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

Dr. William Partin filed a lawsuit against Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. and Dr. Daniel Eichenberger after he resigned from his position. Partin alleged that Baptist and Eichenberger retaliated against him in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and brought claims under Indiana law for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The dispute arose from Partin's treatment of a suicidal patient, J.C., in Baptist's emergency department, where Partin ordered procedures against J.C.'s will, leading to complaints from hospital staff.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of Baptist and Eichenberger. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that Partin engaged in EMTALA-protected activity or that he was retaliated against for such activity. The court also determined that Partin's breach of contract claim failed because the bylaws did not create a contractual relationship between Partin and Baptist, and his resignation was not under duress. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Partin's claims of tortious interference with contract or defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Partin did not engage in EMTALA-protected activity and that his belief in reporting a potential EMTALA violation was not objectively reasonable. The court also agreed that the bylaws did not create a contract between Partin and Baptist and that Partin's resignation was voluntary. Furthermore, the court found that Baptist's actions were justified and not malicious, and that the statements made by Eichenberger and Marksbury were protected by qualified privilege and not made in bad faith. View "Partin v Baptist Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

Mark Sorensen, owner of SyMed Inc., a Medicare-registered distributor of durable medical equipment, was involved in a business arrangement with PakMed LLC, Byte Success Marketing, and Dynamic Medical Management. They advertised orthopedic braces, obtained signed prescriptions from patients' doctors, distributed the braces, and collected Medicare reimbursements. Byte and KPN, another marketing firm, advertised the braces, and interested patients provided their information, which was forwarded to call centers. Sales agents then contacted patients, generated prescription forms, and faxed them to physicians for approval. Physicians retained discretion to sign and return the forms, with many choosing not to.A federal grand jury indicted Sorensen on four counts: one count of conspiracy and three counts of offering and paying kickbacks for Medicare referrals. The jury found Sorensen guilty on all counts. Sorensen moved for acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence and lack of awareness of the scheme's illegality. The district court denied his motions, finding the evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude Sorensen knew the fee structure and purchase of doctors' orders were illegal. Sorensen was sentenced to 42 months in prison but was released on bond pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment due to insufficient evidence. The court found that Sorensen's payments to PakMed, KPN, and Byte were for advertising, manufacturing, and shipping services, not for patient referrals. The court emphasized that the Anti-Kickback Statute targets payments to individuals with influence over healthcare decisions, which was not the case here. The court concluded that Sorensen's actions did not violate the statute, as there was no evidence of improper influence over physicians' independent medical judgment. View "USA v Sorensen" on Justia Law

Griffith Foods International and Sterigenics U.S. operated a medical supply sterilization plant in Willowbrook, Illinois, emitting ethylene oxide (EtO) over a 35-year period. In 2018, a report revealed high cancer rates in Willowbrook, allegedly due to these emissions. Griffith and Sterigenics faced over 800 lawsuits from residents claiming bodily injuries, including cancer, caused by the emissions. Griffith had obtained permits from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for the plant's operation, which included EtO emissions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case. Griffith and Sterigenics sought declarations that National Union Fire Insurance Company had a duty to defend them under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The district court ruled in favor of Griffith and Sterigenics, determining that the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies did not apply because the emissions were authorized by IEPA permits. The court relied on the Illinois appellate decision in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., which found ambiguity in the pollution exclusion when emissions were permitted by regulatory authorities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the importance of the pollution exclusion in CGL policies and the precedent set by the Illinois Supreme Court in American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms. The Seventh Circuit noted the conflicting interpretations between Koloms and Imperial Marble regarding the scope of the pollution exclusion. Given the significant implications for Illinois law and the insurance industry, the Seventh Circuit decided to certify the question to the Illinois Supreme Court to determine the relevance of regulatory permits in applying the pollution exclusion in CGL policies. View "Griffith Foods International Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg" on Justia Law

