This case involved plaintiff William Conway suing the United States to declare an IRS assessment for unpaid employment taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 void, seeking a refund of a $100 payment toward that assessment after the IRS denied his claim. The IRS counterclaimed to reduce the assessment to judgment. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding the assessment void because it was made during the pendency of Conway's Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, and Tenth Circuit precedent treats such violations as void absent equitable exceptions that did not apply here since the IRS had notice of the bankruptcy. The court also ordered a refund of the $100, finding that Conway's prior claim for refund regarding the full assessment provided sufficient informal notice to the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 7422, but denied attorney fees and declined to address an unripe statute of limitations issue.
In this patent case, Gambro Lundia AB sued Baxter Healthcare Corporation for infringing claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,585,552, which covered an ultrafiltration monitor for hemodialysis machines that used flow sensors with a recalibration method to reduce drift and improve accuracy over prior weighbed and flowmetric systems. Baxter asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of invalidity and unenforceability. After a bench trial, the court held the patent invalid as obvious in light of prior art including the Repgreen UFM 1000 system and the Wittingham proposal, invalid for derivation from that prior work, and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct from nondisclosure of highly material references during prosecution. The court entered judgment for Baxter on all claims and counterclaims, declared the patent invalid and unenforceable, and denied attorneys' fees to either party.
The case concerns Medicaid pharmacies and recipients suing Colorado officials, alleging that the state's assignment of recipients to managed care providers like HMOs, including automatic enrollment when providers reorganize, violates the freedom of choice requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) and related state laws. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, first determining that the pharmacy plaintiffs lacked standing under the relevant statute while certain recipients had standing. It then held that Colorado's PCP program and automatic enrollments comply with federal law because recipients retain the ability to choose or disenroll from providers and HMOs, with no violation arising from the state's implementation of waivers or assignments.
In Fuller v. Norton, plaintiffs including the trustee of an ERISA-governed multiple-employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) Benefit Trust and an employer challenged a Colorado cease-and-desist order prohibiting unauthorized sale of workers' compensation insurance, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that ERISA preempts state insurance regulation and violates federal rights. The court dismissed all claims against the state Attorney General because Colorado law assigns enforcement of insurance and workers' compensation statutes to the Insurance Commissioner and Division of Workers' Compensation Director, not the Attorney General. It denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Younger abstention, reasoning that ERISA's exclusive federal jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) means the claims cannot be raised in state court proceedings. The opinion then began analyzing ERISA preemption of state laws applicable to non-fully-insured MEWAs.
federal powerbusiness & regulatorylabor & employment
Irene Rosenblum sued her former employer, the Colorado Department of Health, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging disability discrimination based on her diabetes and related stress, including inadequate training accommodations, harassment by a coworker, interception of mail, exclusion from events, and failure to transfer her despite medical advice. After Rosenblum's death, her estate's representative continued the case. The defendant moved for summary judgment, conceding it was a covered entity and that diabetes could qualify as a disability, but arguing no substantial limitation on major life activities or violation occurred. The court identified genuine disputes of material fact on issues such as the reasonableness of accommodations and transfers within the department, which could not be resolved on summary judgment, and addressed multiple claims under different ADA provisions regarding accommodations, job assignments, and administrative methods.
In this case, a Colorado law firm sued the EPA under FOIA seeking two studies in the agency's possession that calculated economic benefits gained by the Telluride Company from alleged Clean Water Act violations, which EPA had withheld under FOIA exemptions for confidential commercial information and law enforcement records. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and denied the EPA's cross-motion, holding that the requested studies must be disclosed. The court reasoned that the studies concerned information EPA could have compelled under section 308 of the Clean Water Act, so that statute's disclosure rules (requiring public availability except for trade secrets) applied instead of FOIA's exemptions; because the more specific CWA provision controls over the general FOIA statute and Congress created only a narrow trade-secrets exception in section 308, the documents were not exempt.
