Thomas Aquinas Flannery

This case concerns McKesson Corporation's claims against Iran for the 1982 expropriation of its 31% equity interest in the Iranian dairy company Pak Dairy and for the withholding of declared dividends from 1981 and 1982. The court had previously granted summary judgment on liability, holding Iran accountable under the Treaty of Amity and customary international law. Following a bench trial focused on damages, at which fact witnesses and appraisal experts for both sides testified regarding Pak Dairy's condition, expansions, and the value of McKesson's interest and dividends, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), noting that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the amount of damages.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Nu-Med, the former owner of Lake Medical Center, challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' calculation of Medicare reimbursement for a loss on the 1988 resale of the hospital for $14.4 million after purchasing it for about $40 million. Under Medicare rules, providers can claim depreciation on assets used for beneficiaries, with adjustments for gains or losses upon sale, but subject to limits from the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act (DEFRA) capping historical cost at the July 1984 owner's purchase price. The court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, holding that the agency correctly applied the DEFRA limit to determine the depreciable basis and net book value for the loss calculation, and properly allocated the lump-sum sale price to individual assets based on fair market value without treating assets as split into DEFRA-limited and non-limited portions.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a former employee, Hung Van Dang, suing his employer, Inn at Foggy Bottom, and a supervisor for racial discrimination under federal and D.C. law, claiming he was fired because he is Vietnamese and Asian. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The decision rests on the existence of genuine issues of material fact, including conflicting evidence about performance warnings, an alleged coffee spill incident, and the supervisor's alleged hostile behavior and comments about speaking Vietnamese, which could support a claim of discrimination either directly or through the McDonnell Douglas circumstantial evidence framework.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Beeck v. Federal Express Corp., plaintiff Ronald Beeck, a long-time FedEx employee, sued the company alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after his demotion from Senior Manager at Dulles Airport and subsequent transfers to distant locations, claiming these actions were pretextual following his refusal to make promotions without posting the positions as required by company policy. He also asserted a retaliation claim, though it was not included in the original complaint, and later withdrew his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. It found that the record did not support an allegation of prohibited age-based discriminatory motive under the ADEA, as the demotion and transfers were tied to performance issues documented in reminder letters. The court further held that the retaliation claim failed on the merits because the plaintiff's silent refusal to resign did not constitute protected opposition to an unlawful practice under the statute.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff John R. Cothran, a former Marine staff sergeant, seeking federal collateral review of his 1992 summary court-martial conviction for failing to report recruit abuse to a company officer in violation of a general order. Cothran alleged due process violations during the court-martial and subsequent military review processes and requested declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the conviction and expunge related records, relying on federal question jurisdiction, mandamus, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the APA. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, and dismissed the action. The core reasoning was that collateral review of military court-martial convictions is narrowly limited, and Cothran failed to show that the proceedings were arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful under the applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a custodial cleaner employed in the Senate Restaurants under the Architect of the Capitol who was terminated in 1997 after a series of disciplinary actions for performance and conduct issues. The plaintiff sued the Architect and other employees, alleging that the termination violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, the Architect of the Capitol Human Resources Act, the agency's personnel manual, and incorporated federal civil service procedures, while also claiming tortious interference with his employment under D.C. law. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to substitute the United States as defendant on the tort claim under the FTCA and granted the motion to dismiss both the due process and tort claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff lacked a protected property interest enforceable through the cited statutes and manual provisions, that any procedural deviations were harmless or did not violate constitutional standards, and that the tort claim was either preempted or subject to sovereign immunity after substitution.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a Medicare provider's efforts to obtain reimbursement for occupational and speech therapy services provided to patients in its nursing facilities during fiscal year 1993. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, Eagle Healthcare, Inc., against the Secretary of Health and Human Services, finding that the intermediary's denial of full reimbursement was improper. The core reasoning was that the intermediary failed to properly apply the regulations governing reasonable costs, including the prudent buyer principle under 42 C.F.R. § 413.106, by not accurately comparing costs with similar providers in the area, leading to an erroneous cost limit.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by four former nurse anesthetists against George Washington University, alleging that the university submitted false claims for Medicare reimbursement for anesthesiology services from 1989 to 1995. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice the third claim of the third amended complaint, which alleged a conspiracy under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(3), because the relators failed to plead facts showing an agreement between the university and the anesthesiologist associations to defraud the government. The court denied the motion to dismiss the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It granted the motion to dismiss all claims predating October 24, 1989, applying a six-year statute of limitations under the FCA and finding that the three-year tolling provision did not apply to the relators, who had personal knowledge of the alleged violations from their employment.

criminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The case concerned whether the Knight Disc Rifle manufactured by Modern Muzzleloading qualified as an 'antique firearm' exempt from regulation under the Gun Control Act of 1968 or instead constituted a 'firearm' subject to licensing and other requirements enforced by the ATF. The company sought a declaratory judgment and injunction after the ATF classified the rifle as a firearm because its ignition system could use modern shotgun primers. The court granted summary judgment to the ATF and denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the agency's classification decision was not arbitrary and capricious, was based on relevant technical factors distinguishing the rifle's primer-based system from antique ignition methods like percussion caps, and was entitled to deference under the Administrative Procedure Act.

gunscriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit brought by Heroes, Inc., a District of Columbia charity aiding families of fallen law enforcement and firefighters, against Heroes Foundation, a New York charity using similar names and logos for its own fundraising activities. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court denied the motion, finding that the defendant transacted business in the District through a Washington Post advertisement and an accessible internet homepage, satisfying both the D.C. long-arm statute and due process requirements for minimum contacts. It also held that venue was proper in the District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction there when the suit was filed.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Williams v. Glickman, former applicants for federal farm loans sued the Secretary of Agriculture in his official capacity, alleging that the Farmers Home Administration discriminated against them on the basis of race or national origin in processing their loan applications. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Constitution (Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments), federal civil rights statutes including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 and Title VI, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and common-law fraud. The court granted the defendant's partial motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the plaintiffs' withdrawn or abandoned claims as unopposed and ruling that their remaining claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for both damages and equitable relief were barred by the plain language of § 1981(c), which protects against impairment only by nongovernmental actors or under color of state law and does not extend to discrimination by the federal government. The court reasoned that Congress's specific inclusion of those two categories, without reference to federal action, demonstrated an intentional exclusion, and it rejected arguments based on legislative history or prior case law as contrary to the unambiguous statutory text.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involved a FOIA request by author D. Mark Katz seeking autopsy photographs and x-rays of President John F. Kennedy held by the National Archives. The Archives denied the request, asserting that access was governed by a 1966 Deed of Gift from the Kennedy estate rather than FOIA. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that the records were not agency records subject to FOIA disclosure because they originated as personal materials, were transferred under restrictive conditions, and remained controlled by the Deed's terms. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the Archives had not improperly withheld agency records.

procedurefederal power

The case involved Independent Petrochemical Corp. seeking a declaratory judgment that its liability insurers must defend and indemnify it against numerous claims for bodily injury and property damage from dioxin contamination caused by waste disposal in Missouri in 1971. Defendants moved for summary judgment on policies governed by Missouri law, citing pollution exclusions that barred coverage except for "sudden or accidental" discharges. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, determining that the repeated sprayings of dioxin-laced waste over several months constituted routine operations rather than sudden events, so the exclusions applied and no coverage was owed. The ruling interpreted the various policy forms consistently under Missouri law and rejected arguments based on drafting history or other states' precedents.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by environmental groups to a 1991 Notice of Inquiry issued by the Secretary of the Interior, which announced that subsidence from underground coal mining would not be subject to the prohibitions on surface coal mining operations in protected areas under section 522(e) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The petitioners argued that the NOI represented an invalid legislative rule adopted without required notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it conflicted with the statute's definition of surface coal mining operations and its environmental protections. The court determined that the NOI constituted a substantive change in regulatory interpretation by narrowing the definition of covered operations and impacts, and that it was not properly promulgated. Accordingly, the court vacated the NOI as procedurally invalid under the APA and remanded the matter to the Secretary for further rulemaking that complies with notice-and-comment requirements.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by the estate and family of a deceased federal employee seeking proceeds from enhanced life insurance coverage under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program administered by the Office of Personnel Management and underwritten by MetLife. After a mistrial on claims against some defendants, the court considered motions for judgment from all parties. The court granted the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and denied the plaintiffs' motions, finding that the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the required Form 2822 medical eligibility documentation had been submitted to and approved by the Office of Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance. The court also rejected arguments for estoppel or waiver, holding that the government could not be bound by erroneous certifications by its agents and that regulations did not permit waiving the substantive proof requirement.