Rhonda Sutton was charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. At her arraignment in June 2018, the district court appointed counsel to represent her. Sutton pleaded not guilty in January 2020. After several delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the district court set her trial for November 2022. In September 2022, Sutton requested her attorneys to engage in plea negotiations, but she ultimately decided to proceed to trial. She then expressed dissatisfaction with her counsel and requested new representation. Her counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which the district court denied, citing no conflict or communication breakdown and suspecting a delay tactic.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Sutton's motion to substitute appointed counsel, finding no conflict or communication breakdown and suspecting her request was a delay tactic. The trial proceeded as scheduled, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. Post-trial, Sutton's counsel filed another motion to withdraw, which the district court granted, appointing new counsel for sentencing. At sentencing, Sutton raised objections to the proposed conditions of supervised release, but she waived her challenge to one condition by not objecting at the appropriate time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Sutton raised two issues on appeal: the denial of her pretrial motion to withdraw and the constitutionality of a supervised release condition. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw, as Sutton had no right to insist on counsel she could not afford, and her request appeared to be a delay tactic. The court also found that Sutton waived her challenge to the supervised release condition by not objecting at the appropriate time. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v Sutton" on Justia Law

Dr. Judith Robinson, a former employee of HealthNet, a federally qualified health center in Indiana, brought a qui tam action against HealthNet, alleging fraudulent billing practices, including improper Medicaid billing for ultrasound readings. She claimed that HealthNet billed Medicaid for face-to-face encounters that did not occur. Dr. Robinson initially filed a suit in 2013 (Robinson I), which was settled in 2017, excluding the wrap-around claims. These claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing for future litigation.In 2019, Dr. Robinson filed a new suit (Robinson II) to address the wrap-around claims. The United States declined to intervene, but Indiana did. Indiana moved to dismiss all claims except for the wrap-around claims from October 18, 2013, to February 28, 2015, as the rest were time-barred. The district court dismissed Count III of Dr. Robinson's complaint, which sought to enforce an alleged oral settlement agreement, due to lack of standing, as Dr. Robinson failed to provide competent proof of the agreement's existence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Count III, agreeing that Dr. Robinson lacked standing because she did not demonstrate any breach of the alleged oral agreement by HealthNet. The court also upheld the district court's approval of the settlement between Indiana and HealthNet, finding it fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court noted that the reduction in the relator’s share was due to Dr. Robinson's own actions, including the failure to obtain a tolling agreement, which led to many claims being time-barred. The court also agreed with the application of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) in calculating the settlement amount. View "Robinson v. Healthnet, Inc." on Justia Law

Henry Jones, a prisoner, filed a lawsuit against nurse Amanda Lamb, alleging that she refused to provide him medical treatment for a broken hand and later denied him pain medication. Jones claimed he could not exhaust administrative remedies because prison officials did not deliver responses to his grievances. Lamb raised the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Lamb, concluding that Jones had unexhausted administrative remedies available for both claims. The court found Jones's assertion that he did not receive the grievance responses not credible, particularly because he had attached his counselor's response to his complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether administrative remedies were available to Jones for his medical treatment claim. Specifically, the court found that Jones's declaration that he did not receive the warden's decisions created a genuine issue of fact that should have precluded summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision on this claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the exhaustion dispute.However, the court affirmed the district court's decision regarding Jones's pain medication claim. Jones did not contest that he received a response directing him to resubmit his grievance and failed to do so. Thus, the court concluded that Jones had unexhausted administrative remedies available for this claim.The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Jones v. Lamb" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by transgender women prisoners in Illinois, who allege that the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) has been deliberately indifferent to their gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to ensure timely evaluations and treatments, including hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery, and appropriate support for social transitioning.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially issued a preliminary injunction on February 7, 2022, which was intended to address the plaintiffs' claims. The court later issued further injunctions to supplement and modify the terms. However, more than a year and a half after the preliminary injunction was issued, the district court retroactively labeled it as a permanent injunction and issued a final judgment consistent with the February 7, 2022 decision. The defendants appealed several injunctions and a finding of civil contempt by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court's attempt to retroactively transform the preliminary injunction into a permanent one was not authorized. The appellate court held that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the preliminary injunction issued on February 7, 2022, expired 90 days later, on May 8, 2022. Consequently, the appellate court vacated all existing injunctions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the finding of contempt, as the district court had not yet imposed any sanctions, which are necessary to establish appellate jurisdiction. View "Monroe v. Bowman" on Justia Law

