John Watson Lungstrum

This case involves a plaintiff's challenge to the Social Security Administration's partially favorable decision granting disability insurance benefits beginning May 18, 2008, but denying them for any earlier period based on an alleged onset date of October 11, 2004. The court found error in the ALJ's determination of the onset date, noting that the rationale was unconvincing and that SSR 83-20 requires a proper inference from ambiguous medical evidence, often with input from a medical advisor. It therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded for further proceedings to determine the correct onset date. The court declined to order an immediate award of benefits, finding that the record was not fully developed on the precise onset.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved a plaintiff's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income after an ALJ found the claimant not disabled, despite inability to perform past relevant work, because other jobs existed in significant numbers in the economy. The district court reviewed the ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions under the five-step sequential process and relevant regulations. The court found error in the ALJ discounting a treating physician's opinion in part because the form was undated and unsigned, without recontacting the source as required when information is inadequate to determine disability, and without other regulatory basis for the discount. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

federal powerhealthcare

In Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., current and former hourly employees at Tyson beef processing facilities sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kansas Wage Payment Act, along with a common law quantum meruit claim, seeking unpaid wages for time spent on pre- and post-shift donning and doffing of protective gear, meal-period activities, walking, and unpaid rest breaks. The case was certified as a collective and class action. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the parties' requests regarding the compensability of rest breaks and meal-period donning/doffing, as well as rulings on whether donning/doffing activities were integral to the workday or de minimis, Tyson's good faith and willfulness, and the state wage claims; however, it granted summary judgment to Tyson on the quantum meruit claims because an adequate statutory remedy existed under the FLSA and KWPA. The court reasoned that factual disputes precluded summary resolution of most issues, that Kansas law barred recovery of overtime via the KWPA due to exemptions in the state's wage statutes, and that the availability of statutory remedies defeated the equitable claim regardless of outcome at trial.

labor & employmentprocedure

Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming disability since 2004 due to conditions including coronary artery disease, degenerative disc disease, and various mental disorders. The ALJ had found the plaintiff not disabled after determining he retained the residual functional capacity for a limited range of sedentary work and that jobs existed in significant numbers in the economy. The court held that the ALJ erred by failing to properly weigh medical opinions, not recognizing the significance of accepted severe impairments, separately evaluating physical and mental opinions without considering their combined effects, selectively relying on favorable portions of opinions, and improperly citing lack of treatment without applying the required four-part test. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

healthcare

This case was a proposed securities fraud class action brought by a shareholder on behalf of those who purchased Sprint stock during 2001-2003, alleging that statements in the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy materials describing new employment agreements with top executives as 'designed to insure the long-term employment' of those executives were misleading under federal securities laws because the company knew termination was predictable or was considering it. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and related SEC rules for fraud in connection with securities sales and proxy misrepresentations. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. It reasoned that even if the board knew termination was predictable or was planning firings at the time of the statements, defendants had no duty to disclose that information because the challenged statements merely summarized the purpose of the agreements without making any predictions about future employment and thus were not misleading.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in which current and former hourly production employees at a Kellogg bakery facility allege that the company failed to pay overtime for time spent donning and doffing uniforms and safety gear, gathering tools, and walking to workstations before and after shifts. The parties conducted bifurcated discovery focused on Kellogg's defense under FLSA section 203(o), which excludes time spent changing clothes if a collective bargaining agreement provides for or a custom or practice exists of noncompensation for such activities. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that donning and doffing of certain clothing items qualified for exclusion under section 203(o) due to the parties' longstanding custom and practice, while activities such as obtaining hair nets after leaving the locker room and post-clock-in walking did not qualify as changing clothes.

