Garr M. King

Dorothy Works brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits application. After an earlier remand requiring further evaluation of her obesity, mental impairments, and reading/writing limitations, the ALJ conducted a second hearing and again found her not disabled under the five-step sequential evaluation process based on severe impairments including chronic low back pain, left shoulder tendinitis, myofascial pain syndrome, and major depression. The court examined the medical evidence, hearing testimony, residual functional capacity findings, and vocational expert opinions regarding jobs she could perform despite her limitations on walking, reaching, and complex tasks. The court determined that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly with respect to her intellectual functioning and reading abilities, and therefore reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

Katherine Gunther sued the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration seeking judicial review of the denial of her Disability Insurance benefits application under the Social Security Act. The ALJ had found her not disabled at step four, determining she could perform past relevant work as a teacher aide despite her alleged impairments including chronic back pain, degenerative disk disease, obesity, anxiety, depression, and chronic pain syndrome. The court concluded the ALJ erred by improperly discounting Gunther's testimony, medical evidence, and the vocational expert's opinions on her limitations and transferable skills. Because the record satisfied the Smolen factors and would require a disability finding if the evidence were credited, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this criminal case, defendants Hock Chee Khoo and Thongsouk Soutavong were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, theft of trade secrets, and computer fraud, along with related substantive counts, based on allegations that they and others used access to their employer The Hoffman Group's computer systems to steal trade secrets and compete with the company via a new entity. The court addressed two pretrial motions: one to exclude images and data from a company laptop and external hard drive obtained by the employer and later provided to the FBI, and another to compel the government to grant use immunity to a former IT administrator, Brian Emerson. The court granted the exclusion motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some digital evidence could be authenticated and had a sufficient chain of custody while other aspects raised reliability concerns, and it denied the immunity motion because the government had not selectively immunized its own witnesses and defendants could address any issues through cross-examination and subpoenas. The ruling relied on standards for admitting digital evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and Ninth Circuit precedent on due process and immunity grants under Straub.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between PacifiCorp and Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County over a 1982 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) under which PacifiCorp bought power from Grant. PacifiCorp sought declaratory relief and damages, claiming the PPA either terminated automatically in 2009 when a related transmission agreement with BPA expired or could be ended by PacifiCorp on reasonable notice. The court granted partial summary judgment to PacifiCorp, declaring that the PPA is of indefinite duration and terminable by PacifiCorp upon reasonable notice under Washington law, but denied that the PPA terminated automatically due to the parties' continued performance and that filing the lawsuit itself constituted reasonable notice. The court granted summary judgment to Grant on the breach of contract claim, finding no violation of express or implied terms. The rulings rested on contract interpretation of the PPA's term provision and Washington precedents on contracts lacking a fixed end date.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Little v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the denial of her applications for supplemental security income and child's insurance benefits based on disability. The district court reversed the ALJ's decision, which had found severe impairments including seizure disorder, asthma, depression, social phobia, and learning disorder but concluded they did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that the plaintiff could perform unskilled work. The court held that the ALJ failed to properly consider Listing 12.05C for intellectual disability and did not adequately credit lay witness testimony showing the plaintiff's significant limitations in daily functioning and self-care. Applying the five-step sequential evaluation process under the Social Security Act, the court determined the record established that the claimant could not engage in gainful employment and remanded for an immediate finding of disability.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

The case involved Allen Miller's application for Child’s Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming a disability that began before he turned 22 years old. An ALJ found Miller disabled from the relevant date based on his impairments, but the Appeals Council reversed, concluding there was no evidence of a severe impairment before age 22 due to the lack of medical records prior to 2005. The district court reversed the Commissioner's final decision and remanded for further proceedings, reasoning that the Appeals Council had not considered the medical expert's testimony on Miller's functional limitations independent of substance abuse issues or other evidence such as school records, and that additional development of the record was required on the onset date and whether the impairment met or equaled a listed impairment.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

