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

In 2004 the law firm was engaged to bring a medical malpractice action on behalf of a 14-year-old girl who had become paralyzed after surgery. The firm filed two complaints in Virginia state court. Each was dismissed: the first without prejudice for failure to correctly caption a pleading; the second with prejudice for filing outside the statute of limitations. Shortly thereafter, the firm applied for and obtained a new professional liability insurance policy. Asked whether there were “any circumstances which may result in a claim being made,” the firm responded “no.” The firm informed the insurer of the incident in 2009, but represented that it had occurred in 2008. In 2011, the insurance company noticed that the firm had made the caption error in 2006, before the policy period. In 2012, it notified the firm that it reserved its rights to deny coverage under the known risk exclusion. The girl filed a legal malpractice action in 2012, and was awarded $1,750,000 in 2013. The court found, as a matter of law and without expert testimony, that the firm was on notice of the potential malpractice claim and rejected arguments that the insurer had forfeited or waived its right to deny coverage. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. View "Chicago Ins. Co. v. Paulson & Nace, PLLC" on Justia Law

Gun Recovery Unit officers were in an unmarked car, wearing vests that said “police.” Gross was walking the sidewalk. Officer Bagshaw slowed the car and shined a flashlight, saying “[H]ey, it is the police, how are you doing? Do you have a gun?” Gross stopped, but did not answer. Bagshaw stopped the car and asked, “Can I see your waistband?” Not speaking, Gross lifted his jacket to show his left side. Bagshaw began to move the car. Officer Katz asked Bagshaw to stop, opened his door and asked, while stepping out, “[H]ey man, can I check you out for a gun?” Gross ran. Katz gave chase, saw Gross patting his right side, and smelled PCP. Katz apprehended Gross, performed a frisk, and recovered a handgun from Gross’s waistband. Denying a motion to suppress, the court reasoned that no seizure occurred until after Gross fled because nothing would have indicated to a reasonable person that he lacked freedom to disregard the questions and walk away; Gross’s flight and other behavior, provided reasonable grounds to detain him and conduct a pat-down frisk. Gross was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The D.C. Circuit affirmed. Given the totality of the circumstances and precedents involving comparable interactions, Bagshaw’s questioning did not effect a Fourth Amendment seizure. Once he attempted to flee, officers had authority to stop him and conduct the frisk. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

The National Labor Relations Board dismissed a charge that the Union violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(1)(A), by failing to remove derisive and allegedly threatening comments posted on a Facebook page maintained for Union members. The comments, written by Union members without the permission of the Union, appeared while the Union was on strike against Veolia and made disparaging remarks about people who crossed the picket line. The Board held that the Union was not responsible for the Facebook comments because “the 3 individuals who posted the comments were neither alleged nor found to be agents of the [Union].” The D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the Union should be held responsible for the Facebook entries posted by Union members because a Union officer controlled the Facebook page. The Union’s private Facebook page was not analogous to misconduct on a picket line; it was not accessible or viewable by anyone other than active Union members and the disputed postings were made by persons who acted on their own without the permission of the Union. View "Weigand v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs worked in the State Department as Diplomatic Security Special Agents and volunteered to serve one-year in Iraq. They arrived in Iraq in February 2004. Initially, their permanent duty station was in Washington, D.C., so they received “locality pay” in addition to base salary intended to equalize federal employees’ compensation with that of non-federal workers in the same geographic area, 5 U.S.C. 5301, 5304. Months later, their permanent duty station changed to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and they no longer received locality pay. Plaintiffs also received compensation for a significant number of overtime hours. In 2005, they returned to the U.S. After the Office of Personnel Management’s new regulations took effect, the plaintiffs received notices of a review of premium pay earnings involving Iraq, that “the rate of the annual premium pay cap that applies to you is $128,200,” that earnings to date “have already or will shortly put you above the cap for the current pay year,” and that the Department would seek collection of any overpayments. Each later received a letter requiring repayment of from $435.94 to $10,514.98. The D.C. Circuit held that the Department permissibly construed the statute and did not act arbitrarily in denying a discretionary waiver of the obligation to repay. View "Lubow v. Dep't of State" on Justia Law

In 2007 Rogers, a U.S. citizen, lived in Hong Kong and worked as a flight attendant for United Airlines. She flew and worked in and over foreign countries and also in and over the United States and over international waters. She and her husband filed a tax return reporting all of her flight attendant earnings as “foreign earned income.” The IRS determined a tax deficiency of $3,428.30 on the portion of Rogers’s earnings attributable to her work outside foreign countries, as well as a 20% penalty. Rogers argued that 26 U.S.C. 911(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) authorized exclusion of Rogers’s flight attendant earnings as “foreign earned income,” because it was received “from sources within a foreign country or countries,” Rogers’s Hong Kong-based job. and that they should not be charged the negligence penalty. The Tax Court disagreed, finding that they could only exclude the portion of Rogers’s earnings that were related to her time spent working in or over foreign countries. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. View "Rogers v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv." on Justia Law