labor & employment

The case involved defendant Wildor Washington Sr. being charged with federal offenses related to a scheme to purchase real estate using fraudulently obtained mortgages, including conspiracy to defraud, wire fraud, commercial carrier fraud, and money laundering. A jury convicted him on four counts, after which he moved for a new trial and judgment of acquittal. The court denied the motion for a new trial, granted acquittal on the money laundering conviction because the transactions did not involve profits from a completed crime as required by precedent, but upheld the other convictions based on evidence of his involvement in preparing false loan applications and facilitating the fraudulent purchases.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This diversity case involves wrongful death claims under Kansas law brought by the heirs of four passengers killed in a 2005 airplane crash against Honeywell, which had repaired one of the plane's engines. The plaintiffs alleged that the crash resulted from the left engine's failure due to negligent repair, along with strict product liability and breach of warranty; the defendant countered that pilot disorientation or incapacitation was the likely cause. On the pending motions, the court denied the defendant's request to exclude the plaintiffs' expert on flight path and airspeed, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the defendant's experts' testimony (specifically certain opinions by Dr. Parmet on the pilot's condition and credibility), denied summary judgment on the issue of comparing the pilot's fault, and granted the defendant summary judgment on the strict liability and warranty claims. The expert rulings applied Daubert reliability standards under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, while the summary judgment on strict liability turned on the absence of evidence that Honeywell had sold or remanufactured the engine after repair.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved pizza delivery drivers employed by NPC International, Inc., who owns Pizza Hut restaurants, alleging that the company failed to adequately reimburse them for vehicle-related and other job expenses, resulting in payment below the minimum wage under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law. The plaintiffs sought to pursue collective and class actions for these claims. The court granted the defendant's motions for judgment on the pleadings on the FLSA and Colorado wage claims, dismissing those counts while allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The core reasoning was that federal regulations permit employers to reasonably approximate employees' vehicle expenses rather than reimburse actual costs, and the plaintiffs' allegations did not meet the plausibility standards under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly by failing to plead specific facts about wages, reimbursements, and expenses.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a wrongful death and survival action brought by the heirs and estate administrator of Michael Fanning against Sitton Motor Lines and its driver after Fanning was struck and killed by a semi-truck while walking along a Kansas highway at night. Plaintiffs sought damages for the decedent's pre- and post-impact emotional distress and pain and suffering under Kansas survival statutes, while defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing that medical evidence showed immediate death with no conscious suffering and disputing the qualification of certain heirs-at-law. The court analyzed the evidence from pathologists concluding instantaneous death, Kansas law on survival claims requiring conscious pain, the physical injury rule for emotional distress, and intestate succession rules for heirs before addressing the motions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves consolidated claims among Capital Solutions, which funded equipment leases administered by Konica Minolta Business Solutions (KMBS), Bank of Oklahoma (BOK), which provided loans to Capital, and related parties, including conversion claims by BOK against KMBS and guaranty claims by BOK against Capital's principals. The court granted BOK's motion to amend the pretrial order to add a bad faith attorney fees request tied to its conversion claim against KMBS, finding no prejudice and that such conduct during litigation could support fees under Tenth Circuit precedent. It denied KMBS's Rule 67 motion to deposit funds because there was no genuine dispute over entitlement to the amounts owed under the leases. The court also granted Capital's motion to submit the amount of any punitive damages to the jury, holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury determination on that issue despite contrary state procedures.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Steve Scheffler sued his former employer UPS in a diversity action, claiming his termination was retaliation for a work-related back injury and filing a workers' compensation claim. The court denied UPS's motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on evidence showing close timing between the injury and termination, increased disciplinary actions post-injury, and indications that managers may have been directed to remove him due to his claim, creating triable issues on causation for the retaliation claim.

labor & employment

This diversity case arose from Titan Global Holdings' failed agreement to buy Crescent Fuels, a Kansas fuel distributor, from plaintiff Phillip Near, with Greystone as a potential lender and Goldberg Kohn as its counsel; the claims included breach of contract against Titan, various fraud and misrepresentation claims against the Titan defendants, and conversion, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty claims against multiple defendants stemming from the handling of a stock certificate. The court denied Greystone's and Goldberg Kohn's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient conspiracy pleading, denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss Titan's counterclaims for fraud and misrepresentation, and denied Greystone's request for jurisdictional discovery. It granted in part the Titan defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim to the extent it relied on promises of future action and the related punitive damages request, while finding deficiencies in the fraud claims regarding reliance, diligence, agreement for conspiracy, and particularity under Rule 9(b). Plaintiff was granted leave to amend those claims by a set deadline. The rulings rested on due process standards for jurisdiction over nonresidents, the sufficiency of pleaded facts for plausibility and particularity, and the distinction between actionable misrepresentations and non-actionable future promises.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityproperty

