The case involved parents of a child with dyslexia, ADHD, and a speech impairment who appealed a Texas Education Agency hearing officer's ruling that Northwest Independent School District had provided their child a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents had requested a due process hearing after multiple ARDC meetings, alleging inadequate services and seeking reimbursement for private school placement. The district court reviewed the administrative record and the parties' cross-motions for judgment, finding no procedural violations that denied FAPE, that the IEPs were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit, and that the district had not withheld required information. The court therefore denied the parents' motion, granted the district's motion, upheld the hearing officer's decision, and denied the district's request for attorneys' fees.
The case involved a former probation officer who sued her employer, the Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, and several individuals in state court, alleging retaliation under the Texas Whistleblowers Act as well as violations of the First Amendment and federal civil rights statutes after she reported alleged state law violations within the department. Defendants removed the action to federal court, prompting the plaintiff to move for remand on the ground that one defendant had not properly joined in or consented to the removal within the statutory 30-day period. The court granted the motion to remand, ruling that the rule of unanimity required all served defendants to demonstrate consent on the record before the deadline and that removal statutes are strictly construed with doubts resolved in favor of remand to state court. The court denied the plaintiff's request for attorney fees and a motion for additional briefing as moot.
This case is an employment discrimination suit under the FMLA and ADA in which plaintiff Michael Norton alleged that defendant Assisted Living Concepts fired him after he took medical leave for cancer treatment. The court ruled on numerous pending motions, including multiple discovery disputes, motions to compel, a motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim, and a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. It denied as moot or without merit several motions to compel responses and objections, found that Norton had waived objections by providing answers, and held that his responses to certain RFPs complied with Rule 34. The court further addressed the sufficiency of administrative prerequisites and determined that cancer qualifies as a disability under the ADA because it substantially limits normal cell growth.
This case involves a dispute between medical services provider Encompass Office Solutions and health insurers UnitedHealth Group and its subsidiaries over reimbursement for equipment and nursing services provided during in-office surgical procedures for United's insured patients. Encompass, which received assignments of benefits from patients, alleged that United initially reimbursed claims but later stopped payments, demanded refunds based on claims of misrepresentation regarding facility status, and underpaid outstanding claims, leading to causes of action including declaratory judgment, breach of contract, ERISA violations, and various state-law claims. The court ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), denying the motion in part and granting it in part. The decision addressed issues such as Encompass's standing to sue based on patient assignments, the sufficiency of pleadings for fraud-based claims under Rule 9(b), and the viability of ERISA and state-law causes of action.
This case involves a long-running class action lawsuit filed in 1993 by Medicaid-eligible Texas youth alleging that state officials failed to adequately provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services as required by federal Medicaid law. The parties entered a 1996 consent decree outlining improvements to the state's Texas Health Steps program, followed by a 2007 corrective action order addressing specific deficiencies including dental services. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to modify the corrective action order by eliminating requirements for a dental corrective action plan and a second dental assessment, arguing that program objectives had been met, and also sought to strike certain expert testimony. The court denied both motions, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated attainment of the decree's objectives or a durable remedy sufficient to justify relief from the ongoing requirements.
This case involved the United States suing Renda Marine, Inc. to enforce two claims totaling over $14 million arising from a dredging contract with the Army Corps of Engineers under the Contract Disputes Act. The claims stemmed from a prior Court of Federal Claims decision that had addressed Renda's requests for additional compensation and determined the government was owed money for overpayments and other issues. Renda moved to dismiss one count for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the claims required separate administrative proceedings, and sought summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, while the United States moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court denied Renda's motions and granted the United States' motion, holding that the prior CFC litigation had already resolved the disputes in compliance with the CDA and that no additional contracting officer decision was needed for the overpayment claim.