Retired officers of D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department were subsequently re-hired by the D.C. Protective Services Division, which protects government buildings and D.C.-owned property. They received pension benefits from their service with the Police Department and salaries for their jobs with Protective Services, but Section 5- 723(e) of the D.C. Code requires reduction of plaintiffs’ salaries by the amount of their pensions to prevent so-called double-dipping. Pursuant to that provision, D.C. reduced plaintiffs’ salaries by the amount of their pensions. Following a remand for consideration under the Fair Labor Standards Act, plaintiffs raised a claim under the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, 4 U.S.C. 111(a)), which was rejected. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. The Public Salary Tax Act allows states and D.C. to impose “taxation” on compensation paid to employees of the federal government, only if the taxation does not discriminate against federal employees. The D.C. salary reduction provision at issue is not “taxation.” It does not raise revenue, but operates on the opposite side of D.C.’s financial ledger. It reduces D.C.’s total expenditures on salaries. View "Cannon v. Dist. of Columbia" on Justia Law

PJM is a regional transmission organization that combines multiple utility power grids into a single transmission system to “reduce technical inefficiencies caused when different utilities operate different portions of the grid independently.” PJM coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in 13 mid-Atlantic states and the District of Columbia. To prevent interruptions to the delivery of electricity, PJM upgrades its system in accordance with its governing agreements: the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, the Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement, and the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. The petitioners, incumbent owners, challenged orders in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) concluded that they had no right of first refusal for proposed expansions or upgrades and that PJM may designate third-party developers to construct transmission facilities within incumbent members’ zones. While their petition was pending, FERC directed PJM to remove or revise “any provision that could be read as supplying a federal right of first refusal for any type of transmission project that is selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.” The D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition, concluding that there is no live controversy between adverse parties, so that any decision would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.it View "Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Medicare program provides federally funded healthcare to the elderly and the disabled. See Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395. Under a “complex statutory and regulatory regime” called Medicare Part A, the Government reimburses participating hospitals for care that they provide to inpatient Medicare beneficiaries. Most hospitals are reimbursed for inpatient hospital services pursuant to a standardized rate, but the Social Security Act also provides a method for calculating reimbursement rates for certain rural hospitals that qualify as “sole community hospital[s]” (SCHs) or that qualify as “medicare-dependent small rural hospital[s]” (MDHs). SCHs and MDHs receive reimbursement based on either the standard rate or a hospital-specific rate derived from its actual costs of treatment in one of the base years specified in the statute, whichever is higher. MDHs and SCHs challenged revisions to the rules covering their Medicare reimbursements for inpatient hospital services, arguing that the Medicare statute forbids the Secretary from modifying the hospitals’ reimbursements with budget neutrality adjustments from years prior to the base year. The district court rejected the claims. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, finding that the revisions were neither arbitrary nor manifestly contrary to the statute. View "Adirondack Med. Ctr. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

The Union represents employees at the Anniston Army Depot. Clark is a bargaining-unit employee, but not a dues-paying union member. The Union learned that the Depot was assigning employees duties beyond their pay grade without additional compensation and filed a grievance on behalf of all bargaining-unit employees. The parties entered a settlement agreement that provided backpay. The Union was to notify Depot employees and gather information needed for claims. Though Clark had completed work above his pay grade, the Union failed to contact him. When Clark inquired about the settlement, a Union representative asked whether he was a member and told Clark he needed to join. Clark refused. The representative told Clark how to submit a claim. Clark complied. The Depot and the Union agreed to distribute $303,825 among 218 employees the Union had listed. The Union left Clark off the list and put only one non-member on the list. Clark filed an unfair labor practice charge with the FLRA, which alleged that the Union had violated 5 U.S.C. 7114(a)(1) and 7116(b)(8) by giving preferential treatment to union member. Before a hearing, the parties agreed that the Union would pay Clark $1,970, but 55 other nonunion employees would receive $200. Clark objected. The Regional Director approved the settlement; the FLRA General Counsel affirmed. The D.C. Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Such a decision is not a “final order of the Authority” subject to review under 5 U.S.C. 7123(a). View "Clark v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth." on Justia Law

The TMP is a 5.6-mile stretch of pipeline, connecting Missouri with Illinois beneath the Mississippi River. Under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717f, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued MoGas a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a project that included using the TMP for natural gas service for the first time. On remand, the Commission approved inclusion of the acquisition cost in MoGas’s rate base because the TMP had been devoted to a new use, transporting natural gas instead of oil, and the cost of new construction would have been greater. Objectors challenged the Commission’s determination that the company had shown that the acquisition of pipeline facilities provided specific benefits in accordance with Commission precedent. Although acknowledging that a lower acquisition cost can produce benefits to customers in some cases, they argued the Commission failed to examine whether there were actual quantifiable dollar benefits for Missouri customers. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, deferring to the Commission’s benefits exception, which allows an acquisition premium to be included in a pipeline’s rate base when the purchase price is less than the cost of constructing comparable facilities, the facility is converted to a new use, and the transacting parties are unaffiliated. View "Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law