Carl McDaniel, a Wisconsin prisoner with multiple serious medical conditions, sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, claiming the Department violated his rights by denying him a cell in a no-stairs unit, a single-occupancy cell, and a bed without a top bunk. He also brought an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Salam Syed, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department on all claims and for Dr. Syed on the Eighth Amendment claim. McDaniel appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin initially handled the case. McDaniel, representing himself, submitted evidence that he missed approximately 600 meals in one year due to the pain and difficulty of navigating stairs to access meals and medications. The district court, however, largely discounted McDaniel’s factual statements and granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that McDaniel’s cell assignment was reasonable and that his medical treatment did not violate the Eighth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the Department on the claims for a single-occupancy cell and no top bunk, as well as the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Syed. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the refusal to assign McDaniel to a no-stairs unit. The court found that McDaniel presented sufficient evidence that the denial of a no-stairs unit effectively denied him access to meals and medications, which could be seen as an intentional violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The court also held that McDaniel’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims for compensatory damages survived his release from prison and his death.The Seventh Circuit concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the denial of a no-stairs unit amounted to an intentional violation of McDaniel’s rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and that the Department was not entitled to sovereign immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "McDaniel v. Syed" on Justia Law

Angela Midthun-Hensen and Tony Hensen sought insurance coverage for therapies for their daughter K.H.'s autism from Group Health Cooperative between 2017 and 2019. The insurer denied coverage, citing a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of speech therapy for a child K.H.'s age and sensory-integration therapy for autism at any age. The family's employer-sponsored plan only covered "evidence-based" treatments. After several medical reviews and appeals upheld the insurer's decision, the parents sued, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and state law regarding autism coverage.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled in favor of the insurer, finding no violations of state law or ERISA. The plaintiffs then focused on their claim that the insurer's actions violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), which mandates equal treatment limitations for mental and physical health benefits. They argued that the insurer applied the "evidence-based" requirement more stringently to autism therapies than to chiropractic care, which they claimed lacked scientific support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the insurer's reliance on medical literature, which varied in its recommendations based on patient age, was permissible under the Parity Act. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the insurer's treatment limitations for mental health benefits were more restrictive than those applied to "substantially all" medical and surgical benefits, as required by the statute. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' focus on a single medical benefit was insufficient to prove a violation of the Parity Act. View "Midthun-Hensen v. Group Health Cooperative of South Central, Inc.," on Justia Law

Pearl Ray and Andrew Ray, Sr. sued medical providers in Illinois state court for medical malpractice, which allegedly injured Pearl and caused Andrew to suffer a loss of consortium. They settled with all but one defendant. Pearl was enrolled in a federal health benefits plan, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) was the plan’s carrier. Under the plan, BCBSA sought reimbursement from the settlement for benefits paid to Pearl. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reduce BCBSA’s reimbursement by their attorney’s fees and costs under Illinois’s common fund doctrine.The case was removed to federal court by BCBSA, arguing federal question jurisdiction and federal officer removal. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the remand motion but later reconsidered and remanded the entire case, concluding it lacked federal question jurisdiction. BCBSA appealed, asserting federal question jurisdiction and federal officer removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present, as federal common law did not govern the reimbursement dispute, following the precedent set by Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz. However, the court found that BCBSA met the requirements for federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, as it was acting under a federal agency (OPM) and had a colorable federal defense.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded, instructing the district court to exercise jurisdiction over the motion for adjudication while remanding the rest of the case to state court. View "Ray v. Tabriz" on Justia Law