Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a minor who had been diagnosed with autism, appealed the district court's affirmance of the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) hearing officer's decision that plaintiff's free and appropriate public education placement complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Plaintiff also claimed that his tuition reimbursement request for the 2007-2008 school year was timely, and that Loveland Academy was his "stay put" placement. The court held that Loveland Acadamy was not plaintiff's stay put placement because the DOE only agreed to pay tuition for the limited 2006-2007 school year and never affirmatively agreed to place plaintiff at Loveland Academy. The court also concluded that plaintiff's tuition reimbursement claim for the 2007-2008 school year was time-barred and that the district court did not err in finding that the 2007 and 2008 individualized education programs complied with IDEA requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the district court. View "K. D. v. Dept of Education" on Justia Law

Claimant Debra Ann Luttrell appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. Claimant challenged the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that the ALJ did not perform: (1) a proper determination at step five; (2) a proper analysis of the medical source opinions; and (3) a proper credibility determination. Finding that the ALJ's decision was free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Luttrell v. Astrue" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether Plaintiff Altheia Allen was disabled when her employer SouthCrest Hospital allegedly failed to accommodate her disability and terminated her employment. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded after review of the trial court record that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning her alleged disability, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SouthCrest. View "Allen v. Southcrest Hospital, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's husband served in the U.S. Army, 1958-1959, and was discharged due to rheumatic heart disease. The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied a claim for service-related benefits in 1959 and denied subsequent claims. In 1985, husband died of an acute myocardial infarction. The Board denied plaintiff dependency and indemnity compensation, 38 U.S.C. 1310. In 1992, plaintiff sought to reopen the 1986 decision. The request was denied in 1999; the Veterans Court affirmed in 2002. The Federal Circuit remanded, holding that the government failed to rebut the presumption of soundness, 38 U.S.C. 1111 with evidence that husband's heart disease was not aggravated by his military service. On remand, the Veterans Court affirmed the denial on alternate grounds; the Federal Circuit again remanded. Plaintiff's claim was then granted and she sought attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412. The Veterans Court denied the claim, finding that the VA's position was supported by then-existing precedent. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Veterans Court failed to consider all of the factors surrounding the erroneous denial, particularly that the government had adopted an interpretation of section 1111 that was unsupported by the plain language of the statute or legislative history. View "Patrick v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Dana Franklin appealed a district court's order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her application for Social Security disability benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability based on degenerative disc disease, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety and depression. The agency denied her applications initially and on reconsideration. Applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework, and and considering the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised two issues: (1) the ALJ erred by by failing to evaluate properly the opinions of her treating physician; and (2) the ALJ’s analysis of her credibility was contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence. Upon review, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate reversible legal error or lack of substantial evidence in the ALJ's treating-physician analysis. Furthermore, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff's credibility was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Franklin v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Zaricor-Ritchie appealed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and Supplement Security Income. Plaintiff claimed she was disabled by bipolar disorder and depression. After administrative denials of her claims for benefits, she had two hearings before an ALJ, who concluded she was not disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process. Plaintiff raised three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical source evidence; (2) the ALJ erred in his credibility assessment; and (3) the ALJ failed to perform a proper analysis in concluding that she could return to her past relevant work as a dishwasher. Taking each of Plaintiff's arguments in turn, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ's analysis was sufficient to support its decision. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits. View "Zaricor-Ritchie v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Washington Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental and physical disabilities, appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the operation of a regulation promulgated by Washington's DSHS that reduced the amount of in-home "personal care services" available under the state's Medicaid plan. The court concluded that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury because they have shown that reduced access to personal care services would place them at serious risk of institutionalization. The court further concluded that plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits of their Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a), claims, that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor, and that a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest. Accordingly, the court remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction. View "M. R., et al. v. Dreyfus, et al." on Justia Law

The New Mexico Legislature passed House Bill 59 during the 2011 legislative session. The Bill sought to amend five different sections of the Unemployment Compensation Act in order to address an impending insolvency in the unemployment compensation fund. In addition to reducing benefits to the unemployed, House Bill 59 increased employer contributions to the unemployment compensation fund over contributions that would be made in 2011. Governor Susana Martinez partially vetoed the Bill by striking one of the variables necessary to calculate employer contributions beginning on January 1, 2012. The Petitioners, each of whom are legislators, sought a writ of mandamus to invalidate Governor Martinez's partial veto. Because the effect of the veto was to exempt most employers from making what would otherwise be mandatory contributions to the unemployment compensation fund for calendar year 2012, the Supreme Court held that the partial veto was invalid. The Court therefore issued a writ of mandamus to order that House Bill 59 be reinstated as passed by the Legislature. View "State of NM ex rel Stewart v. Martinez" on Justia Law

After developing pain in his neck and shoulders, Petitioner Gordon George was diagnosed with cancer in 2003 and underwent surgery and radiotherapy. During his recovery, he continued to experience pain spanning from his neck to his shoulder and arm. Petitioner applied for disability and supplemental security income benefits. After many and various hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that for the period June 1, 2003 through July 31, 2005, Petitioner was disabled during that period. But the ALJ further found that Petitioner's condition improved dramatically over time and that by August 1, 2005, he no longer met any disability listing. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner raised several challenges to the ALJ's determination that he suffered no legally cognizable disability after August 2005. Upon review, the Court rejected all those challenges, and affirmed for substantially the reasons given by the district court, with one exception. The Court found that the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether, after August 1, 2005, Petitioner suffered from a mental disability. In our case, by contrast, the ALJ has not made any factual findings "one way or the other" about the existence, severity, or functional limitations, if any, imposed by Petitioner's mental condition: "[i]t's entirely possible the ALJ on remand will find Mr. George's mental health issues have no impact on his ability to work." The Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "George v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond Boswell appealed the denial of his applications for Social Security benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in March 2007. He alleged that he had been unable to work since December 1, 2006 because of degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, and problems with his back, neck, arms, hands, shoulders, and liver. His applications were denied at the administrative level and on reconsideration. The district court accepted the recommendation of a magistrate judge that the Commissioner’s denial of benefits be affirmed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner's and district court's decisions: "[Petitioner] asks this court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. We are without the authority to do so." View "Boswell v. Astrue" on Justia Law