In Assavedo v. Apfel, plaintiff Murphy Assavedo sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming disability since 1994 due to chest pains. The ALJ had found that Assavedo had a severe impairment but retained the residual functional capacity for a range of light work with limitations, was a younger individual with a sixth-grade education, could not return to past work, but could perform other unskilled jobs such as kitchen worker. The district court applied the substantial evidence standard of review and determined that the record supported the ALJ's findings on the claimant's medical condition, credibility of symptoms, functional capacity, education level, and ability to adjust to other work. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion, affirming the denial of benefits.
This case involved a Jones Act seaman, Michael Wilcox, who alleged wrist injuries from operating defective braking equipment on an offshore drilling rig owned by Transworld Drilling Company, a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation. The parties stipulated to the plaintiff's seaman status, the employer's negligence, and the rig's unseaworthiness, leaving the court to determine causation of the injury, eligibility for punitive damages, and whether to pierce the corporate veil. The court concluded that the workplace conditions caused or aggravated the wrist condition, awarding $600,000 in compensatory damages for lost wages, disability, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of consortium, while denying punitive damages due to insufficient evidence.
This case arose from a 1979 bicycle-automobile accident in which Craig Bohn was injured by Brian Allee-Walsh, an employee of The Times Picayune who was insured under a Sentry policy with $50,000 limits; Bohn settled with Sentry, released Allee-Walsh and Sentry while reserving claims against the newspaper, then obtained a $514,000 verdict against The Times Picayune (later settled for $485,000 with its excess insurer Liberty Mutual). The Times Picayune and Liberty Mutual filed a third-party action against Sentry alleging bad-faith failure to timely settle within policy limits, failure to communicate settlement offers, and arbitrary refusal to defend the newspaper as an additional insured after the settlement with the named insured. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Sentry, finding no bad faith because Sentry had acted reasonably given conflicting information about employment scope, had no duty to defend once its limits were exhausted by a good-faith payment, and owed no attorney fees absent a showing of bad faith.
This case involved Dr. Edwin Hyde, a board-certified anesthesiologist, who was denied privileges at East Jefferson General Hospital due to its exclusive contract with Roux & Associates for all anesthesia services. The court made findings of fact regarding the hospital's governance as a public entity, the history and terms of the contract, and the hospital's stated reasons for maintaining a closed department, including quality control, 24-hour coverage, efficient scheduling, and equipment oversight. The court concluded that the exclusive arrangement did not violate antitrust laws or due process requirements, as the hospital board's policy was reasonable and within its authority to ensure efficient operations and patient care, drawing on precedents upholding similar closed-staff arrangements in other hospital departments.
The case involved landowners challenging a 1976 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers order that halted Phase II of a small flood control project in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, which included completing levees and building a pumping station to drain wetlands. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the order and compel completion of the project as originally approved in 1964 under the Flood Control Act. The court upheld the Corps' decision, finding that the agency properly applied Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 to require review of the remaining work, that the order was supported by the administrative record, and that the plaintiffs had received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. It rejected claims of a Fifth Amendment taking, enforceable contractual rights against the United States, or violations of procedural or substantive due process, and held that any remedies would be limited to money damages in the Court of Claims rather than specific performance.
In Carroll v. Exxon Co., USA, Kathleen Carroll sued Exxon after her 1976 application for a credit card was denied without explanation or identification of the consumer reporting agency involved, claiming violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, with undisputed facts showing that Exxon initially provided no reasons or agency details, later sent an undated letter with partial information, and only identified the credit bureau after the lawsuit was filed. The court held that Exxon violated the FCRA by failing to disclose the agency's name and address contemporaneously with the credit denial, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a), and rejected defenses based on the lack of an applicant request, delayed compliance, and purported reasonable procedures. Core reasoning emphasized the statute's plain language mandating proactive disclosure without preconditions and the inadequacy of post-litigation notifications to cure prior omissions.
