This class action case involved individuals with alcoholism in the Third Circuit seeking to compel the Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate their claims for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits using standards from Third Circuit precedents like McShea v. Schweiker rather than the agency's differing policies. The plaintiffs also alleged violations of the 1984 Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act. The court granted a permanent injunction requiring the Secretary to cease nonacquiescence and apply the circuit's standards for determining disability due to alcoholism, which recognize chronic alcoholism as a potentially disabling impairment. The reasoning was that abundant evidence already demonstrated the Secretary's nonacquiescence policy, making further proceedings unnecessary, and that permanent relief was appropriate given the five-year duration of the case and the parties' readiness for final adjudication.
The case involves plaintiffs Gilda and Robert Stinson who sued Van Valley Development Corp. and others alleging securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with their purchase of Copper Lake Manor revenue bonds; they claimed misrepresentations and omissions in offering statements regarding the project's finances, occupancy, and economic conditions. After their initial complaint was dismissed for inadequate pleading of reliance, the Stinsons sought leave to amend to invoke a fraud-created-the-market presumption of reliance. The court analyzed whether this presumption is available in the Third Circuit for newly issued or inefficiently traded securities, noting that while the fraud-on-the-market theory was approved in Peil and Basic for developed markets, the fraud-created-the-market variant remains unsettled with conflicting district court decisions like Bexar and Desfor. The court further examined whether the facts could support the presumption, observing that the underlying project had substantial appraised value and was not a worthless sham, and concluded that leave to amend should be denied as the proposed complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss.
The case involved a dispute between International Raw Materials, which operates a terminal for exporting soda ash, and the American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (ANSAC), an export trade association registered under the Webb-Pomerene Act along with its members. IRM alleged antitrust violations by ANSAC through horizontal price-fixing of domestic terminalling rates for soda ash exports. ANSAC moved for summary judgment, asserting exemption from Sherman Act liability under the Webb-Pomerene Act for conduct in the course of export trade. The court granted summary judgment to ANSAC, concluding that the statutory definition of export trade covers arrangements for terminalling services tied to exporting goods and excludes only domestic production, manufacture, or sales within the United States.
In Stinson v. Van Valley Development Corp., plaintiffs alleged that they and a proposed class were defrauded when purchasing revenue bonds issued to finance a retirement center project, citing misstatements and omissions in the offering documents regarding working capital, occupancy forecasts, economic conditions, and other project details, in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The court addressed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for class certification, with plaintiffs seeking to rely on the fraud-on-the-market presumption to establish reliance since they had not read the disclosure statements before purchase. The court granted dismissal, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege transaction causation or facts supporting an efficient and developed market necessary for the presumption under precedents like Peil v. Speiser and Basic v. Levinson. It reasoned that the bonds were sold in an undeveloped market without indicia of efficiency such as trading volume or analyst coverage, precluding indirect reliance on market integrity. With the individual claims dismissed, the class certification motion was deemed moot.
The case involves a dispute over unpaid payments for cardio-respiratory services provided by the plaintiff to Oxford Hospital under an alleged contract. Oxford filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, automatically staying proceedings against it, while co-defendant Kensington moved for summary judgment on grounds that it had no corporate relationship with Oxford and thus no liability for the debt. The court denied Kensington's motion, finding that conflicting evidence about the hospitals' relationship created a genuine issue of material fact under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, and that the bankruptcy stay did not bar ruling on claims against the solvent co-defendant.
The case involved a medical equipment supplier, Quality Care, that had been assigned Medicare Part B claims for seat-lift chairs and challenged Pennsylvania Blue Shield's later denial of most of those claims under an intensified medical-necessity review, as well as the carrier's refusal to find good cause for the supplier's untimely requests for review of the denials. The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary complaint for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies by timely appealing the claim denials, that no clear nondiscretionary duty existed to support mandamus relief, and that the carrier's good-cause determination was committed to its discretion under the governing regulations.