In Udager v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review after an ALJ denied her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits based on alleged disabilities from bulging discs, pain, and related mental health issues. The court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the matter for further hearing, concluding that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The ALJ had improperly rejected opinions from treating physicians, failed to obtain a promised neurological report or vocational expert testimony, misapplied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines despite evidence of stooping limitations, and did not meet the Commissioner's burden at step five of the sequential evaluation process.
This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which St. Paul Reinsurance sought a declaratory judgment that its policy with Live Line Maintenance did not cover bodily injuries sustained by defendant James Cornelius during a 2002 work incident on electrical lines. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that Cornelius qualified as an employee of Live Line rather than an independent contractor or temporary worker. Under South Dakota law governing insurance policy interpretation and the definition of employment status, the court applied a multi-factor test focused on control, proprietary interest, and independence, finding that Cornelius worked under Baldwin's supervision for six years without operating a separate enterprise. Because the policy expressly excluded coverage for injuries to employees arising in the course of employment, the insurer had no duty to indemnify the defendants.
This case involved a cardiothoracic surgeon with bipolar disorder whose hospital medical staff privileges were suspended after a manic episode occurred during surgery. The surgeon sued the hospital under Titles I and III of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to the hospital on the federal claims, holding that the surgeon was not an employee covered by Title I or the Rehabilitation Act because he functioned as an independent contractor who billed patients directly without compensation or benefits from the hospital. It further ruled that Title III did not apply because the surgeon was not a client or customer of the hospital. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
The case involved a challenge by the state of South Dakota, the city of Oacoma, and Lyman County to the U.S. Department of the Interior's decision to take a 91-acre parcel of land into trust for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act. The plaintiffs argued that the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the executive branch and that the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the constitutionality of 25 U.S.C. § 465, finding that it provides sufficient boundaries and intelligible principles to guide the Secretary's discretion, drawing parallels to other statutes approved by the Supreme Court. It also determined that the agency's decision was reasonable after considering all relevant regulatory factors.
This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by relator Jay Bryant against Williams Building Corporation (WBC), alleging that WBC submitted false claims to the U.S. Air Force under a bathroom remodeling contract at Ellsworth Air Force Base by failing to report and properly handle discovered asbestos, continuing work without notification, and concealing an obligation to pay for testing and abatement. The United States declined to intervene, and WBC moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, holding that the site superintendent's knowledge and actions could be imputed to WBC and that a reasonable jury could find both direct false claims based on daily reports certifying compliance and a reverse false claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7) due to a specific contractual obligation to notify the government of suspected asbestos.
The case involved defendant Orville Black Spotted Horse, who was charged with attempted aggravated sexual abuse on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in violation of federal law. He filed a motion to suppress statements made during an FBI interview on September 20, 1999, and a subsequent polygraph examination on December 8, 1999, claiming the statements were involuntary and his constitutional rights were violated. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion after finding that Black Spotted Horse had been advised of and knowingly waived his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The district court adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendations without conducting de novo review because the defendant filed no objections, and therefore denied the motion to suppress.