Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Government Benefits

[11/14] Feemster v. BSA Ltd. P'ship
In an action alleging that defendant-landlord unlawfully refused to accept Section 8 vouchers as payment for rent, summary judgment for tenants in part is affirmed, and for landlord in part is reversed, where: 1) federal housing law prevented landlord from unilaterally declaring that the units in question were no longer being offered for rental housing, but instead required that landlord meet the requirements of local law for making such a determination; and 2) the uncontested fact that landlord refused payment via voucher, while insisting it would accept cash, made out a facial violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

[11/12] US v. Kaufman
In a criminal matter involving defendants who had directed severely mentally ill residents of their treatment center to perform sexually explicit acts and farm labor in the nude, allegedly as psychotherapy, their convictions for forced labor and involuntary servitude are affirmed where: 1) even if the trial court plainly erred in ordering defendants to avoid eye contact with former residents who testified against them at trial, they failed to establish that the error affected their substantial rights; 2) there was no plain error in instructing the jury on the meaning of "labor" and "services" under statutes of conviction; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for involuntary servitude. However, on cross-appeal, defendant-wife's sentence is remanded for resentencing where it was procedurally unreasonable because: 1) the evidence supported applying certain enhancements, and the district court failed to make findings sufficient to justify its refusal to apply them; and 2) an obstruction of justice enhancement was supported by the record as well.

[11/12] James v. Richman
In a suit seeking Medicaid benefits, an injunction preventing defendant-Department of Public Welfare from denying benefits is affirmed where: 1) equitable relief was appropriate where plaintiff would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from seeking monetary damages from the state; 2) plaintiff was not required to exhaust his state-level administrative remedies before seeking federal relief; and 3) a non-revocable, non-transferable annuity purchased by plaintiff's wife did not fit the statutory definition of an "available resource" for purposes of calculating Medicaid eligibility.

More...

Workers' Comp

[11/12] Pratt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In a suit against defendant-employer brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act for personal injuries suffered at work, a court order prohibiting defendant-railroad company from compelling plaintiff-employee to attend a medical examination or conducting a disciplinary hearing to terminate plaintiff's employment for refusing to provide it with medical evidence justifying his continued absence from work is affirmed where: 1) the trial court had jurisdiction to prohibit extra-judicial discovery because the civil rules of discovery provide independent authority to grant a protective order for misuse of the discovery process; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding monetary sanctions where the sanctions served not to punish but rather to encourage voluntary compliance with the discovery procedures.

[11/06] B & D Contracting v. Pearley
In a challenge to the amount of an award of disability benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, employer's petition for review of the award is denied where employer's per diem payments to claimant were properly classified by the Benefits Review Board as wages, and were required to be included in benefit calculations as such.

[10/30] Power Fabricating, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In an action for declaratory relief and damages arising from defendant's failure to defend plaintiff in action brought by widow of a worker who was fatally injured in an industrial accident, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if (a) the worker was acting in the course and scope of employment of the insured and (b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer; and 2) because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage could not be triggered.

More...