Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, on her child's behalf, applied for survivorship benefits under the Social Security Act where the child was conceived by in vitro fertilization after the child's biological father, plaintiff's husband, passed away a number of years before the child was conceived. At issue was whether natural children, such as plaintiff's child, plainly fell within 42 U.S.C. 416(e)(1)'s basic definition of "child," and therefore making their intestacy rights irrelevant. The court held that the Social Security Administration's denial of survivorship benefits best reflected the statute's text, structure, and aim of providing primarily to those who unexpectedly lose a wage earner's support and that this view fell well within the range of permissible readings entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Plaintiffs, two fair housing organizations in New Orleans and five African-American homeowners, claimed that a program to help homeowners rebuild after hurricanes Katrina and Rita employed a grant formula that violated the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was whether the district court properly denied plaintiffs' first motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and injunction to enjoin defendants' actions related to the Louisiana Recovery Authority's Road Home Homeowner Assistance program. Also at issue was whether the district court properly granted plaintiffs' second motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction where the district court denied the initial request for a TRO and injunction. The court held that the district court properly denied the initially requested TRO and injunction where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also held that the district court's grant of plaintiffs' second motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction was improper where the second motion also failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

The district court rejected a challenge to 5 U.S.C. 3328, which bars males who have knowingly and willfully failed to register for the draft by age 26 from employment by the executive branch. The First Circuit vacated and remanded for entry of a judgment denying relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs, who were dismissed or resigned from federal employment after discovery of their failure to register, is under the Civil Service Reform Act. Although the claims implicate constitutional violations, Congress intended to consolidate employee removal actions in a single forum. The Merit System Protection Board cannot grant relief by invalidating the statute, but a court could do so on review of board action. The court characterized the constitutional challenges as "unpromising."

Plaintiff, a 16-year-old Medicaid recipient who was severely disabled, sued Defendant for allegedly violating the Medicaid Act ("Act") by reducing plaintiff's Medicaid-funded private duty nursing care from 94 to 84 hours per week. At issue was whether summary judgment in favor of plaintiff was proper where defendant's application of the Georgia Pediatric Program plan to plaintiff's specific medical condition violated the Act when 94 nursing hours at home was in fact medically necessary given plaintiff's condition and when the district court restricted defendant's role in reviewing plaintiff's treating physician's determination of nursing hours only for fraud or abuse of the Medicaid system and for whether the services was within the reasonable standards of medical care. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and too narrowly limited defendant's role in reviewing plaintiff's treating physician's determination of nursing home hours where the record presented issues of material fact over what amount of private duty nursing hours were medically necessary for plaintiff and where a state may still review the medical necessity of the amount of nursing care prescribed by the treating physician and make its own determination of medical necessity.

Non-resident alien citizens of China sought refunds of taxes paid under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA), 26 U.S.C. 3101, for work performed as contract workers in the Northern Mariana Islands. A corporation sought a refund of taxes paid for its contract workers in the Islands. The statutory definition of work performed in the United States contains no reference to the Islands. The Claims Court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the government. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting various laws and covenants under which citizens of the Islands are to be treated as citizens of the United States. Congress intended to treat the Islands like Guam is treated for purposes of FICA and to apply both employer and employee FICA taxes to the Islands.

Following a Veterans Court remand of a claim for service benefits relating to post-traumatic stress, the veteran submitted a petition for attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $6,193. The VA found that the veteran was a prevailing party, with a net worth of less than $2,000,000, and that the VA position was not substantially justified, as required by the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412, but that several billing items should be denied for lack of sufficient detail. The Veterans Court agreed and reduced the fee award by $437.50, rejecting a claim that additional detail would violate attorney-client privilege. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Act does not abrogate privilege; its specificity requirements do not require disclosure of the exact contents of communications identified on a bill and do not violate privilege. Having been publicly filed, the general nature of the claim and documents filed are not privileged.