GOVERNMENT BENEFITS CASES

• Cruse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
• US v. Dearing
• Miller v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.
• Cienega Gardens v. US
• Capitol People First v. Dep't of Developmental Servs.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 24, 2007
Cruse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 06-5772
A decision finding that claimant was not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act is affirmed over claims that: 1) the Commissioner afforded less than the proper amount of weight to the opinions of her treating physician and nurse practitioner; 2) the Commissioner erred in finding claimant's testimony about disabling pain, other symptoms, and functional limitations, less than credible; 3) the decision finding claimant was not disabled was not supported by substantial evidence; and 4) the Commissioner erred by failing to present vocational expert testimony. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 25, 2007
US v. Dearing, No. 06-30606
A conviction for aiding and abetting health care fraud arising from a scheme to defraud Idaho Medicaid by submitting false billings from a mental health clinic that defendant owned and operated with his brother is affirmed over claims that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to convict because there was no evidence that he acted with willful intent; and 2) the district court erred in permitting a jury instruction that allowed a finding of guilt based upon reckless indifference rather than willful intent. Read more...

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 25, 2007
Miller v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., No. 05-2247
In an action challenging defendant-plan administrator's denial of a request for long-term disability benefits, summary judgment for administrator is reversed and remanded as: 1) the district court erred in interpreting the plan according to New Mexico law as ERISA governs the terms of defendant's master-group insurance policy; and 2) applying the proper standard, the plan was ambiguous because a reasonable plan participant could easily conclude that a Title XVI award coupled with a finding of physical disability would constitute a "Social Security Disability Award" for purposes of the benefits sought. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, September 25, 2007
Cienega Gardens v. US, No. 2006-5051, 2006-5052
In cases involve takings claims arising from the enactment of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act (ELIHPA) and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act (LIHPRHA), a judgment holding that the enactment of those statutes effected a taking is vacated and remanded where the Court of Federal Claims erred as a matter of law in certain respects in finding that certain restrictions imposed by LIHPRHA resulted in a taking. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, September 25, 2007
Capitol People First v. Dep't of Developmental Servs., No. A113168
In suit brought by group of persons with developmental disabilities against defendants to secure their entitlement to community living arrangements under the Lanterman Act, denial of class certification is reversed where the court based its decision on improper criteria and erroneous legal assumptions. Read more...