Thu Hoang, a former Wells Fargo mortgage specialist diagnosed with bipolar disorder, sued the bank under the ADA and FMLA after her 2009 termination for unapproved absences and ethics violations. The court considered Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment on claims that the bank interfered with her FMLA rights and discriminated based on her disability. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine factual dispute that Hoang's November 2008 absence for a Mexico trip qualified as protected FMLA leave because no health care provider certified she was unable to perform her job functions, she failed to submit required medical documentation, and she testified she could have worked instead. The decision rested on FMLA regulations requiring medical certification for leave and the absence of evidence linking her bipolar condition to protected time off in that instance.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Marion, the defendant was charged with assaulting a fellow inmate at FCI Sheridan in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). The court addressed motions to suppress statements Marion made during interviews and administrative disciplinary proceedings while held in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU), where he had been placed after the incident. The court granted the motions and suppressed all statements, ruling that the transfer to the SHU imposed additional restrictions on Marion's freedom beyond normal prison conditions, rendering the questioning custodial interrogations that required Miranda warnings. The administrative rights warnings provided were insufficient because they did not fully inform him of his right to counsel as required by Miranda, and no proper warnings were given before the initial interview or subsequent proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from Yacht West's purchase of a custom yacht from Christensen Shipyards, involving mutual claims of breach of contract: Yacht West alleged defects in the yacht's structure, exhaust system, paint, and davit, while CSY alleged delays in construction and delivery. After a jury trial awarded damages to both sides, the court addressed renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law from each party. The court granted the motions in part, applying the federal substantial evidence standard to review the verdicts and reducing the awards because Yacht West lacked sufficient evidence to support the amount of damages for the structural problem and CSY was not entitled to Eichleay home-office overhead damages without evidence of work suspension. The court directed the parties to submit an amended judgment reflecting these reductions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant David Winsor's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction for receipt of child pornography and his 60-month sentence. The court granted the motion after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington by failing to advise Winsor of United States v. Davenport's double-jeopardy holding (that receipt and possession charges punish the same conduct) and by not informing him of the option for a stipulated-facts trial that would have preserved appeal rights on the suppression ruling. The court found both deficient performance and prejudice, as there was a reasonable probability Winsor could have obtained dismissal of the receipt count carrying the mandatory minimum or pursued an appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an admiralty action in which Maersk sought $151,850 in detention charges from Taiwan Glass for 60 shipping containers that were not returned within the free time allowed by Maersk's tariff. Taiwan Glass was named as consignee on the bills of lading for glass products shipped from its sister companies, and the court granted summary judgment that Taiwan Glass was contractually bound to pay the detention charges as a "Merchant" under the terms on the bills of lading and incorporated tariff. The court reasoned that the bills of lading expressly incorporated the tariff and made all Merchants jointly and severally liable, regardless of whether Taiwan Glass physically received the containers. However, the court found a genuine factual issue on whether Maersk had mitigated its damages by failing to contact Taiwan Glass promptly about overdue containers, so the precise amount of liability would be decided at trial.

business & regulatory

This case is a wrongful levy action in which plaintiff 911 Management, LLC challenged IRS levies totaling about $198,689 on its bank accounts to collect 1996 federal income taxes owed by Tom and Kathy Weathers. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding that 911 Management was the nominee or alter ego of the Weatherses. The core reasoning was that the Weatherses, who had been convicted of tax evasion including concealment of assets through nominees, formed and controlled the LLC after their indictments, used it to receive income from hotel leases they had previously reported, and directed distributions and operations to shield funds from the IRS.

taxescriminal law

The case involved plaintiff Jane Roe, who has a disability and uses a St. Bernard service dog named Cretia during frequent hospital admissions at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center. Roe alleged disability discrimination under the ADA when the hospital raised concerns about the dog's constant presence, including strong odors, allergies among staff, infection risks, and interference with patient care. A jury found for the hospital on the related state claim, and the court ruled for the hospital on the ADA claim, concluding that the hospital did not unlawfully discriminate because it had legitimate health and safety concerns and Roe refused to cooperate with mitigation efforts such as bathing the dog more frequently or allowing staff access. The court issued an injunction barring Roe from bringing any animals to Providence facilities while permitting her to seek care without them. The decision was based on evidence of ongoing conflicts, the dog's impact on the hospital environment, and Roe's unwillingness to address the issues raised by staff.

