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

Gentiva, a provider of home healthcare services, contended that the Secretary violated the Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. 1395ddd(f)(3), by delegating to an outside contractor the authority to determine whether Gentiva's Medicare reimbursement claims exhibited a "sustained or high level of payment error." The court affirmed the district court's decision to defer, under Chevron deference, to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of section 1395ddd(f)(3). The court also agreed with the district court that section 1395ddd(f)(3) precluded the court from reviewing the merits of the "sustained or high level of payment error" determination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Gentiva Healthcare Corp. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed suit against the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy and others, alleging violation of his constitutional rights in an administrative decision which suspended him from practice before naval courts. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from plaintiff's filing of an appellate brief containing statements he knew were false and misleading. The court concluded that the district court did not err in holding that the Navy JAG had authority to discipline plaintiff; plaintiff received ample due process and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated during the proceedings against him; and the record did not support plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 701, and 706, claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims and denied his request for mandamus review. View "Partington v. Houck, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of prisoners, filed suit against the FDA for allowing state correctional departments to import sodium thiopental (thiopental), a misbranded and misapproved new drug used in lethal injection protocols, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 381(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court concluded that, because there were clear statutory guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers, the FDA's compliance with section 381(a) was subject to judicial review under the standards of the APA. The court also concluded that the FDA's policy of admitting foreign manufactured thiopental destined for state correctional facilities were not in accordance with law because section 381(a) required the agency to sample and examine for violations of any drug offered for import that had been prepared in an unregistered facility. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by failing to seek the joinder of the state governments whose possession and use of the thiopental at issue the court declared illegal. Accordingly, the order of the district court pertaining to the thiopental already in the possession of the states was vacated, but the underlying judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cook, et al. v. FDA, et al." on Justia Law

Seeking to construct a natural gas compressor station in Maryland, Dominion applied for and received a certificate of public convenience and necessity from FERC. The Department subsequently twice refused to process Dominion's application for an air quality permit and Dominion sought expedited review from the court. The court granted Dominion's petition and remanded for further action because the Department's failure to act to grant, condition, or deny Dominion's air quality permit was inconsistent with federal law. View "Dominion Transmission, Inc. v. Summers, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant a former pilot for US Airways, sought benefits from a collectively-bargained pilot disability plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's dismissal of his claim for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because section 204 of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq., vested in the "applicable adjustment board" exclusive jurisdiction over appellant's claim because it was grounded in the application and interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. View "Oakey v. US Airways Pilots Disability Income Plan" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the revocation of his pilot and medical certificates based upon the false statement that he made about having never been arrested for drunk driving. The court denied the petition, concluding that the Board's conclusion that petitioner's behavior, by his own description, constituted a violation of 14 C.F.R. 67.403(a)(1) was a straightforward and correct application of the regulation under the interpretation the court affirmed in Cooper v. NTSB. The court also concluded that petitioner was accorded due process of law where, among other things, he was given notice and an opportunity to respond before the FAA's revocation order went into effect. View "Taylor v. Huerta, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud. The conviction arose out of his work for former United States Representative Curt Weldon where defendant intentionally failed to disclose certain payments made to his wife. After the Supreme Court handed down Skilling v. United States, a decision that substantially limited the permissible reach of the honest-services fraud statute, defendant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence. The court concluded that defendant was denied an opportunity to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence because he could not demonstrate that he was also innocent of a separate and uncharged offense that had a lower sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court reversed the order denying defendant's motion to vacate his conviction because defendant was not required to make such a showing. View "United States v. Caso, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction for drug conspiracy. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of prior drug activity and in denying defendant's motion requesting that the drug conspiracy charge and the witness tampering charge be severed for purposes of trial where, in both instances, the district court gave reasoned explanations for its decisions and the jury was given limited instructions. The court also concluded that the prosecutor's improper remarks did not substantially prejudice defendant. In regards to defendant's sentence, the court concluded that defendant was not entitled to safety-valve relief where he had not fulfilled all the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) and, consequently, his counsel was not ineffective for not arguing the issue with more vigor. Finally, the district court correctly determined that it did not have the discretion to award a United States v. Smith departure of any length beneath the statutory minimum. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valdez" on Justia Law

CRLA appealed from an enforcement order of a subpoena duces tecum and the OIG cross-appealed the protective order governing disclosure of material discovered by the subpoena and also establishing a notice requirement. The district court concluded that only federal and not California state privileges and protections governed the scope of disclosure compelled under the subpoena. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily enforcing the investigative subpoena issued by the OIG. The court vacated, however, the order insofar as it added a five-day notice requirement to the confidentiality terms otherwise applicable. View "United States, et al. v. California Rural Legal Assist." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence and conviction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) for trafficking crack cocaine, contending that the judge who sentenced him failed to determine the quantity of drugs he possessed. The court concluded that the district court's finding that the drug quantity contained in the presentence report (PSR) was implicitly adopted by the sentencing court was not clear error, and the decision to deny the section 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of discretion. Defendant, who waited 20 years to raise this challenge, had the opportunity to challenge the facts contained in the PSR at sentencing, and he declined to do so. He also declined to raise the argument on direct appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Kennedy" on Justia Law