Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Association petitioned for review of the Commission's interpretation of statutory language contained in a provision of the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681m(h). The Commission announced this interpretation in a Federal Register notice accompanying its promulgation of an amended rule regulating "risk-based pricing" of consumer credit. Because a challenge to such an interpretation must begin in the district court, the court dismissed the Association's petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "National Automobile Dealers Assoc. v. FTC" on Justia Law

Three related companies that operate New Jersey nursing homes petitioned for review of a Board decision. The Board found that petitioners violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by refusing to meet with their employees' union for the purpose of collective bargaining, and by refusing to timely and completely supply information requested by the union. At issue were petitioners' defenses of impasse and bad faith on the part of the union. Because substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that there was no genuine impasse and that the union's information requests were not made in bad faith, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Monmouth Care Center, et al. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs opposed the use of vaccines that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, and believed that vaccines containing mercury harm young children and pregnant women. Plaintiffs filed an action alleging that the FDA, by allowing thimerosal-preserved vaccines, violated its statutory duty to ensure the safety of vaccines. Plaintiffs asked for a court order requiring the FDA to prohibit the administration of vaccines containing more than a trace level of thimerosal to young children and pregnant women and sought to force the FDA to remove thimerosal-preserved vaccines from the market. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not required to receive thimerosal-preserved vaccines; they could readily obtain thimerosal-free vaccines; they did not have standing to challenge the FDA's decision to allow other people to receive the vaccines; and plaintiffs could advocate that the Legislative and Executive Branches ban the vaccines. But because plaintiffs were suffering no cognizable injury as a result of the FDA's decision to allow the vaccine, their lawsuit was not a proper subject for the Judiciary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

Registered nurses working for Veritas voted to make the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (Union) their bargaining representative. Veritas would not bargain with the Union because Veritas claimed that pro-Union conduct by supervising charge nurses had coerced the registered nurses' votes and tainted the election. Rejecting Veritas' claims, the NLRB certified the Union and found that Veritas had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain. Veritas petitioned for review. The court concluded that precedent and substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusions. Therefore, the court denied Veritas' petition and granted the NLRB's cross-application of enforcement of its order. View "Veritas Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District was violating the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. Since 1993, a consent decree has governed how the District provides "early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services" under the Act. The District has now asked the district court to vacate that decree on two grounds: that an intervening Supreme Court decision has made clear that plaintiffs lack a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act, and that in any event, the District has come into compliance with the requirements of the Act. Because the court concluded that the district court's rejection of one of the District's two arguments did not constitute an order "refusing to dissolve [an] injunction[]" within the meaning 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Salazar, et al. v. DC, et al." on Justia Law