Glen Morgan Williams

In this case, Diane Kersey challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, alleging disability from conditions including degenerative disc disease, shoulder issues, and mental impairments such as depression and anxiety. The ALJ had determined that Kersey could perform light unskilled work and her past jobs as a deli clerk and cashier, leading to a finding of no disability. The court reviewed the record and found that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate medical evidence of Kersey's mental impairments, including new evidence of affective and anxiety disorders, and did not adequately assess limitations from her shoulder condition on reaching and upper extremity use. The court also noted that vocational expert testimony was needed to determine the impact of these impairments on her past relevant work. Accordingly, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the impairments and additional expert input.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case involved environmental groups suing the Secretary of the Interior to compel a cessation order stopping logging, vegetation removal, and road work by coal companies on land covered by a pending surface coal mining permit application under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The plaintiffs alleged these preparatory activities violated federal law and sought both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief after debris from the operations entered adjacent private property. After a magistrate judge's report, the district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but accepted the recommendation on the merits, entering judgment for the defendants, vacating the earlier preliminary injunction, and denying a permanent injunction. The core reasoning was that the challenged activities did not qualify as regulated "surface coal mining operations" under SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the time they occurred.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a dispute between a Texas buyer and a Virginia seller over the purchase of real property in Washington County, Virginia, where the buyer alleged that the seller conveyed fewer acres than specified in the agreement. After granting summary judgment on the breach of contract and warranty claims, the court proceeded to trial on the remaining equitable claims of specific performance and quasi-contract, using an advisory jury to resolve factual disputes. The court adopted the advisory jury's findings, ruling for the buyer on the quasi-contract claim because the evidence showed the buyer conferred a benefit by paying the full price, the seller knew of the acreage deficiency and retained the overpayment under inequitable circumstances, and the buyer reasonably expected reimbursement. Damages were awarded in the amount of $390,244.75 plus interest, calculated to account for the acreage shortage based on the per-acre purchase price.

property

This case involved Tonya Stevens challenging Union Security Insurance Company's denial of accidental death and dismemberment benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy after her husband died in a single-vehicle car accident. The insurer denied the claim based on policy exclusions for accidents occurring while the decedent was intoxicated or violating traffic laws, citing evidence of a blood alcohol level of 0.227, speeding, and failure to maintain control. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendant after reviewing the administrative record, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that the denial was supported by the policy terms and evidence. The district court adopted the report in full, denied the plaintiff's motion, granted the defendant's motion, and affirmed the benefits denial, noting the absence of any objections or probative contrary evidence.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved Jeffrey Blake Johnson, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and related distribution counts, resulting in a 360-month sentence. Following the Sentencing Commission's retroactive Amendment 706, which lowered offense levels for crack cocaine by two levels, Johnson moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction. The court granted the motion in part after reviewing the amended guideline range of 292-365 months, the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), policy statements, Johnson's criminal history, and his role in the offense, reducing the sentence to 324 months. The court denied requests for counsel and a resentencing hearing, explaining that such motions are not full resentencings and do not carry those procedural rights.

criminal law

This case involves defendant Roy Lee Gilliam's 2007 motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his prison sentence for convictions on multiple counts of money laundering, drug trafficking conspiracies, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine. The court granted the motion and resentenced Gilliam to 295 months' imprisonment, finding that the term would have been imposed if Sentencing Guideline Amendment 516 (altering the marijuana plant conversion ratio) had applied at the original sentencing. The decision rested on the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, which authorizes reductions when a guideline range is lowered by listed amendments, after weighing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors such as offense seriousness, deterrence, and avoiding unwarranted disparities. The court denied the requests for appointed counsel and a resentencing hearing, citing precedent that such proceedings do not require those procedures. The original convictions arose from evidence of large-scale marijuana cultivation and distribution operations spanning nearly a decade.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death claim brought by the administrator of Russell Boyd's estate against Dr. Douglas W. Green and his Tennessee medical practice, alleging that the decedent's death from mixed drug toxicity resulted from medications prescribed during treatment. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion as to Dr. Green individually but denying it as to the practice, and the district court adopted those recommendations in full after reviewing objections. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Dr. Green is licensed and maintains his office. The decision rested on analysis of the defendants' contacts with Virginia under the state's long-arm statute and due process requirements in this diversity action.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involves Dr. Joseph C. Segen suing Buchanan General Hospital, Inc. and various individual defendants. The court addressed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically challenging diversity of citizenship. The court granted the motions to dismiss, reasoning that Segen, a U.S. citizen domiciled in England when the action was filed, is considered stateless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 per Supreme Court precedent. The court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions on Segen or his counsel.

