Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff applied for disability benefits, alleging that, as of August 2016, she was unable to work because of degenerative disc disease, bulging and herniated discs, other spine issues, fatigue, migraines, asthma, fatty liver, and food allergies. The district court affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge denying Plaintiff's claims. The district court determined that section 404.1520c, and not the treating-physician rule, applied to Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff argued that the court's earlier precedents establishing and applying the treating-physician rule are still good law, notwithstanding the promulgation of section 404.1520c.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the new regulation validly abrogated the treating-physician rule and applied to Plaintiff’s claim. The court found that the new regulation instructs administrative law judges to give a treating physician’s opinion no deference and instead to weigh medical opinions based on their persuasiveness. The Social Security Act (“Act”) conferred “exceptionally broad authority” to the Commissioner “to prescribe standards for applying certain sections of the . . . Act.” The court explained that it has never held that the treating-physician rule is unambiguously required by the Act.   Here, Plaintiff filed her disability claim on April 28, 2017, after the effective date for section 404.1520c. And because section 404.1520 forbids administrative law judges from “defer[ring] or giv[ing] any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s),” 20 C.F.R. Section 404.1520c(a), the administrative law judge did not err by declining to give more weight to the medical opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. View "Zinta Harner v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs worked as property damage investigators for OSP Prevention Group. After their employment with OSP ended, Plaintiffs brought Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims against the company and its owner (collectively, “OSP”) for unpaid overtime wages. The district court granted summary judgment in OSP’s favor after concluding that Plaintiff fit within an FLSA exemption covering “administrative” employees. They both contend that they weren’t administrative employees but instead were “production” employees who performed the core service that OSP sold to its clients: investigating damage to property.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court finding that OSP has failed to show that the FLSA’s administrative exemption applies to Plaintiffs. The court explained that Plaintiffs engaged in OSP’s core function of damage investigations. Given the nature of their employer’s business, their investigative factfinding duties amounted to production work. Those duties did not involve “work directly related to [OSP’s] management or general business operations.” 29 C.F.R. Section 541.200(a)(2). The court wrote it need not address whether their work met the additional administrative exemption requirement of “includ[ing] the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” Section  541.200(a)(3). Both requirements must be met for the exemption to apply. View "Philip Fowler, et al v. OSP Prevention Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs accused the City of Doraville, Georgia, of violating their right to due process. Each of the four Plaintiffs received citations from the City for traffic or property code violations and were ordered to pay fines and fees by the municipal court. They allege that this process presented an unconstitutional risk of bias because the City’s budget heavily relies on fines and fees, and this reliance could encourage the judge, prosecutor, and law enforcement agents—all paid by the City—to overzealously enforce the law. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that Doraville’s prosecutor has a financial incentive to bring more cases because, like the judge, his income supposedly depends on his ability to generate revenue for the City.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City finding that Plaintiffs have not raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning the bias of Doraville’s judge, its prosecutor, its police, or its code enforcement agents. The court held while unwise for a government to rely on fines and fees to balance its budget, the importance of fines and fees to a city’s budget does not make its procedures for imposing fines and fees unconstitutional.   The court explained that the fact a judge works for a government, which gets a significant portion of its revenues from fines and fees, is not enough to establish an unconstitutional risk of bias on the part of the judge. Further, given the relaxed standard of impartiality for prosecutors, Plaintiffs have presented inadequate evidence that the prosecutor had a personal financial interest. View "Hilda Brucker, et al. v. City of Doraville" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit was tasked with determining whether the Tampa Electric Company violated OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response  (“HAZWOPER”) standard when employees at one of its power plants responded to an ammonia release without donning certain protective gear.   The case arose when one of the underground pipes became over-pressurized, and, as it was designed to do, the system automatically diverted ammonia from that pipe to the sump. About 45 minutes after the ammonia began to vent, a security guard heard the alarm sounding at the skid and smelled ammonia. He began having trouble breathing and reported the leak. Once notified, control-room personnel dispatched “rovers”—specially trained response employees—to manage the ammonia release   Because the rovers arrived at the skid without a “self-contained breathing apparatus[es],” OSHA fined Tampa Electric $9,054 under 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.120(q)(3)(iv). Tampa Electric appealed the citation. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) held that Tampa Electric’s response to the ammonia release wasn’t an “emergency response” within the meaning of the HAZWOPER standard and, therefore, that the company hadn’t violated that standard. The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed the order of the Commission. The court held that the release here was controlled— or, in the words of the regulation, that it wasn’t “uncontrolled.” Because the response to it wasn’t an “emergency response,” the HAZWOPER standard didn’t apply to the rovers’ conduct. And because the HAZWOPER standard didn’t apply, Tampa Electric didn’t violate it. View "U.S. Department of Labor v. Tampa Electric Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff an attorney employed by the Atlanta Housing Authority (“AHA”), which is a recipient of federal grant funds—was fired after challenging the negotiation tactics of AHA’s new CEO (“CEO”). Plaintiff’s complaints filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) inspector general and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia were both dismissed for failure to state a claim under the NDAA.   On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erroneously concluded that Section 4712 did not apply to her as an employee of a federal “grantee,” and erroneously found that she merely alleged a difference of opinion, not a specific violation of a contract or grant.   The Eleventh Circuit agreed with Plaintiff that she falls within the class of disclosing persons protected by Section 4712, however, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court explained that when Congress and the President enacted Section 4712 of the NDAA, they extended its protections to employees of federal grantees, not just federal contractors. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court’s holding that employees like Plaintiff could not qualify for whistleblower protections. However, Plaintiff failed to show that her belief that the CEO’s actions evinced gross mismanagement was reasonable. Nor did she show that she had a reasonable belief that the CEO’s actions constituted an abuse of authority or a violation of a law, rule, or regulation. Thus, Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "Karen Fuerst v. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s doctors prescribed him Optune, a medical technology that had recently received FDA approval for treating recurrent GBM. The device delivers tumor treating field therapy (TTFT) to inhibit cancer-cell replication. A company called Novocure is the sole supplier of the Optune device, which is rented by patients on a monthly basis.   Because Plaintiff is a Medicare Part B beneficiary, he and Novocure asked Medicare to cover his TTFT. Novocure was held liable for the claims. Plaintiff and Novocure submitted 13 claims to Medicare, corresponding to 13 months of TTFT. The district court held that Plaintiff lacked standing because he hadn’t suffered an injury in fact.   The Eleventh Circuit was tasked with deciding whether Plaintiff has standing to challenge a denial of Medicare coverage where the costs of his treatment were imposed not on him, but rather on a third-party supplier. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that Plaintiff hadn’t suffered an injury in fact.   Here, Plaintiff’s alleged harm will only come to pass due to the challenged action if, at some indefinite point in the future: (1) his condition worsens, (2) he has paid his premiums and stayed on Medicare Part B, (3) he elects to resume TTFT, (4) his doctor prescribes the therapy (5) Plaintiff receives the treatment, (6) he files a claim, (7) which is denied at every level of the Medicare appeals process, (8) the adjudicators determine that Plaintiff’s hypothetical future case presents a “comparable situation,” and (9) they further find that the instant coverage denial and no other source put Plaintiff on notice that he could be held liable. View "Edwin R. Banks v. Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

Great Lakes Insurance SE (“Great Lakes”) and Wave Cruiser LLC (“Wave Cruiser”) were involved in an insurance dispute. Wave Cruiser purchased an “all risks” insurance policy from Great Lakes covering a vessel that Wave Cruiser had recently acquired. The policy did not cover engine damage unless an accidental external event caused the damage. After Wave Cruiser purchased the policy, the vessel suffered catastrophic engine failure. Wave Cruiser submitted a claim on its policy. Great Lakes denied the claim, explaining that Wave Cruiser had not shown that an external event caused the engine damage.   Great Lakes filed suit for a declaratory judgment that Wave Cruiser’s policy did not afford coverage for the loss. Wave Cruiser filed counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment to Great Lakes. The district court concluded that Wave Cruiser failed to come forward with evidence that an external event caused the engine damage.   The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that Wave Cruiser had the burden to come forward with evidence that an external event caused the engine failure. The court held that (1) the district court did not err by placing the burden on Wave Cruiser to provide evidence that an external event caused the vessel’s port engine to fail, and (2) the district court committed harmless error by considering inadmissible expert opinion testimony. View "Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Wave Cruiser LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant over 107 acres of land that Plaintiff says should have been included in a mortgage signed over to him in 2012 from Defendant’s father-in-law. That mortgage was the major part of a settlement agreement between the assignor and Plaintiff and was handed over as a way of compensating Plaintiff for his share of profits. The parties agree that those 107 acres—known as “Parcel A”—were not part of the mortgaged property. But Plaintiff thinks that Parcel A should have been a part of the mortgage and that it was left out because of fraud or mistake. Defendant maintains that Parcel A was never a part of the deal and that the mortgage accurately reflects the parties’ agreement. Plaintiff sued Defendant asserting a claim for reformation.   The district court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (later) denied Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s claim for reformation is barred by the statute of limitations and the claim fails on the merits.  The court explained Alabama law provides that “[a]ctions for the recovery of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or the possession thereof” must be “commenced within 10 years” from the date on which the cause of action arises. Ala. Code Section 6-2-33(2) the assignor executed and delivered the mortgage to the clerk of court in 2006. But Plaintiff waited thirteen years—until 2019—to file this action. His claim is therefore untimely.  Further, because Plaintiff’s reformation claim is time-barred, the court needn’t reach its merits. View "A.M. Samara v. Thomas Keith Taylor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action against several DeKalb County, Georgia investigators, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights during his arrest. Plaintiff claimed that S.D. used excessive force when he shot him three times, that V.J. used excessive force when he pistol-whipped him, and that all three Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on every claim.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for V.J. on the pistol-whip claim. But affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for S.D. on the shooting claim and for all Defendants on the deprivation of medical care claim.   The court held that V.J. used excessive force in pistol-whipping Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s right to be free of V.J.’s use of force was clearly established at the time. Further, viewing the facts through the appropriate lens, V.J. could not have reasonably believed that Plaintiff was resisting when he tried to sit up after communicating that he needed to do so to breathe. And because “a handcuffed, non-resisting [suspect’s] right to be free from excessive force was clearly established” at the time, V.J is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against him.   Finally, even though Plaintiff met his burden that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, the court concluded that there was no established law on how long before officers must request medical care for a suspect that has been shot to constitute deliberate indifference. View "Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Jewish inmate at the Broward County Main Jail in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, did not participate in Passover in 2018 because he failed to register 45 days prior to its celebration as required by the Jail’s policy. Proceeding pro se, he sued Broward Sheriff’s Office Chaplains under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging violations of his rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc-1(a), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court first held the 45-day registration requirement did not constitute a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s exercise of his Jewish faith under the RLUIPA, and therefore it also did not violate the First Amendment’s more lenient reasonableness standard. Second, the electronic posting of the 45-day registration requirement on the Jail’s computer kiosk, which he and other inmates used to communicate with Jail staff, provided adequate notice of the registration requirement to satisfy due process. The court explained that if a claim fails under the RLUIPA—which embeds a heightened standard for government restrictions of the free exercise of religion—it necessarily fails under the First Amendment. View "Bradley Dorman v. Chaplains Office BSO, et al" on Justia Law