federal powerprocedurelabor & employment

This case involves Airlie Foundation, Inc. (AFI), a tax-exempt organization since 1963, challenging the IRS's revocation of its 501(c)(3) status effective 1976. The IRS based the revocation on findings that AFI served the private interests of its founder Dr. Murdock Head through a network of controlled entities involving unpaid rents, loans, and asset transfers, and that it operated as a commercial enterprise, drawing on evidence from Head's criminal tax fraud and bribery convictions. AFI sought a declaratory judgment under 26 U.S.C. § 7428 affirming its exempt status. On the government's motion for summary judgment, the court remanded the matter to the IRS with directions to provide a detailed statement of facts supported by specific citations to the administrative record. The court reasoned that such clarification was necessary to permit meaningful judicial review of the IRS's conclusions.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Allen v. Card, two active-duty Coast Guard officers challenged performance evaluations that led to their non-promotions by filing complaints with the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) years after the evaluations, seeking to expunge the passovers. The BCMR denied both claims as untimely under the three-year statute of limitations in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), rejecting arguments that the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act tolled the deadline and, in one case, applying laches. The court remanded the cases to the BCMR, directing it to determine whether waiving the time limit serves the interest of justice by weighing the reasons for delay against a cursory review of the claims' potential success on the merits, and, for plaintiff Allen, to assess any government prejudice from delay without presuming it. The decision rests on the BCMR's authority and obligation to apply the statutory waiver provision properly rather than dismissing claims solely for untimeliness without that analysis.

procedurefederal power

In Dowds v. Bush, eight Marine Corps reserve officers sued the government after their Full-Time Service program terms expired without renewal or after they were denied promotions, claiming they had been promised extensions to reach pension eligibility or were entitled to special selection boards. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss. For the four officers terminated under a 1987 policy directive, the court held they failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not first seeking relief from the Board for the Correction of Naval Records. For the remaining officers, the court found no statutory authority under the relevant provisions of Title 10 for convening special promotion boards for reserve officers, distinguishing their situation from active-duty officers and rejecting claims that the Secretary had an obligation to provide such boards.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved a hospital challenging Medicare reimbursement reductions by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, where interest expenses were offset by investment income earned by a related parent organization, Marymount Health Care Systems (MHCS). The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, upholding the Provider Reimbursement Review Board's decision. The reasoning was that regulations required reducing interest expenses by investment income from related organizations under common control, and the Board's application was not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the hospital's contributions to MHCS led to unnecessary additional interest costs not directly tied to patient care.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Stellacom, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff challenged a 1989 Small Business Administration regulation defining annual receipts for small business eligibility in government contract set-asides, specifically limiting an exclusion for client billings to travel and real estate agents but not advertising agencies affiliated with Stellacom. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and dismissal regarding claims that the rule was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and violated APA notice-and-comment requirements, while also seeking to invalidate the regulation, enjoin its enforcement, and declare eligibility for a NASA contract. The court ruled the regulation invalid in part because it did not extend the exclusion to advertising agents or others qualifying under prior SBA precedents, permanently enjoining enforcement against Stellacom, but found Stellacom lacked standing to challenge the NASA contract award. The core reasoning was that the SBA had maintained a consistent policy for nearly thirty years, proposed a broader exclusion in rulemaking, and then narrowed it in the final rule without explanation.

business & regulatoryprocedure