 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - July 22, 2005 US District Court Decisions – May, June 2005
CIVIL RIGHTS § 1983: PRISONER 5/18/05 Espaillat v. Mousseau 03-cv-338-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 082 Plaintiff, a federal inmate and former pretrial detainee at the Cheshire County House of Corrections (“CCHC”), brought this suit against one of the CCHC corrections officers, alleging that the officer violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from an assault committed by plaintiff’s cellmate. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff failed to point to any evidence suggesting that defendant knew or should have known that plaintiff’s cellmate - an inmate with no record of violence - posed a danger to him. Consequently, plaintiff could not prove that defendant was deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to plaintiff’s safety. 12 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. HABEAS CORPUS 5/9/05 Fox v. NHSP Warden 04-cv-193-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 079 Petitioner, a state prisoner serving three consecutive sentences resulting from convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, sought habeas corpus relief. He claimed that his due process rights were violated when he was denied a second psychiatric evaluation and expert assessment of his competency to stand trial. The court denied the petition, concluding that petitioner failed to identify any constitutional or other federally protected right to a second psychiatric evaluation. 14 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. SOCIAL SECURITY 5/24/05 Laureano v. SSA 04-cv-462-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 084 Claimant moved to reverse the Commissioner’s denial of her granddaughter’s application for children’s Supplemental Security Insurance disability benefits. The court denied that motion, concluding that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination that the granddaughter’s impairments did not meet or equal any impairment listed in the pertinent regulations. Accordingly, there was no basis upon which the court might reverse the ALJ’s determination that the granddaughter was not disabled. 18 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 5/4/05 genR8TNext v. Las Vegas Institute for Advanced Dental Studies, Inc., et al. 05-cv-129-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 077 Plaintiff sought an ex parte temporary restraining order, enjoining defendant from using its “International Academy of Comprehensive Aesthetics” name in marketing its service. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s name was confusingly similar to its name: “Academy of Comprehensive Esthetics.” The court denied plaintiff’s motion, concluding, among other things, that its name was merely descriptive and had not acquired secondary meaning within the field of dentistry. 8 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 6/30/05 Wendy Evans, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. Civil No. 04-cv-103-JD, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 104 The plaintiff filed a request for relief under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking additional time to engage in discovery before responding to the defendants motion for summary judgment. The court denied the request on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show the requisite diligence in pursuing discovery to date, where discovery had been open for more than nine months, she had already received three extensions of her deadline to respond to summary judgment in order to pursue further discovery, and she had not resorted to traditional discovery devices, such as interrogatories and document requests, until very late in the discovery period, if at all. The court also denied the plaintiffs Rule 56(f) request on the independent basis that her counsels speculative and conclusory assertions that the outstanding discovery would be relevant to the summary judgment motion failed to demonstrate the probable existence of discoverable facts material to the motion so as to justify relief under the rule. 21 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. CIVIL RIGHTS § 1983: Prisoner 6/29/05 Morgan v. McCormack 03-cv-179-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 101 Pro se plaintiff, an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison, claimed that defendant, his former counselor in the prison’s sexual offender program, violated his constitutionally protected rights by revealing confidential information about him to the Grafton County Attorney and the New Hampshire Parole Board. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that she had no role in the alleged release of confidential information. In response, plaintiff pointed to no evidence that might even minimally undermine defendant’s claim. Accordingly, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 9 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT 6/15/05 Brown v. Colantuono, et al., 05-cv-125-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 093 Plaintiffs brought this suit seeking damages for various common law torts, including trespass and false imprisonment. It appears that plaintiffs are the subject of a federal grand jury investigation and, in connection with that investigation, a search warrant was obtained to search their business. But, because plaintiffs do not recognize the authority of the federal government, they claim that the search was unauthorized and, therefore, amounted to common law trespass. Although plaintiffs’ complaint names three individual employees of the United States Department of Justice, the court concluded that, because plaintiffs seek damages for torts allegedly committed within the scope of the named defendants’ federal employment, the United States was the only proper defendant. The court then concluded that plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required under the FTCA, prior to filing suit. