5 U.S.C. 6323(a)(1). The Federal Circuit held that federal agencies cannot charge military leave on non-workdays. Duncan worked as a civilian for the Air Force until his retirement in 2005. From 1980 to 1998, he was also in the Air Force Reserve and performed 12 days each year of active duty plus additional duty for training. In 2009, he filed a claim with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the Air Force had charged his leave on non-workdays in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, seeking compensation for six days. An Administrative Law Judge granted the request, finding Duncan's recollection credible. The Board reversed, holding that it requires more than personal recollection and reliance on military documents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The record did not show that all corroborating evidence was unavailable. View "Duncan v. Dep't of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits. Specifically, he objected to the ALJ's finding, without considering the testimony of a vocational expert, that plaintiff was able to engage in gainful activity. The court concluded that the ALJ erred by relying solely on the guidelines to determine plaintiff was "not disabled." Because the ALJ determined that plaintiff suffered from severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a vocational expert in determining whether plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform other jobs that existed in significant number in the national economy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brock v. Astrue" on Justia Law

The widow of a veteran, who had service connected post-traumatic stress disorder rated at 100% disabling, was denied dependency and indemnity compensation benefits in 2002. She filed a Notice of Disagreement. The VA regional office informed her that it was continuing to deny her claim and that she could appeal within 60 days. More than 120 days later, she attempted to appeal using VA Form 9. The VA responded that the claim could only be reopened if she submitted new and material evidence. Several months later she filed a statement and, after she submitted new evidence, the claim was reopened and granted effective July 2004, when the VA first received the request to reopen. She sought benefits effective at the date of her husband's death. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board, noting that her earlier submissions were not accompanied by new, material evidence required to reopen, 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a). The Federal Circuit affirmed. To establish an effective date of benefits granted under a reopened claim, an otherwise proper informal request to reopen need not be accompanied by new and material evidence, but the error was harmless because the Form 9 did not show any intent to reopen.View "Akers v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff first sought treatment in 1988, at age 27, experiencing double vision, eye strain, and facial numbness, and was diagnosed with abducens nerve palsy of the left eye. He continued to work as a welder until 2004, when symptoms forced him to sell his business. In 2007, he applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging onset in 2004. In 2010 an ALJ rejected the claim, concluding that plaintiff; she noted plaintiff’s complaints of headaches, but concluded that they must be non-severe. The district court upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit remanded to the Social Security Administration, holding that the ALJ’s credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Shauger v. Astrue" on Justia Law

The veteran served in Vietnam in the 1960s. He was honorably discharged and received service connection compensation for arthritis and hearing loss. In 1993, he had a malignant melanoma surgically removed; it continued to spread and he died in 1994. The surviving widow filed an Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation alleging that her husband’s death was service connected due to exposure to Agent Orange and extensive sunlight while serving in Vietnam. The Regional Office denied the claim. In 2004, she filed the current claim and submitted an internet article discussing an Air Force study that found an elevated risk of melanoma in veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange. The Board reopened and remanded the claim. On remand, a VA medical examiner determined that it was "at least as likely as not" that the melanoma was causally related to active duty service. The RO again denied the claim.. The Board affirmed. The Veterans Court vacated and remanded. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that there was no final decision.View "Ebel v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Alabama sued CMS claiming that it violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500-596, 701-706, by issuing - without notice and an opportunity for public comment - an October 28, 2008 letter to state health officials (SHO letter). The district court held that the SHO letter constituted a substantive administrative rule issued without the notice-and-comment procedures mandated by the APA. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief in addition to vacating the SHO letter, and because Alabama's remaining claims were unripe, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State of Alabama v. Centers For Medicare And Medicaid, et al." on Justia Law

A civilian employee of the Department of Defense retired in 2007 then served as a re-employed annuitant for a two-year term ending January 3, 2009. Like many Department employees, he was subject to the National Security Personnel System, and eligible for performance-based bonuses and salary increases until the system was repealed in 2009. He qualified in 2008, but was ineligible for a salary increase because of his two-year contract; by regulation, the effective date of any salary increase would be the first day of the first pay period on or after January 1. The Department denied a bonus, arguing that the effective date was the same as the effective of a salary increase. The employee argued that the effective date should be either the end of the appraisal period (September 30, 2008) or the first day of the following year. In his class action under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346, the district court ruled in favor of the Department. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the court had jurisdiction under the Act and deferring to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation. View "Price v. Panetta" on Justia Law

In 2007, the HHS Office of Inspector General conducted a nationwide audit to determine whether states were complying with the requirements to reimburse the federal share of recovered AFDC overpayments made before October 1, 1996. The audit found that the Pennsylvania DPW had recovered $10,598,095 in AFDC overpayments from October 1, 1996 through June 30, 2006, but had not reimbursed ACF for the federal share of $5,609,572. DPW appealed a reimbursement request, challenging HHS authority to conduct the audit, but not the audit findings. The appeals board and district court upheld the HHS determination, rejecting an argument that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 42 U.S.C. 601, designates a procedure established by the Single Audit Act, 31 U.S.C. 7501-7507 as the exclusive audit procedure. Under the SAA, "[e]ach non-Federal entity" that expends at least $300,000 of federal awards in a fiscal year "shall have either a single audit or a program-specific audit made for such fiscal year in accordance with the requirements of this chapter." The Third Circuit affirmed, also rejecting claims under FOIA and that DPW was entitled to retain the federal share of the AFDC overpayment recoveries under substantive law. View "Commonwealth of PA v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District was violating the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. Since 1993, a consent decree has governed how the District provides "early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services" under the Act. The District has now asked the district court to vacate that decree on two grounds: that an intervening Supreme Court decision has made clear that plaintiffs lack a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act, and that in any event, the District has come into compliance with the requirements of the Act. Because the court concluded that the district court's rejection of one of the District's two arguments did not constitute an order "refusing to dissolve [an] injunction[]" within the meaning 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Salazar, et al. v. DC, et al." on Justia Law

For about seven years, defendant aided undocumented immigrants in filing claims for Illinois unemployment benefits, charging a fee of $80 plus one benefit check, and using social security numbers of unsuspecting, law-abiding citizens. She arranged with a state employee to process the applications as though the undocumented aliens were citizens. She was convicted of eight counts of mail fraud and sentenced to 96 months' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed application of sentencing guideline enhancements: for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, for unauthorized use of any means of identification unlawfully to produce or obtain any other means of identification, and for an offense with 50 or more victims. View "United States v. Vasquez" on Justia Law