procedure

In this case, Julia Ann Ratliff challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to back pain, nerves, and a learning problem. The administrative law judge found that Ratliff had severe impairments but retained the capacity for light work, was not fully credible regarding her limitations, and could perform jobs existing in the national economy. The court reviewed the record under the substantial evidence standard and determined that the ALJ's findings were supported by medical evidence, testimony, and vocational expert input, with a proper credibility assessment. Therefore, the court affirmed the Commissioner's final decision denying benefits.

federal powerhealthcare

In Hickman v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant laboratory for negligence after receiving a false positive HIV test result, claiming resulting emotional distress and physical symptoms. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims after earlier dismissing several others. The decision rested on the plaintiff's failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence any physical injury directly caused by the lab error through an unbroken causal chain, as required under Virginia precedents distinguishing Hughes v. Moore from Myseros v. Sissler, along with possible intervening causes such as the plaintiff's smoking and use of fertility drugs.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved a §1983 civil rights action by plaintiff Edward Cornett against a Virginia sheriff and jail employees alleging violations during his incarceration on November 7, 2003. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint was filed one day after the two-year statute of limitations expired because the filing fee was not paid until November 8, 2005, although the complaint had been electronically received by the clerk on November 7. The court held that the complaint was timely filed, reasoning that receipt of the electronically signed complaint satisfied the filing requirement and that payment of fees under local administrative procedures is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, unlike a statutory mandate, and is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss and rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

civil rightsprocedure

In Caldwell v. Green, plaintiff John Joseph Caldwell sued Deputy Sheriff Jeff Green and Sheriff Bobby Hammons under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1986, and 1988, along with state tort claims including false arrest and malicious prosecution, after he was indicted and briefly jailed based on false information from an unreliable drug informant used by Green. The court considered a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting the complaint's facts as true for that purpose. The court granted the motion and dismissed all federal claims, finding insufficient allegations to establish a constitutional violation or conspiracy under the federal statutes, and it also dismissed the state claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction once the federal claims failed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute between coal companies over rights and obligations under a 1961 mining lease on Virginia land, which included an arbitration clause later modified by oral agreement to make factual findings binding but allow appeals on legal errors. After a lengthy arbitration process, Yukon sought court review of the panel's decision, prompting Island Creek to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion, holding that the parties' agreement permitted judicial review of legal conclusions, that Yukon's filing was timely under Virginia Code § 8.01-581.010's 90-day limit rather than other appeal statutes, and that the petition met federal notice pleading requirements. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation were adopted after de novo review, directing Island Creek to answer within 20 days.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Bizmark, Inc. and its shareholders sued Air Products, Inc. (formerly Industrial Gas & Supply Co.) to recover the balance of a deferred purchase price under a 1995 commercial asset purchase agreement for gas cylinders and related equipment. Air Products moved for summary judgment, contending that Bizmark had breached the agreement by failing to convey assets free of liens or encumbrances and that portions of the claim were barred by the statute of limitations, while also asserting a counterclaim to enforce a prior judgment against Bizmark as successor to a predecessor company. After de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied Bizmark's motion for partial summary judgment, and granted Air Products' motion, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Air Products was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In O'Quinn v. Trustees, UMWA Health & Retirement Fund, a former miner sued the trustees of the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan seeking disability benefits after injuring his back while maneuvering through a mantrap door in a coal mine on January 23, 2001. The plaintiff had been awarded Social Security Disability Benefits, satisfying one eligibility requirement under the plan, but the trustees denied the claim on the ground that the injury did not result from a "mine accident" as defined by the plan's Question and Answer 252. The district court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard of review under ERISA and examined whether the injury involved exertion of force against an external physical object. The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions of bending, squatting, falling to his knees, and pulling himself through the door met this standard, rendering the trustees' denial arbitrary and capricious. It therefore granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion.

