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

A chiropractor pleaded guilty to defrauding health insurers and to money laundering and was sentenced to 70 months (the bottom of the guidelines range) and to pay restitution of almost $2 million. At the guilty-plea hearing the judge asked the defendant whether he was “currently under the influence of any drugs, medicine, or alcohol,” and the defendant answered: “prescription medications.” He told the judge that he was taking medicines for “high anxiety, depression, adult attention hyperactivity disorder, and depression,” but stated that he was “thinking clearly.” He waived his right to appeal, but six weeks later moved to retract the plea, claiming that he had been taking psychotropic drugs, rendering his plea involuntary. The judge denied the motion because the defendant had presented no evidence that switching from Prozac to Lexapro could have the dramatic effects he claimed it had, and because at the plea hearing he had been alert and responsive and exhibited no signs of confusion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Unted States v. Hardimon" on Justia Law

Anderson, a U.S. Postal Service worker, suffers from asthma. While he is virtually symptom-free outside of the workplace, his asthma regularly flared up at his job as a part-time mail processor. Between 2002 and 2009, Anderson filed numerous Equal Employment Opportunity complaints, an Occupational Health and Safety Administration complaint, and union grievances relating to his condition, requesting reasonable accommodations. He was absent from work for extended periods of time throughout the 2002-2009 period. Anderson sued USPS, for alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701, and the Americans with Disability Act, for retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and violations of the Family Medical Leave Act. The district court granted USPS summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Anderson cannot point to temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action on the part of USPS. Nor did he present evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently or that USPS acted pretextually. View "Anderson v. Donahoe" on Justia Law

Fleishman began working for Continental in 1984 as a trial attorney defending workers’ compensation claims. Izzo oversaw the attorneys. Beginning in 2003, Fleishman suffered a series of medical problems related to a brain aneurism. He took intermittent medical leaves between July 2003 and June 2005. Izzo mentioned to Fleishman that his numbers “were off” because he was out on leave and inquired whether Fleishman thought about retirement. Fleishman declined and did not request another leave or accommodation after his return, although he had a noticeable dent on the side of his head. He was assigned to a new group that handled high-value cases. And his supervisor began receiving a series of performance-related complaints that ultimately led to his termination in 2007 at the age of 54. Fleishman filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623 (a)(1) and the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12112(a). The district court granted Continental summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Fleishman offered no evidence of age discrimination and does not meet the definition of disabled under the ADA. View "Fleishman v. Cont'l Cas. Co." on Justia Law

In 2004, Illinois enacted Hospital Provider Funding Legislation imposing a tax on hospital providers, except for certain categories of exempt hospitals, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 305 ILCS 5/5A-2(a). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services disallowed the reimbursement of Medicare expenses (42 U.S.C. 1395f(b)(1)) to a group of Illinois hospitals, finding that the amount of a tax assessment paid by the hospitals was a reasonable cost, but was subject to offset by any payments those hospitals received from an Illinois State fund. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the decision was not inconsistent with established policy. The court rejected an argument that the hospitals incurred the full cost of the tax, as they were billed by and wrote checks to the state, reasoning that the argument ignored the real net impact of the tax and of Access Payments by the state.View "Abraham Lincoln Mem'l Hosp. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Bontrager filed a putative class action complaint challenging Indiana’s $1,000 annual limit for dental services covered by Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. 1396. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, holding that Indiana is required to cover all medically necessary dental services, irrespective of the monetary cap. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Bontrager has an enforceable federal right capable of redress through Section 1983. The monetary cap, which excludes medically necessary treatment, is not a utilization control procedure, but allows a state to shirk its primary obligation to cover medically necessary treatments. The court acknowledged that Bontrager’s victory may be short-lived if the state decides to end coverage for all dental services. View "Bontrager v. IN Family & Soc. Servs." on Justia Law

In 2003, the airline established guidelines that address accommodating employees who, because of disability, can no longer do essential functions of their current jobs, even with reasonable accommodation. The guidelines specify that the transfer process is competitive, so that an employee in need of accommodation will not be automatically placed into a vacant position, but will be given preference over similarly qualified applicants. The EEOC challenged the policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court ruled in favor of the airline. On rehearing, en banc, the Seventh Circuit reversed and held that the ADA does mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer. The court concluded that contrary precedent did not survive in light of U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002). View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Filus, a 50-year-old former truck driver, has twice applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming that back problems have left him incapable of gainful employment. An administrative law judge concluded that Filus could perform some light work and denied his most recent application. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supports the denial. The ALJ adequately considered Filus’s testimony about the limiting effects of his pain along with his testimony that he regularly completed his daily household activities without any pain medication, not even over-the-counter products.View "Filus v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Claiming anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, insomnia, vertigo, migraine headaches, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, and plantar fasciitis, Farrell, then 33 year old, applied for disability insurance benefits. Her initial application was denied, but the Social Security Administration Appeals Council remanded. The Administrative Law Judge again ruled against her, in part because of her failure to establish definitively that she suffered from fibromyalgia. The Appeals Council summarily affirmed this decision, despite new evidence before it that confirmed the fibromyalgia. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Social Security Administration’s regulations require the Appeals Council to consider “new and material evidence.” The ALJ did not adequately deal with competing expert opinions. View "Farrell v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Feldman worked the day shift at Olin. Because of fibromyalgia and sleep apnea, his doctors had advised him to work regular day positions, without rotation and overtime. When Olin realigned its workforce, causing Feldman’s position to require rotating shifts, he tried to work under the new regime for a few weeks, but found it impossible. When he presented Olin with a medical restriction, Olin laid him off. It did not place him in a different position, claiming that no positions were available that did not require overtime or flextime. When a straight-day position opened Feldman successfully bid for it. Since then, Feldman has continued working at the plant. Feldman sued, alleging that failure to offer a reasonable accommodation in the form of a straight-day shift, without overtime, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111 and that, once he returned to work, Olin retaliated against him for having filed administrative complaints. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Feldman can prevail if genuinely disputed points are resolved in his favor: whether he is “disabled” under the ADA, and whether he is “qualified” to work certain positions. Feldman’s retaliation claims were properly dismissed for lack of evidence that adverse employment actions were caused by protected conduct. View "Feldman v. Olin Corp." on Justia Law

Jeranek, a beneficiary of the Humana Plan, was hospitalized in 2006. Three days later, she was admitted at Nu-Roc Nursing Home. She was 88 years old and suffered from a variety of maladies that required her to use 14 prescription medications. A physician estimated at the time of her admission that Jeranek had a life expectancy of about one year. Jeranek was a resident at Nu-Roc for 702 days. On several occasions she declined medical treatment and her physician understood that she was to receive comfort care only. From November 15 until November 19, 2006, Jeranek’s stay at Nu-Roc was paid for by Medicare. Humana paid $50,097.67 to Nu-Roc for services provided from November 20, 2006, to September 30, 2007, but later determined that its disbursement had been a mistake, reasoning that “custodial” care was not covered by the Plan. Humana sought reimbursement for its previous payments and denied coverage for October 1, 2007 through October 22, 2008, when costs for Jeranek’s care totaled $64,669.74. The district court determined that Humana’s denial of coverage was not arbitrary and granted summary judgment for the Plan. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Becker v. Chrysler LLC Health Care Benefits Plan" on Justia Law