Dr. Harry M. Kechijian, a physician, sued the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and Blue Shield to recover over $27,000 in Medicare Part B payments that had been withheld as a set-off for alleged overutilization and misutilization of services identified by a state peer review committee. The court analyzed potential sources of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the Medicare Act itself authorizes judicial review of Part B benefit determinations and that no colorable constitutional claim was presented. It further held that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies despite being notified of review procedures. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of remedies.
This case is an admiralty action commenced in 1970 by the plaintiff to recover damages for breach of a charter party contract. After confirming an arbitration award on liability in 1976 and appointing a master to calculate damages in 1977, the defendants filed extensive discovery requests in May 1978. The plaintiff moved for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court granted the motion, finding the requests untimely after nearly eight years of litigation, not previously sought by defendants, likely to delay the master's hearings, and unduly burdensome when only a ministerial damages calculation remained.
The case French v. Wilson involved a dispute over whether the rescission provisions of the Truth in Lending Act applied to an October 1973 loan from Warwick Credit Union to the plaintiffs, secured by a mortgage on their preexisting home and land after the home was moved to a new lot. The plaintiffs gave notice of rescission in 1975, but the credit union did not respond or provide required disclosures. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the Act and Regulation Z applied to the transaction. The core reasoning was that exceptions to the right of rescission for loans financing acquisition of a new dwelling or initial construction did not apply because the home was already owned by the plaintiffs and had existed for many years, and the lender failed to notify them of their rescission rights.
This case involves a civil action by the executors of Howard W. Holmes' estate against a corporation, its directors Bateson and Bronson, and Combustion Engineering, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as state-law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, arising from the defendants' purchase of the estate's corporate shares and partnership interest following Holmes' death in 1969. The court had previously found liability and awarded damages on both the federal and state claims. In this opinion, the court modifies its prior ruling to impose prejudgment interest at eight percent per annum from January 6, 1970, on the non-federal claims, holding that Rhode Island's prejudgment interest statute is procedural and remedial in nature and thus applies to pending actions. The court exercises its discretion to award the same interest rate on the federal claims as fair and equitable under the circumstances.
This case concerns a construction subcontract dispute arising from the erection of steel roof deck and siding at the Providence Civic Center project. Northway Decking & Sheet Metal Corporation sued Inland-Ryerson Construction Products Company for breach of contract and compensation for alleged extra work performed without written authorization, while also claiming tortious interference against Dimeo Construction Company; cross-claims and counterclaims were also filed. After denying a preliminary injunction for removal of scaffolding, the court held a trial on damages claims under diversity jurisdiction and made findings of fact about project schedules, the failure to communicate timelines to Northway, the terms requiring written change orders for alterations or extras, and the events leading to Northway being removed from the job in favor of another erector. The court's reasoning focused on the subcontract provisions mandating written documentation for changes and compensation, the lack of evidence that schedules were finalized or communicated in advance, and whether termination was justified under the contract terms.
In Textron, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff sought a refund of over $3.7 million in federal income taxes paid for 1959 after claiming deductions for worthless stock in and debts owed by its wholly owned subsidiary, Hawaiian Textron, which had operated a reconditioned passenger ship that incurred heavy losses and was foreclosed upon by the Maritime Administration. The court ruled in favor of Textron, granting the refund plus interest. The core reasoning was that a parent corporation and its subsidiary are separate taxable entities under the tax system, so Textron's loss on its investment was distinct from the subsidiary's operating losses, and the government's argument against allowing separate deductions for the two entities had no merit.