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court dismissed their claims. 11 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2254 6/29/05 Seth Bader v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison Civil No. 02-cv-508-JD, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 103 Bader sought a writ of habeas corpus based on five claims for relief. After the writ was denied on four of his claims, the Warden moved for summary judgment on the fifth claim. Bader moved for an evidentiary hearing on that claim and to stay the proceedings pending his litigation of a sixth claim in state court. The court ruled that Bader was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on the Townsend factors and that it would not exercise its discretion to grant a hearing. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Warden on Baders last claim, concluding that no material factual dispute existed as to whether the prosecutors knowingly or recklessly used false testimony by a witness for the state at Baders criminal trial. The court denied Baders motion to stay the case because Bader had not included the claim in his habeas petition, because he had not shown good cause for his failure to exhaust the claim in state court, and because the claim was meritless. 22 pages. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. PRODUCTS LIABILITY 6/15/05 Gilson v. Grapek Company, et al. 03-cv-478-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 095 Defendant in this product liability action moved for summary judgment as to all counts in plaintiffs’ complaint. That motion was granted to the extent defendant sought judgment as a matter of law as to plaintiffs’ cause of action entitled “res ipsa loquitor,” which the court noted is neither a theory of liability nor a cause of action. As to all remaining counts in plaintiffs’ complaint, however, the court concluded that genuinely disputed material facts precluded the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant. 8 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. SOCIAL SECURITY 06/27/05 Charles Wrenn v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Civil No. 04-CV-344-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 098 Charles Wrenn sought reversal of the Commissioners decision denying him disability insurance benefits. Wrenn argued that the ALJ failed to consider the combined effects of his ailments, erroneously interpreted the medical evidence, and did not properly consider his subjective pain complaints. The court found that the ALJs decision was supported by substantial evidence and denied Wrenns motion to reverse the Commissioners decision. In particular, the court found that the ALJ properly considered the combined effect of Wrenns physical and mental impairments, as evidenced by the questions he directed to the vocational expert, in determining that Wrenn retained the residual functional capacity to perform light and sedentary work. Moreover, the court disagreed with Wrenns argument that the medical evidence clearly supported a finding of disability and instead concluded that the ALJ appropriately weighed the conflicting medical evidence in the record in making his determination. Finally, the court concluded that the ALJ reasonably determined that Wrenns subjective pain complaints were only partially credible and made specific findings as to the relevant evidence he considered in determining to disbelieve Wrenn. 29 pages. Judge Paul Barbadoro. 06/27/05 Lisa M. Bruso v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Civil No. 04-CV-240-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 100 Lisa M. Bruso sought reversal of the Commissioners decision denying her disability insurance benefits prior to September 9, 2002. Bruso argued that the ALJ failed to properly affix the date of onset of disability, consider the combined effects of her ailments, credit the findings of the SSAs consulting medical expert, consider the side effects of her medication, and clarify an ambiguity between the report of her treating physician and the results of her functional capacity evaluation. The court found that the ALJs decision was supported by substantial evidence and therefore denied Brusos motion to reverse. In particular, the court found that the ALJ properly determined the date of onset of disability because the date chosen was the most reasonable based on the medical evidence of record. The ALJ was not required to consider Brusos multiple impairments in combination, as he had already dismissed one impairment as insufficiently credible. The ALJ gave due consideration to the opinion of the SSAs consulting medical expert and was acting within his discretion in deciding to not give it controlling weight. The ALJ properly considered Brusos medications and made sufficient findings as to their effect. Finally, the court concluded that the report from Brusos treating physician was reconcilable with the medical record, and thus did not require clarification. 29 pages. Judge Paul Barbadoro. 