labor & employment

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit by Wanda Smith against General Motors, alleging that a defective seatbelt restraint system in her 2001 Chevrolet Cavalier caused her internal injuries during a multi-vehicle accident. The magistrate judge recommended granting GM's motion for summary judgment, along with related evidentiary motions limiting or excluding certain expert testimony. After de novo review, the district court adopted the recommendations, granted summary judgment to GM, and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that Smith failed to produce admissible expert medical evidence establishing that the alleged defect proximately caused her injuries, leaving no genuine issue of material fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the United States suing two federal inmates, Martin and Falice, who filed UCC financing statements with the Virginia SCC falsely naming themselves as secured parties with multimillion-dollar claims against judges on the Fourth Circuit, court clerks, and Bureau of Prisons employees. The government sought an injunction barring further unauthorized filings, a declaration that the statements were false and fraudulent, damages, and costs. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding personal and subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and that the filings lacked any legal or factual basis. It declared the statements invalid, awarded the government recovery of correction costs and guardian ad litem fees, but denied attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved multiple plaintiffs suing the U.S. Department of Labor under the Privacy Act of 1974 for its practice of listing claimants' social security numbers on black lung benefits hearing notices, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and later attorneys' fees under the Privacy Act and Equal Access to Justice Act. After an initial agreement halting the practice, the district court denied contempt motions, denied class certification, granted summary judgment to the Secretary on all claims except one, and awarded $1,000 in damages to plaintiff Buck Doe, but these rulings were largely affirmed or reversed on appeal such that no plaintiffs ultimately prevailed on the merits. The court decided to award limited attorneys' fees and expenses only to Buck Doe while denying them to the other plaintiffs. The core reasoning was that sovereign immunity waivers for fees require a plaintiff to prevail or substantially prevail on a claim, which only Buck Doe satisfied through his limited success before reversal.

civil rightsfederal powerlabor & employmentprocedure

In DeBord v. Washington County School Board, plaintiff Glenda DeBord sued her former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that the School Board terminated her position as deputy clerk and secretary due to her age of 53. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that DeBord was fired because of a deteriorated working relationship and attitude issues with the new superintendent. The court granted the motion, reasoning that DeBord failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination since her replacement was only seven years younger, which was not substantially younger, and there was no evidence linking the termination to age-based discrimination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's ruling in Molly Jane Coleman's Chapter 11 proceeding, where she sought to avoid two 1995 deeds of trust on properties she jointly owned with her husband that had been granted to Community Trust Bank to hinder IRS collection efforts on unpaid taxes. The bankruptcy court had determined that the deeds could be avoided under Virginia and Tennessee fraudulent conveyance statutes only to the extent necessary to satisfy creditors' claims, with the liens otherwise remaining in effect, and it denied the bank's motion to dismiss the case. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the jointly held properties were part of the bankruptcy estate absent an exemption claim and that the bankruptcy court properly exercised jurisdiction to partially avoid the transfers. The court rejected arguments regarding estoppel, good faith, and the effect of prior proceedings involving the non-debtor husband. Core reasoning centered on the inclusion of tenancy-by-the-entirety property in the estate and the applicability of state law avoiding powers to benefit creditors.

propertyproceduretaxesbusiness & regulatory