Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves Asif Sayeed and three associated healthcare companies who were found liable for violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act, resulting in a nearly $6 million judgment. Sayeed owned a healthcare management company, Management Principles, Inc. (MPI), which managed two smaller companies that provided home-based medical services to Medicare recipients in Illinois. Sayeed's companies received a significant amount of their business from the Healthcare Consortium of Illinois. In December 2010, Sayeed devised a scheme to bypass the Consortium’s referral process by directly soliciting its clients for additional services. MPI signed a Management Services Agreement with the Consortium, which gave MPI full access to its clients’ healthcare data. MPI used this information to identify and directly solicit Medicare-eligible seniors who might want or need additional healthcare services.The district court held a bench trial in July 2019 and found that Sayeed and his companies had not violated the Anti-Kickback Statute or False Claims Act because they had paid the Consortium with the intent to obtain information, not patient referrals. The plaintiff appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the decision, concluding that the defendants' conduct qualified as a form of indirect referral giving rise to an unlawful kickback scheme.On remand, the district court found the defendants liable under both the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act. The court imposed $5,940,972.16 in damages, which it calculated by trebling the value of the Medicare claims it deemed false and then adding a per-claim penalty of $5,500. The defendants appealed, challenging both the damages award and the underlying finding of liability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of liability but reversed in part to permit the district court to clarify which Medicare claims, all or some, resulted from the defendants’ illegal kickback scheme. View "Stop Illinois Health Care Fraud, LLC v. Sayeed" on Justia Law

The case revolves around John Sabo, who was sentenced to a probation term that exceeded the maximum limit set by Wisconsin law. After his probation should have ended, he was imprisoned for violating its conditions. Sabo sued two groups of defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Sheri Hicks and Debra Haley, officials from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections who failed to correct his unlawful probation term, and Megan Erickson and Barb Hanson, the probation officers who enforced it. Sabo alleged that all four defendants violated his right of due process and showed deliberate indifference to his unjustified imprisonment.The district court dismissed all claims against Hicks and Haley, and most against Erickson and Hanson, before entering summary judgment for Erickson and Hanson on the deliberate indifference and unreasonable seizure claims. Sabo appealed the dismissal of his claims against Hicks and Haley.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Sabo's complaint stated claims of deliberate indifference against Hicks and Haley. The court held that assuming all facts and inferences in Sabo’s favor, the record did not compel a finding of qualified immunity for Hicks and Haley. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal of those claims. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects, including the summary judgment for Erickson and Hanson on the deliberate indifference and unreasonable seizure claims. View "Sabo v. Erickson" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit brought against the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) by four parents who were convicted of sex offenses and were on mandatory supervised release (MSR). The plaintiffs challenged an IDOC policy that restricts contact between a parent convicted of a sex offense and their minor child while the parent is on MSR. The plaintiffs argued that this policy violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process.The district court upheld the policy, with two exceptions. It ruled that the policy's ban on written communications was unconstitutional and that IDOC must allow a parent to submit a written communication addressed to their child for review and decision within seven calendar days. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the policy's restrictions on phone and in-person contact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that the policy does not violate procedural due process. However, it held that the policy's ban on phone contact violates substantive due process. The court found that call monitoring is a ready alternative to the phone-contact ban that accommodates the plaintiffs’ right to enjoy the companionship of their children at a de minimis cost to IDOC’s penological interests. View "Montoya v. Jeffreys" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Brenda Warnell, who applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act in 2019. Warnell claimed she was unable to work due to debilitating migraines and chronic pain in her back, shoulders, and neck. Her medical record was mixed, with some physicians assessing her as having severely limited functional capacity, while others found her capable of limited physical exertion.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Warnell's claim, finding that the medical evidence did not substantiate the severity of her alleged functional limitations. The ALJ concluded that Warnell's pain symptoms did not prevent her from performing light work with moderate noise and limited physical requirements. The ALJ's decision was affirmed by the district court.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Warnell challenged the ALJ's decision, arguing that the ALJ needed to provide more detailed accounts of the medical evidence. The court rejected this argument, stating that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and met the light standard set by the Supreme Court. The court found that the ALJ had provided a sufficient explanation for her decision, highlighting specific evidence that contradicted Warnell's claims and addressing conflicting evidence. The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, rejecting Warnell's claim that the ALJ needed to provide more detailed accounts of the medical evidence. View "Warnell v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The case arose from a drug trafficking operation led by Keith White in an Indiana prison. White, along with others, was indicted for conspiracy to distribute heroin after three inmates died of drug overdoses. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced under enhanced penalties due to his criminal history, which included two felony convictions for cocaine dealing. This was his second appeal challenging his sentence.White argued that his status as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines was improperly determined based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor v. Wilkie. He contended that the guideline’s definition of a “controlled substance offense” unambiguously excluded inchoate offenses, such as conspiracy, and thus the application note expanding this definition deserved no deference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed. It noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor did not unsettle Stinson v. United States, which provided that commentary in the Guidelines interpreting or explaining a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution, a federal statute, or is inconsistent with the guideline. Thus, the court deferred to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of the career-offender guideline.Additionally, the court rejected White's argument that the “major questions doctrine” invalidated the application note. The court concluded that the application note was not a “transformative expansion” of the Sentencing Commission’s authority, and, therefore, the doctrine did not apply. The court affirmed the judgment. View "USA v. White" on Justia Law