6/15/05 Hynes v. Social Security 04-cv-490-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 094 Claimant sought disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging that his was disabled due to bad knees, back pain, and emphysema. The Commissioner denied his application and he appealed, alleging that the administrative law judges determination that he was not disabled was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, claimant said the ALJ failed to adequately consider his need to frequently change positions and ignored an alleged conflict between the vocational experts testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The court disagreed, holding that the ALJs adverse disability determination was supported by substantial evidence. 16 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe. CONTRACT/EQUITY 06/28/05 Jeffrey Bennett, et al. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company Civil No. 04-DS-401-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 099 Bennett sought a preliminary injunction against his liability insurance provider, seeking to force the provider to pay the costs of a counter-claim pending against an adverse party in bankruptcy court. The basis of Bennetts claim was that he would suffer irreparable representational and reputational harm if the injunction were denied. The court disagreed. The court found that no representational harm would occur so long as Bennetts lawyer abided by his duty to attend to Bennetts case diligently. The court similarly found that Bennett had failed to offer a cognizable theory under which it could rule that he would suffer harm to his reputation. On that basis, the court ruled that the only injury Bennett could expect to recover for are those associated with the attorneys fees he argues he is entitled to as a matter of contract law. These he may collect post hoc as damages if his contract claim prevails. Thus, based on the principle that equity will not intervene in the absence of irreparable harm, Bennetts motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. 13 pages. Judge Paul Barbadoro. ERISA 05/24/05 Kim Morris v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Civil No. 03-CV-265-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 086 Morris claimed that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) arbitrarily denied her claim for long-term disability benefits in violation of ERISA. First, Morris argued that MetLife failed to consider additional evidence she submitted after it had issued a final decision denying her appeal. She also argued that Metlife erred in relying on the report of an independent medical evaluator that (1) did not expressly cite her physicians medical notes concerning one of her conditions, and (2) failed to consider the possibility that Crohns disease was affecting her ability to work. As to the post-appeal evidence, the court determined that MetLife followed the procedures set forth in the Plan and properly reviewed her appeal prior to issuing a final decision. MetLife was therefore not required to grant her an additional appeal. As to the report of the independent evaluator, the court concluded that the notes in question were a very small part of an extensive medical record and the information contained in those notes was cumulative of other evidence that was specifically cited. Likewise, the court found it insignificant that the independent evaluator raised questions concerning the impact of Crohns disease because there was no indication that Morris suffered from active Crohns disease or that it imposed any restrictions on her ability to work. MetLifes motion for summary judgment was thus granted. 16 pages. Judge Paul Barbadoro. 06/09/05 Doris Borges v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. Civil No. 04-CV-307-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 092 Borges claimed that her insurance provider abused its discretion (1) by failing to consider the diagnosis of disability offered by Borges orthopedist, Dr. Harrington, and (2) by failing to request more information from Dr. Harrington if more information would have perfected Borges claim. As to the first ground, the court ruled that because the claim administrators denial letter explicitly discussed Dr. Harringtons diagnosis, the provider did not abuse its discretion with respect to his input. As to the second ground, the court held that because Borges had failed to demonstrate that any additional records existed, there was no basis for concluding that a request for information would perfect the claim. Defendants motion for summary judgment was thus granted and Borges motion was denied. 9 pages. Paul Barbadoro. 06/27/05 Lana Woodcock v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Civil No. 03-CV-168-PB, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 097 Woodcock brought a state law claim for wrongful termination against Bristol-Myers Squipp Company arguing that she had been fired in violation of public policy. Bristol-Myers moved for summary judgment countering that Woodcock s claims were preempted by ERISA, 27 U.S.C. § 1144(a). The court agreed. Woodcocks termination was the direct consequence of Bristol-Myers decision to deny her short-term disability status as defined under its employee benefits plan. The case therefore “related” to an “employee benefit plan” as defined by 27 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Under that provision, any state law claim that “relates” to an “employee benefit plan” is preempted by federal law. Bristol-Myers motion for summary judgment was thus granted. Woodcock was granted 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. 9 pages. Judge Paul Barbadoro. |
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
