GOVERNMENT BENEFITS CASES

• US ex rel. Bogart v. King Pharm.
• US v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr.
• Sosebee v. Barnhart
• Wilson v. Astrue
• Orn v. Astrue
• Ball v. Rodgers
• Becker vs. Kroll

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2007
US ex rel. Bogart v. King Pharm., No. 06-2098
In qui tam litigation brought against pharmaceutical companies, a district court's ruling rejecting plaintiff's claim for additional attorney's fees following certain settlements is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless contentions that he was entitled to be paid up to one-third of those settlements' total as attorney's fees under a common fund theory of recovery. Read more...

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 17, 2007
US v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 06-2287
In a qui tam action under the False Claims Act involving, inter alia, alleged false Medicare claims and invoices, an order denying reconsideration of summary judgment for defendants and denying an alternate remedy pursuant to 31 U.S.C. section 3730(c)(5) is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly found that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that defendants' conduct satisfied the FCA's scienter requirement; 2) there was no evidence that plaintiff's employer knew that he was acting in furtherance of an FCA claim when it fired him, for purposes of a retaliation claim; and 3) the district court properly rejected a claim to a share of money repaid by defendant to the government. A relator is not entitled to a share in the proceeds of an alternate remedy when the relator's qui tam action under section 3729 is invalid. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 17, 2007
Sosebee v. Barnhart, No. 06-3326
Denial of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in a petition for social security disability benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) petitioner's proof of financial eligibility, while informal, was adequate; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's Rule 59(e) motion. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 19, 2007
Wilson v. Astrue, No. 06-3627
Denial of disability benefits is reversed and remanded where the ALJ did not articulate why a hypothetical question posed to a vocational expert that closely encompassed the applicant's residual functional capacity was not persuasive in the final assessment. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2007
Orn v. Astrue, No. 05-16181
Denial of an application for Social Security benefits is reversed and remanded for a calculation of beneifts where: 1) the ALJ did not give "specific, legitimate reasons...that are based on substantial evidence in the record" for dismissing the opinions of claimant's two treating physicians; 2) the ALJ erred in discrediting claimant's testimony as the ALJ's reasons for doing so were not clear and convincing; and 3) when such testimony and opinions are credited, claimant established he is disabled. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 17, 2007
Ball v. Rodgers, No. 04-16963
In an action brought by a certified class of elderly, physically disabled, and developmentally disabled Medicaid beneficiaries alleging Arizona is failing to provide them with adequate home- and community-based health care services in violation of the Medicaid Act, a judgment against defendants is affirmed in part, and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) under a recent circuit court decision, a ruling that Arizona violated the Medicaid Acts equal access provision was error; 2) however, the Medicaid Act's free choice provisions confer upon the Medicaid beneficiaries individual rights that can be enforced under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and 3) a remand was required for further proceedings and determinations. Read more...

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 19, 2007
Becker vs. Kroll, No. 05-4070
In a suit alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state libel claims after an abandoned disciplinary action against a physician, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed on plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment malicious prosecution claims, but reversed where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a non-immune defendant influenced the decision to prosecute plaintiff in retaliation for protected speech, and where plaintiff showed sufficient evidence of malice to survive summary judgment on her libel claims. Read more...