FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Consumer Protection

[05/14] Saunders v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. of Virginia
In an action alleging violation of defendant-lender's duties as a furnisher of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), judgment against defendant including a denial of defendant's motions for judgment as a mater of law and for remittitur is affirmed where: 1) a decision by defendant to report a debt to credit reporting agencies without mention of a dispute was in violation of section 1681s-2 of the FCRA; 2) plaintiff was able to demonstrate that defendant knowingly and intentionally withheld information of a valid dispute from credit reporting agencies; 3) there were sufficient facts for a jury to find that plaintiff had an excuse for failing to make payments; and 4) an $80,000 punitive award was not grossly excessive in light of defendant's reprehensible conduct and the fact that a lower award would not have a punitive or deterrent effect.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Clark v. Time Warner Cable
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction permits a district court to refer a claim raising a novel and technical question of federal telecommunications policy to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its consideration in the first instance.

[04/30] Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.

[04/25] Ross v. Bank of America, N.A.
In an appeal involving whether mandatory arbitration clauses found in credit card contracts issued by defendants, assuming they were products of illegal collusion among credit providers, give rise to Article III standing, dismissal of plaintiffs-cardholders' antitrust suit is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erroneously held that plaintiff-cardholders failed to allege an "injury in fact" sufficient to confer Article III standing; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were ripe for adjudication.

[04/24] Ackermann v. Wyeth Pharm.
In case brought plaintiff-wife alleging that defendant failed to adequately warn about drug-induced risk of suicide from its drug Effexor, leading to her husband's suicide, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where plaintiff failed to demonstrate causation under the learned-intermediary doctrine.

[04/22] Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.
An order awarding plaintiff in a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) over $77,000 in merits fees, costs, and fees-on-fees, based in part on the district court's multiplying the number of hours worked by each of her three attorneys by an hourly rate of $200, is vacated and remanded where the district court erred: 1) by not identifying the relevant community and by not explaining what was the prevailing hourly rate in that community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation; and 2) by awarding a "flat award" of $500 for fees-on-fees.

[04/21] SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Liebert
In an appeal involving allegations that a mobilehome park and a number of mobilehome dealers were involved in an illegal arrangement whereby prospective park tenants were forced to buy a mobilehome from one of the dealers in order to secure a space in the park, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff had not stated causes of action for violating the Cartwright Act, the Unfair Competition Law, or interference with prospective economic advantage.

More...

Government Benefits

[05/12] Mansfield v. Peake
A decision determining the earliest effective date for claimant's award of VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. section 1151 is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a determination that an earlier Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim did not constitute an informal claim for section 1151 benefits; and 2) whether a delay in processing the claim amounted to a denial of due process.

[05/09] U.S. ex rel Fried v. W. Independent Sch. Dist.
Dismissal of a claim under the False Claims Act for Social Security fraud is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims were based on publicly disclosed information; and 2) plaintiff was not the original source of the information since he failed to show that it was qualitatively different from that which had already been discovered.

[05/07] Wrenn v. Astrue
A district court's determination that the combined attorney's fees for representation before the Social Security Administration (SSA) and on appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner and the court have the authority to independently determine the appropriate attorney's fees, and the 25% limitation on fees for court representation is not itself limited by the amount of fees awarded by the Commissioner.

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[05/05] Reeves v. Astrue
An award of attorney's fees granted under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d)(1)(A) belongs to the "prevailing party", which is the party and not the party's attorney.

[05/02] Moran v. Peake
Denial of a veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is affirmed where the term "engaged in combat with the enemy" in 38 U.S.C. section 1154(b) requires that the veteran have personally participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality, as determined on a case-by-case basis.

[05/01] Groves v. Peake
A decision finding that a denial of service connection for episodes of paranoid schizophrenia during and after service did not contain clear and unmistakable error is reversed and remanded where the claimant was entitled to a presumption of service connection since the condition that was diagnosed in service was chronic.

[04/30] US v. Herrera-Martinez
Convictions stemming from defendant's use of personal information, including a Social Security number, that did not belong to defendant in order to secure subsidized housing under a federal program, are affirmed over claims that: 1) a conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 641 requires proof of elements not present in her case; 2) 42 U.S.C. section 408(a)(7)(B) prohibits the use of a false Social Security number only to obtain a Social Security payment, not to obtain other benefits; and 3) she was entitled to acquittal of aggravated identity theft because it required, as a predicate, one of the other two offenses.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

[04/22] Sewell Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
In proceedings arising from a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (the BLBA), an order of the Benefits Review Board affirming an award of benefits is vacated and remanded where: 1) the three year statute of limitations under 20 C.F.R. section 725.308(a) applies to subsequent claims for benefits; and 2) a remand was proper for further proceedings on whether the claim was timely under the three year statute of limitations, as it applies to subsequent claims.

[04/21] Glazer v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
In an appeal invoking an issue under ERISA as to when medical reports relied on by a plan administrator during the review of a denial of benefits must be produced to the claimant for her to receive a "full and fair review", summary judgment for plan administrator is affirmed where: 1) the pertinent federal regulations did not require plan administrator to produce the medical reports requested by plaintiff during the pendency of the review; 2) the district court applied the correct legal standard of review; and 3) the decision by plan administrator to deny plaintiff's application for benefits was right.

[04/18] Brooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a case considering whether a year of industrial disability leave (IDL) payable to state employees under Government Code 19869-19877.1 falls within the ambit of the two-year limitation of aggregation of temporary disability payments in Labor Code section 4656 subdivision (c)(1), the court of appeals rules that, under the current statutory scheme, state employees are limited to a maximum of two years of combined temporary disability indemnity.

[12/05] Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.

[11/21] Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
In a subrogation action brought by an ERISA Fund wherein one of its members sought to have her medical expenses from an automobile accident paid by the Fund, summary judgment for plan administrators is affirmed whereby: 1) the Fund's state law subrogation claim was preempted by ERISA section 514, as the claim "relates to" the ERISA plan; and 2) the Fund's subrogation claim duplicated or supplemented a civil enforcement remedy available to the Fund under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.

More...