This case arose from a 2005 airplane crash in Kansas that killed the pilot and four passengers, leading to wrongful death and survival claims by the passengers' heirs and estates against Honeywell, the manufacturer of the plane's engines. The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment or certification to the Kansas Supreme Court on survival claims for pre-impact emotional distress, while the defendant moved for summary judgment on those claims. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions and granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that Kansas law requires evidence of physical injury resulting from emotional distress in negligence cases, and the plaintiffs provided no such evidence beyond the decedents' fear during the 21 seconds before impact.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this diversity case, two minor children sued The Farm, Inc., a private foster care placement agency under contract with Kansas SRS, alleging negligence and outrage under Kansas law after they suffered sexual and physical abuse by the adopted teenage son of their foster parents. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to exclude one defense expert's testimony but denied the remaining expert motions. It granted TFI summary judgment on the wanton conduct, outrage, and punitive damages claims for lack of evidence raising a triable issue, while denying summary judgment on the core negligence claims because contract documents and other facts created material issues about TFI's duties and relationship to SRS. The court also denied the motions to strike certain factual statements.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a superseding indictment charging twenty-four defendants with conspiracy to manufacture, possess, and distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, along with thirty-eight related substantive counts, in the District of Kansas. Seven defendants proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in guilty verdicts, after which several defendants filed timely motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial. The court granted the motions for judgment of acquittal in part and denied them in part as to defendants Wesley, Foy, and Trinkle, but denied all remaining motions by the defendants, including those concerning venue instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, Batson challenges, and juror misconduct involving an unauthorized stopwatch experiment. The court applied standards requiring that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it evaluated procedural defaults such as failure to timely object to jury instructions.

criminal law

This case involves direct action plaintiffs who opted out of a class action in multidistrict antitrust litigation, alleging that defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy for polyether polyol urethane products starting in 1994, in violation of federal antitrust law as well as certain state laws and European Union law. The defendants moved to dismiss portions of these claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions in part, dismissing the conspiracy claims for the 1994-1998 period due to insufficient factual allegations under the Twombly pleading standard, dismissing Indiana and Tennessee claims after 1998 as time-barred, dismissing Wisconsin claims for lack of alleged substantial effects in the state, and dismissing claims brought on behalf of unnamed parent or affiliate corporations; it denied the motions in all other respects and granted leave to amend. The core reasoning centered on application of federal pleading requirements to the alleged conspiracy, analysis of state statutes of limitations and tolling doctrines, and evaluation of the geographic scope and party requirements under the relevant laws.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Lisa Turrentine, a UPS package car driver, sued her employer under Title VII alleging sexual harassment by coworker Mario Rojas based on repeated verbal comments and gestures, as well as retaliation after she reported the conduct. The court granted summary judgment to UPS on the harassment claim, concluding that the incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment and that UPS responded promptly once notified by investigating and terminating Rojas. On the retaliation claims, the court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing some alleged adverse actions for insufficient evidence of causation or materiality, but denied summary judgment in part to allow other claims involving schedule changes, discipline, and other post-complaint conduct to proceed to trial.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Plaintiffs, specialty pharmaceutical care providers, sued their former employees Leticia Lugo and Garth Groman along with their new employer Axelcare, a competitor, alleging that the employees obtained and disclosed plaintiffs' confidential information while still employed and used it to interfere with plaintiffs' business relationships. The claims included violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), misappropriation of trade secrets under Kansas law, tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations, and breach of contract. On defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It dismissed the CFAA claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) because the employees were authorized to access the information during their employment and the statute requires access without authorization, while denying dismissal of the remaining claims as the allegations met the plausibility standard.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case is a collective action brought by current and former road drivers for Renzenberger, Inc., a company that transports rail crews for railroads, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA after they worked more than 40 hours per week. The defendant conceded it had not paid overtime but contended the plaintiffs remained exempt under the rail carrier exemption (and earlier the motor carrier exemption) despite amendments to the Motor Carrier Act in 2005 and 2008. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court applied the requirement that FLSA exemptions be narrowly construed against the employer, who bears the burden to show the facts plainly fit the exemption, and examined whether the rail carrier exemption applied based on the statutory text, legislative history, and the nature of the defendant's services limited to railroads using mostly non-commercial vehicles. The court resolved the motions by interpreting the exemption's scope and left for the parties to identify which specific plaintiffs fell into any exempt category.

labor & employmentprocedure