civil rightshealthcare

This case is a putative class action brought by plaintiffs Jacob Miller and Zachary Penor against Washington County and its sheriff challenging the constitutionality of the county jail's policy of strip searching certain inmates, including those transferred from other correctional facilities before joining the general population. Miller's claims were conceded and dismissed, leaving only Penor's challenge to one transfer-related search under the policy in effect in December 2006. The court denied both sides' motions for summary judgment, granted leave to amend the complaint to clarify the remaining subclass allegations, and deferred ruling on class certification. It also stayed the case pending the Ninth Circuit's en banc review of a similar challenge to blanket jail strip search policies in Bull v. City and County of San Francisco. The core reasoning centered on the need for further development given evolving Ninth Circuit precedent on reasonable suspicion requirements for such searches.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Fred Gardner and a citizens' group to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) decision not to close the Little Canyon Mountain area in Oregon to off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Plaintiffs alleged that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to prepare adequate environmental analyses for a fuel reduction project, violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and related regulations by not properly managing the land or closing it due to adverse effects, and failed to follow its own rules on monitoring and closure of public lands to ORVs. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the BLM, and the district court adopted those findings after de novo review, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the BLM's cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the BLM had complied with applicable planning, monitoring, and environmental review requirements under the statutes and regulations, that no mandatory duty to close the area had been triggered, and that the agency's actions were not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a class action lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Chudner against TransUnion Interactive, Inc. and TransUnion LLC in the District of Oregon, alleging violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment arising from a TrueCredit subscription purchased online. The defendants moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue based on a forum selection clause in the service agreement requiring disputes to be resolved in the state and federal courts of New Castle County, Delaware. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to transfer, and the district court adopted the findings and recommendation in full after de novo review. The court concluded that the forum selection clause was enforceable and rendered venue in Oregon improper, ordering the action transferred to the District of Delaware.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Barnes v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America, plaintiff Fred Barnes, a beneficiary under an employer-sponsored long-term disability plan insured by Unum, sought to recover benefits after stopping work in 2001 due to liposarcoma and related conditions, claiming he met the policy's definition of disability based on an inability to perform his regular occupation. Unum denied the claim in 2002, citing insufficient evidence of disability and later upholding the denial on appeal as untimely. The court denied Barnes's motion for summary judgment and granted Unum's motion, concluding that Unum's decision was not arbitrary and capricious because record evidence supported that Barnes was not disabled during the relevant period, had engaged in business activities, and the late appeal provided an independent basis for denial.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Grabhorn, Inc., which owns and operates a landfill under a Designated Facilities Agreement with defendant Metropolitan Service District; Metro unilaterally terminated the agreement, prompting Grabhorn to file suit with claims including regulatory takings, equal protection, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Metro moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and sought judicial notice of various ordinances, resolutions, and the contract itself. The court granted limited judicial notice of public records and the contract but denied the motion to dismiss in full, finding that Grabhorn's allegations were sufficient to raise plausible grounds for relief above the speculative level and that factual issues like good cause for termination could not be resolved at this stage. Core reasoning relied on Twombly pleading standards, the integral nature of the contract to the claims, and the inability to assess Metro's regulatory conduct or contractual motivations without further proceedings.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves a putative class action by several plaintiffs against Yamhill County and its sheriff challenging the jail's policy of conducting strip searches of inmates without reasonable suspicion of contraband or weapons, particularly those charged with misdemeanors or minor offenses, as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It found that the remaining challenged searches were reasonable under the circumstances, including instances justified by factors like prior knowledge of likely custody, violent behavior during arrest, or evidence of concealing items, while other claims were either abandoned by plaintiffs or unsupported by evidence sufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute. The policy and procedures emphasized privacy, same-gender officers, and no physical contact during searches.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a dispute over interests in real property in Yamhill County, Oregon, with Key Bank National Association filing claims against multiple defendants including American Tower, and the United States and American Tower filing cross-claims. After the court granted American Tower a default judgment for indemnification against Ronald Van Noy and Sammes Holding Company, American Tower moved for attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending the action. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, granting American Tower partial recovery of $10,016.35 in attorney's fees and $75 in costs. The core reasoning was that American Tower was entitled to fees under the prior indemnification order, but the requested amounts required independent scrutiny for reasonableness using prevailing market rates from the Oregon State Bar Economic Survey, resulting in reductions for excessive hours, secretarial tasks misclassified as paralegal work, and unsupported photocopying costs.

propertyprocedure