GOVERNMENT BENEFITS CASES

• Battle Creek Health Sys. v. Leavitt
• Novy v. Barnhart
• Samons v. Astrue
• Renfrow v. Astrue
• Coleman v. Astrue
• Christner v. Astrue
• Buytendorp v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc.
• Bonner v. Nicholson

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 14, 2007
Battle Creek Health Sys. v. Leavitt, No. 06-1775
In an action pursuant to the Social Security Act and Administrative Procedure Act brought by certain acute-care hospitals and participating Medicare providers challenging defendant's decision denying Medicare reimbursement for certain bad debts incurred by plaintiffs during 1999, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed as the decision disallowing Medicare reimbursement for the bad debts at issue was neither arbitrary nor inconsistent with the governing Medicare regulations, and was supported by substantial evidence. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 14, 2007
Novy v. Barnhart, No. 06-3897
Denial of social security disability benefits is affirmed where the administrative law judge was justified in finding that the applicant could cope with the challenges of ordinary everyday life. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 13, 2007
Samons v. Astrue, No. 06-2289
Denial of a claim for disability benefits and supplemental security income is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did not err in refusing to give significant wait to claimant's treating physician's opinion that she could not work, the ALJ did not have a duty to contact the physician, and a second letter did not alter that outcome; 2) the ALJ did not err in finding that claimant's testimony was not credible; and 3) a finding that claimant could return to her prior work as a cashier at a fast food restaurant was supported by substantial evidence. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 13, 2007
Renfrow v. Astrue, No. 06-3213
Summary judgment against claimant on a claim for social security disability insurance is affirmed as any error in an ALJ's failure to ask a vocational expert about possible conflicts between his opinion and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was harmless because no such conflict appeared to exist. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Coleman v. Astrue, No. 06-3434
A decision denying claimant's application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) failed to properly develop the record. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Christner v. Astrue, No. 06-3908
A decision denying claimant Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) the ALJ erroneously credited a lack of medical diagnoses of mental retardation, and claimant meets a listing for mental retardation; and 2) reconsideration was prudent as to whether there was substantial evidence that would remove claimant from the impairment listing for mental retardation. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 17, 2007
Buytendorp v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc., No. 06-1717/1725
In an action brought against plaintiff's employer raising a claim of retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, summary judgment for the employer is affirmed where: 1) a refusal-to-participate claim based on plaintiff's silence at a meeting was meritless; 2) assuming plaintiff met good faith reporting requirements, her employer proffered legitimate reasons for her termination, which plaintiff failed to show were pretextual; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to amend a scheduling order to permit a motion for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2007
Bonner v. Nicholson, No. 2005-7190
In a matter involving the widow of an admiral that passed away in 1975, a Board of Veterans' Appeals' determination that claimant was not entitled to an effective date earlier than November 1, 1994, for dependency and indemnity compensation is affirmed as the Veterans Court neither misinterpreted Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004), nor committed harmful error. Read more...