In this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the plaintiff, Kelly Chavez, had been denied supplemental security income due to her various mental and physical impairments. The administrative law judge (ALJ) at a hearing found that Chavez could perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the economy. This decision was affirmed by the district court, leading to this appeal. Chavez contended that the vocational expert's testimony, which the ALJ relied on, did not provide substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision.The vocational expert, Sarah Holmes, testified that a person with Chavez's age, background, and ability could perform several light exertion jobs, such as cleaner, office helper, and storage rental clerk. She used a software program, Job Browser Pro, to estimate the number of jobs, which uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Chavez's main argument was that Holmes did not explain Job Browser Pro's underlying formula, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable. However, the court held that Holmes's testimony provided substantial evidence for the ALJ's finding. The court highlighted that Holmes used a generally accepted source of job numbers, provided a straightforward overview of how the source worked, offered to provide additional information about the source's underlying formula, and identified jobs commonly found in the national economy. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Chavez v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois that a tin can filled with energetic powder, sealed with adhesive, and outfitted with a fuse qualifies as a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act.The case involved Jeffrey E. Creek, who was found in possession of such a device, firearms, magazines, ammunition, and a silencer that had been shipped from China. Creek was subsequently charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. At his sentencing hearing, the district court applied a two-level "destructive device" enhancement in calculating his Guidelines range.Creek appealed the decision, arguing that his device was a firework and not a destructive device. However, the appellate court found that the district court correctly classified the device as a bomb under the National Firearms Act due to it having a metal casing, an adhesive seal, explosive powder, and a fuse. It was irrelevant that Creek intended to use the device as a firework, as the device was fully assembled and fit the definition of a destructive device.Creek also challenged the district court's consideration of his criminal history and substance abuse disorder in his sentencing. However, the appellate court dismissed these arguments, stating that the district court correctly exercised its discretion in considering Creek's full criminal history and the risk to public safety. As a result, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "USA v. Creek" on Justia Law

The case involves Suzy Martin, the owner and president of Smart Elevators Co., a certified minority- and woman-owned elevator service and repair company. The company, which historically did most of its business with the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, saw its customer base change after a whistleblower complaint alleged that Martin and her company engaged in a bribery and kickback scheme with a University of Illinois Chicago employee. This led to an investigation by the Office of the Executive Inspector General for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor (OEIG), which concluded that Martin, Smart Elevators, and the University employee had engaged in a kickback scheme that violated Illinois ethics law and University policy and recommended that the University sever ties with Martin and her company.As a result of the report, the State and City ceased doing business with Martin and Smart Elevators, causing the company to lose millions in preexisting and potential contracts. Martin sued several State and City entities and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bringing “stigma-plus” procedural due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed her amended complaint with prejudice.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that Martin's occupation was operating an elevator service and repair business, not just providing those services specifically to the State or City. The court also found that despite the loss of State and City contracts, Martin had not been denied her liberty to pursue her occupation as she remained the owner and operator of Smart Elevators, which continued to operate and even managed to secure a contract with the Department of Justice in 2021. As such, the court found no violation of Martin's occupational liberty rights. View "Martin v. Haling" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Todd Hess, applied for supplemental security income, disability insurance benefits, and disabled adult child benefits, all of which are administered by the Social Security Administration. While his claims for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits were approved, his claim for disabled adult child benefits was denied. To qualify for disabled adult child benefits, Hess had to prove that he had a disability that continued uninterrupted from before his 22nd birthday until the filing of his application for benefits. He claimed that his depression, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and other impairments made him disabled during that entire period. However, after two hearings, an Administrative Law Judge disagreed, concluding that Hess was disabled as of June 9, 2009, but not before then. The ALJ's decision was based on gaps in Hess's treatment history, notes from his physicians, and occasional work he performed as an independent contractor. The Appeals Council did not assume jurisdiction, and the district court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hess v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

Four Iranian nationals, who had previously completed mandatory military service in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), were denied visas to enter the United States. Their family members, three U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident, filed a suit against the President and several federal officials responsible for visa applications. They alleged that the defendants unlawfully deprived visa applicants the opportunity to establish eligibility for terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) exemptions, violating their rights under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which bars judicial review of consular decisions. The Plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability applied, and that the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of bad faith that could overcome this doctrine. The court also held that the applicants were not entitled to any more explanation for their visa denials than the citation to the section of the law on which the denial was based. View "Pak v. Biden" on Justia Law