Cameron McGowan Currie

This case involves a dispute over payment of medical benefits under an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan, brought by a self-funded plan (Hornady Transportation LLC) against a medical provider (McLeod) and an insurer (BCBS-SC) for allegedly improper billing and payment practices. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that state-law claims were completely preempted by ERISA and that the ERISA claims could not be asserted against the named defendants. The court declined to dismiss either set of claims at the pleading stage, finding that while ERISA preemption likely applies to the state claims, the novel facts and lack of controlling precedent create uncertainty, and plaintiffs had alleged plausible bases for at least some ERISA claims against each defendant. The rulings allow the case to proceed through discovery, with the issues to be revisited on summary judgment if appropriate.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Brown sued the Lieutenant Governor's Office on Aging and several state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Family and Medical Leave Act, alleging retaliation for taking self-care medical leave. Defendants moved to dismiss the FMLA claim, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity for the state agency and officials in their official capacities, lack of individual liability for damages against state supervisors, and qualified immunity. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations with minor modifications, dismissing all claims for damages against the agency and officials but allowing the claim for injunctive relief (reinstatement) to proceed against two officials in their official capacities under the Ex parte Young doctrine. The core reasoning was that the Eleventh Amendment bars FMLA self-care suits for damages against unconsenting states and their employees, individual-capacity damage claims are foreclosed by Fourth Circuit precedent in Lizzi v. Alexander, and prospective injunctive relief remains available to address ongoing violations of federal law.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a constitutional challenge to South Carolina's "I Believe" Act, which directed the DMV to issue a specialty license plate featuring the words "I Believe" and a cross on a stained glass window. Plaintiffs, including religious leaders and organizations, argued that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by endorsing Christianity and the Free Speech Clause by granting unequal access to a government forum. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacities, finding the Act unconstitutional because it authorized a single plate with a uniquely Christian message through legislative action, rather than as a neutral accommodation or expression of diverse viewpoints. However, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages claims against the DMV director in her individual capacity. The core reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedents prohibiting government preference for one religious sect over others or over nonreligion.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved two medical malpractice insurers, JUA and MedPro, disputing their respective shares of a $475,000 settlement paid to resolve claims against their mutual insureds for negligent post-surgical treatment of a hip infection between December 2002 and March 2004. The court allocated liability so that MedPro would pay $67,980.50 and JUA would pay the remainder. JUA's occurrence policies covered events during its policy periods ending October 1, 2003, while MedPro's claims-made policies with a retroactive date of October 1, 2003, excluded coverage for treatment provided before that date. Expert testimony indicated that 80 to 85 percent of the patient's injury occurred before September 2003, leading the court to prorate responsibility according to the policies' terms and the timing of the damage.

healthcaretorts & liability

In this case, Carolina Pride, Inc. challenged South Carolina Code Ann. § 57-25-145, which prohibits most businesses offering sexually-oriented materials or entertainment from using off-premises outdoor advertising signs within one mile of a public highway. The plaintiff sought summary judgment declaring the Sign Statute unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, both facially and as applied, along with a permanent injunction barring its enforcement. The court granted the motion in full, relying on its prior analysis from the preliminary injunction stage that found the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits. The ruling concluded that the statute violated the First Amendment by restricting commercial speech without sufficient justification, with no material factual disputes or new arguments from the parties altering that determination.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by the South Carolina Green Party and candidate Eugene Platt to the constitutionality of the state's sore-loser statute (S.C. Code Ann. § 7-11-10) as applied to Platt's 2008 bid for House Seat 115, where he sought nominations from multiple parties but lost the Democratic primary after signing the required party-loyalty pledge. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants (the State Election Commission and Charleston County Democratic Party), upholding the statute's application and barring Platt from appearing on the general-election ballot as the nominee of the Green Party or Working Families Party. The core reasoning was that the statute and pledge did not severely burden candidates' or parties' associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, advanced the state's important interests in preventing party raiding and ensuring orderly elections, and satisfied the applicable balancing test from Supreme Court precedent on ballot-access restrictions.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a widow, acting as representative of her husband's estate, suing Aetna Life Insurance Company under ERISA to challenge the denial of accidental death benefits after her husband died from ingesting ethylene glycol found in antifreeze. Aetna determined the death was intentional rather than accidental and therefore fell under policy exclusions for self-inflicted injury or intentional intoxication, leading to denial of the claim. The court reviewed Aetna's decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the insurer's conflict of interest as both decision-maker and payer, and examined the administrative record for reasonableness, adequacy of evidence, and procedural fairness. After detailed findings on the lack of direct evidence of intent, inconsistencies in Aetna's analysis, and flaws in the investigative process, the court concluded that Aetna's denial did not satisfy the required standards.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

