Recent News

Case Summaries

Government Benefits

[02/03] Sauer v. Dep't of Education
In a suit by a California state agency seeking review of an arbitration award that made it liable to a blind vendor for failing to sue the federal General Services Administration (GSA) to vindicate the rights of the vendor to conduct business on federal property, the district court's judgment affirming the award is reversed, where: 1) the arbitration panel committed a legal error when it interpreted the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act as requiring the state agency to bring an action against GSA, and that the agency's failure to do so made it liable for compensatory damages; and 2) because the arbitration panel's ruling was not in accordance with law, it had to be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

[01/31] Fowlkes v. Thomas
On a prisoner's postjudgment motion for an order directing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to re-tender a check for retroactive supplemental Social Security benefits that he was owed, the district court’s denial of the motion is affirmed, as: 1) the No Social Security Benefits for Prisoners Act bars the SSA from making any payment to an incarcerated individual covered by the Act, regardless of when the underlying obligation to pay the individual arose; and 2) the Act is not impermissibly retroactive, because it alters only the procedure and timing by which certain individuals receive their retroactive Social Security benefit payments, and does not affect their substantive right to those benefits.

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

[01/20] National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In a challenge to a rule issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to claims for service-connected disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder, a petition to review the final rule is denied where, under a Chevron analysis: 1) no existing statute or regulation specifically addresses the issue raised in the rule so as to create a conflict or contradiction; 2) the court could not say that the rationale behind the rule is without a logical basis, or is otherwise arbitrary and capricious.

Read More

Administrative Law

[02/03] Pacific Rivers Council v. US Forest Service
In a suit challenging Forest Service amendments to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan as inconsistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service is: 1) reversed in part, where the plaintiff had Article III standing, and the failure of the environmental impact statement (EIS) to provide any analysis of the environmental consequences on individual fish species was a failure to comply with the hard look requirement of NEPA; and 2) affirmed in part, insofar as the Forest Service did take a hard look at environmental consequences on amphibians in the EIS, in compliance with NEPA.

[02/03] Diaz Ruano v. Holder
On petition for review of a BIA decision that affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying the petitioner's application for withholding of removal and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on claims that he would be subjected to persecution on account of his membership in the social groups of young males targeted by the criminal gangs in Guatemala for recruitment or because of opposition to gangs, and in the group of persons of perceived wealth returning from the United States, the petition is denied, where substantial evidence supported the determinations that: 1) the petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that, if removed to Guatemala, he would suffer persecution on account of his membership in a socially visible, sufficiently particular social group; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be subject to torture upon his return to Guatemala.

[02/03] Sauer v. Dep't of Education
In a suit by a California state agency seeking review of an arbitration award that made it liable to a blind vendor for failing to sue the federal General Services Administration (GSA) to vindicate the rights of the vendor to conduct business on federal property, the district court's judgment affirming the award is reversed, where: 1) the arbitration panel committed a legal error when it interpreted the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act as requiring the state agency to bring an action against GSA, and that the agency's failure to do so made it liable for compensatory damages; and 2) because the arbitration panel's ruling was not in accordance with law, it had to be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act.

[02/02] Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
On appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied the plaintiff's claim for relief under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, the order is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Veterans Administration properly afforded the plaintiff the right to compete for the job and whether it properly determined that the plaintiff was not qualified for the position; and 2) the Board committed legal error by concluding that the administrative judge properly determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim and that the administrative judge's analysis was not erroneous.

Read More

Elder Law

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

[10/20] NY Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v. MFY Legal Services, Inc.
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division reversing a trial court order enjoining defendants from violating an assisted living facilities' visitor access guidelines, judgment is affirmed where the guidelines impermissibly restrict advocate access to facility residents, and violate 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH's interpretation of that regulation.

[09/21] In re: Lemington Home for the Aged
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on the grounds that the business judgment rule and the doctrine of in pari delicto bar plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty, judgment is reversed where there are genuine disputes of material facts.

[08/23] Estate of Dito
In a probate petition alleging financial elder abuse, judgment of the trial court dismissing complaint without leave to amend on the ground that it is barred by res judicata is reversed as modified, where the petition is not barred as a matter of law on the basis of an earlier dispute because the issues as presented differ .

Read More