The case involved environmental organizations challenging the Bureau of Land Management's Resource Management Plans for the Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs National Monuments, which cover 1.3 million acres in Arizona. The plans addressed management of off-highway vehicle routes, livestock grazing, and protections for monument objects under the Antiquities Act, FLPMA, NEPA, and NHPA. The court denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and granted the BLM's, upholding the plans. The reasoning centered on the BLM having adequately considered environmental impacts, mitigation measures, route designation criteria, cultural resource inventories, and alternatives for wilderness protections in compliance with statutory requirements.
This case involves a dispute under the Medicare Act between Flagstaff Medical Center, a Medicare provider, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services over the amount of reimbursement for air and ground ambulance services provided in fiscal years ending 1998 through 2001. The fiscal intermediary applied interim per-trip cost limits from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 using a blended rate for air and ground services and basing limits on the prior year's costs, and also applied limits after January 1, 2000 despite the delayed national fee schedule; the hospital appealed these determinations through the Provider Reimbursement Review Board to federal court. The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling that the hospital's appeal was timely, that the intermediary should have used 1997 as the base year for limits rather than the prior year, and that a single blended limit for air and ground services was improper given their differing costs, while not reaching the post-2000 authority issue. The core reasoning rested on statutory interpretation of the BBA's cost limit provisions, the Secretary's regulations, and the administrative record showing the hospital's timely filing and cost disparities.
This case involves plaintiff Nancy Perryman, who stopped working in 1997 due to chronic fatigue syndrome and sought long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy issued by defendant Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company to her employer. After initially paying benefits for two years under the policy's 'own occupation' provision, Provident terminated payments in 1999 upon determining that Perryman did not qualify as disabled from 'any occupation' for which she was reasonably fitted by education, training, or experience. Following a de novo bench trial review of the supplemented administrative record, including medical and vocational evidence, the court concluded that Perryman met the policy's criteria for disability from any occupation because she was unable to earn at least 80% of her indexed earnings and could not perform the material duties of any suitable occupation through age 65. The court therefore awarded her benefits from June 1, 1999, onward, along with prejudgment interest and attorney fees.
In Hess v. Ryan, a state prisoner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Maricopa County convictions for armed robbery (intertwined with a sexual assault case), raising multiple grounds including claims of improper searches, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing errors. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after de novo review. It held that four grounds were procedurally defaulted or barred on independent and adequate state grounds, with no showing of cause, prejudice, or actual innocence to excuse the defaults, and dismissed the remaining exhausted grounds as factually or legally meritless. The court therefore denied the petition in its entirety and dismissed the action with prejudice.
This case is a securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Amkor Technology common stock from 2001 to 2006, alleging that the company and its officers made material misrepresentations about backdated stock option grants and, for part of the period, about product demand and financial forecasts in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs claimed these actions caused overstated net income and a stock price decline after corrective disclosures. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, concluding that the allegations failed to adequately plead loss causation and a strong inference of scienter under the PSLRA pleading standards, and that certain forward-looking statements were protected by the safe harbor provision. The dismissal was with prejudice, as the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint multiple times.
This case involves a dispute over whether an employee's state law claims for breach of contract and bad faith against an insurer for denying long-term disability benefits are preempted by ERISA. The court considered cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether the group disability insurance plan qualified as an ERISA plan or fell under ERISA's safe harbor provisions exempting it from ERISA governance. The court determined that the employer, StorageTrac, did not establish or maintain an ERISA plan, as it served only as a conduit for the insurance provided by Jefferson Pilot, with the insurer handling all substantive administration and eligibility decisions. As a result, the court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding the plan subject to the safe harbor and thus not governed by ERISA.