In Yarborough v. Montgomery, the plaintiff sued law enforcement officers after being pursued, tackled, and tased during an encounter initiated by a BOLO alert stemming from his hospital visit where he indicated suicidal thoughts on a sign-in sheet. The plaintiff alleged claims related to the stop, arrest, and use of force. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. It reasoned that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of probable cause for the arrest or the reasonableness of the officers' actions under the circumstances, applying the summary judgment standard that requires specific evidence beyond speculation to defeat such a motion.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved Title VII claims by plaintiff Dawson, an FBI employee, against the United States for racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The core reasoning was that only the suspension and demotion qualified as adverse employment actions, the plaintiff failed to show the employer's stated reasons were pretextual or linked to racial animus, and there was insufficient evidence to support the hostile work environment or retaliation claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved HSBC seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Decisioning.com regarding three patents ('007, '811, and '721) that cover automated processing of financial accounts and loans through remote interfaces, including requirements for dedicated equipment and real-time closed-loop issuance of loan proceeds. The court granted HSBC's motion for summary judgment, holding that its online services accessed via consumer-owned personal computers did not infringe the patents. The ruling relied on prior claim constructions from related cases, which defined "remote interface" to exclude consumer PCs for the '007 and '811 patents, and required automatic real-time proceeds distribution (such as direct deposit or check issuance) without further steps for the '811 and '721 patents; HSBC's systems failed both limitations as a matter of law, with no literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The court dismissed remaining claims without prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Decisioning.com sued TD Ameritrade for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,105,007, which describes a computerized system for opening accounts by verifying an applicant's identity through specified information checks and assessing the applicant's ability to meet account requirements via database comparisons using a remote interface. Following claim construction proceedings, the district court granted Ameritrade's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court held that Ameritrade's account-opening systems did not meet the patent's limitations on identity verification or the requirements for a remote interface and final approval without human intervention, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a pro se federal prisoner’s Bivens and FTCA claims arising from his placement in the Special Housing Unit at FCI-Edgefield in 2001-2002, allegedly triggered by a prank phone call by two guards. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, adopting it in full except for one minor point. It allowed the plaintiff’s claims against defendants Paul and Berry relating to the initial four-day SHU confinement to proceed while granting summary judgment or dismissal on all remaining claims against all defendants, including later SHU periods, equal-protection theories, requests for injunctive relief, and FTCA claims. The court’s reasoning centered on qualified-immunity analysis, mootness after the plaintiff’s transfer to another facility, the absence of physical injury for emotional-damages claims, and various procedural bars.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involved subclasses of plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against American General Life and Accident Insurance Company and Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company, seeking to toll the statute of limitations based on an earlier class action (McNeil v. American General) in which they were excluded from the certified settlement class. The court addressed whether these subclasses could rely on American Pipe tolling from the filing of the McNeil action in December 1999 until the narrowing of the class in September 2000. The court decided that such tolling is legally unavailable to the subclasses in this subsequent class action. The core reasoning rested on precedents from multiple federal appellate circuits holding that the Supreme Court's American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal decisions, which permit tolling for individual actions after denial of class certification, do not extend to later class actions in order to prevent indefinite extension of limitations periods or abuse of the tolling rule.

procedurecivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a class action lawsuit by African-American plaintiffs against American General Life and Accident Insurance Company and a related insurer, alleging racial discrimination in the sale of industrial life insurance policies that provided less coverage per premium dollar to black policyholders than to similarly situated white ones. The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination in contracts, under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 for racial discrimination regarding personal property, and for related equitable relief. The court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that five plaintiffs who were minors when the policies were issued and lapsed lacked Article III standing because they suffered no traceable injury from premium overcharges. The court also dismissed the § 1982 claim, holding that an insurance policy constitutes a contract right rather than personal property protected by that statute, consistent with the prevailing judicial view that § 1982 does not duplicate § 1981's coverage of contractual matters. The § 1981 claim was not dismissed at this stage.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, a taxpayer sued the United States, the IRS, and various officials alleging that the agency failed to process his amended 2000 tax return correcting an error in reporting a law firm dissolution payment, which would have reduced his tax liability to zero and entitled him to refunds that were instead applied to his original assessment. The plaintiff sought return of seized refunds, declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that a refund suit requires full prepayment of the disputed tax assessment as a jurisdictional prerequisite under Supreme Court precedent in Flora v. United States, which the plaintiff had not satisfied.

taxes

This ERISA case involved a plaintiff challenging the denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan governed by federal law. The plaintiff had failed to timely appeal the initial denial within the plan's 180-day deadline, attributing the delay to her attorney's unintentional error, and sought either a remand to exhaust remedies or judicial review of a potential future denial. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, rejecting the first claim with prejudice because the requested remand had already been denied in a prior order, and dismissing the second claim without prejudice as it depended on a remand that would not occur. The core reasoning was that plan participants must exhaust internal remedies as a prerequisite to suit under both ERISA case law and the plan's own terms, which explicitly required appeals before filing in federal court; the court found amendment to challenge the original denial futile given the mandatory deadlines and lack of any plan ambiguity or misconduct that would excuse the two-month delay.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges suing the Department of Energy to block its April 2002 decision to transfer six metric tons of surplus plutonium from Rocky Flats to the Savannah River Site for indefinite long-term storage, claiming violations of NEPA and the APA because no adequate supplemental environmental analysis addressed the cancellation of prior disposition plans and related conditions. The court granted DOE’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied Hodges’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It determined that DOE had complied with NEPA through existing environmental impact statements and supplement analyses, that the storage decision was not arbitrary under the APA, and that the balance of harms—including national security, foreign policy, and cleanup costs—favored allowing the transfer to proceed.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a claim by Hit Products Corp. against Anchor Bank for negligent misrepresentation. Hit Products alleged that it suffered over $1.7 million in losses after relying on a 1996 reference letter from the bank that described SISCO USA and related entities as financially stable and longstanding customers, when in fact those entities failed to pay for manufactured goods. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that Hit Products could not prove justified reliance, as it was aware of discrepancies in the letter regarding the entities' histories and relationships and failed to investigate further, and because representations about certain entities were immaterial since Hit Products never sought payment from them.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement claim by ESAB Group against Centricut for selling electrodes that allegedly infringe ESAB's patent for plasma arc torch components. The court considered Centricut's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, determining that Centricut's limited contacts with South Carolina—one post-filing sale from an unsolicited order, occasional sales calls, and a generally accessible website—were insufficient to establish the minimum contacts required by due process for the exercise of jurisdiction under Federal Circuit precedent.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Hooters of America, Inc. (HOA) sued its former employee Phillips for a declaratory judgment that arbitration agreements she signed in 1994 and 1995 were valid and enforceable, and moved to compel arbitration of her sexual harassment claims under the Federal Arbitration Act while seeking to stay related proceedings. Phillips opposed the motion and filed counterclaims alleging violations of Title VII, arguing that the agreements were not knowing or voluntary, were unconscionable adhesion contracts, lacked consideration, and contained biased procedures that undermined statutory rights and remedies. The court denied HOA's motion to compel arbitration and the motion to stay, finding that the agreements failed to meet requirements for a valid contract under state law, incorporated rules that were one-sided and failed to protect Title VII rights, and did not provide for impartial arbitration. The decision rested on analysis of contract formation, unconscionability, public policy, and the adequacy of arbitral procedures to safeguard federal statutory claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure