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

Posada, a licensed chiropractor, owned and operated Spine Clinics, a Medicare-enrolled provider. Posada was indicted for a scheme to defraud Medicare and other insurers by submitting fraudulent claims and falsely representing that certain health care services were provided. The prosecution presented evidence that Posada billed the insurers for deceased patients and services never performed, created fake files, and failed to document the actual services rendered. Witnesses from Medicare and an insurer testified regarding the thousands of claims submitted. Two physical therapists also testified about the services they performed for Spine Clinics, how they billed Posada, and that they never performed many of the services for which he charged. Convicted of 18 counts of health care fraud, Posada’s PSR indicated an offense level of 26, based on a $4,087,736 loss amount, and recommended a term of incarceration of 63-78 months. To calculate that amount the prosecution reviewed Spine Clinic's files and when no treatment documentation was present, the amount billed was treated as a loss. The prosecution credited Posada with treating 20 patients a day, three days a week every week during the period of the fraud. Posada argued for an estimate of 25-26 patients per day and a loss amount less than $3.5 million. The district court accepted the government’s calculation and found a loss amount of $4,087,736. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that amount and Posada’s 60-month sentence, noting that the calculation was supported by the evidence at trial. View "United States v. Posada" on Justia Law

Arriving at Kirk’s house, Kirk and Herman saw that Kirk's mother, Daniels, had a Jimenez Arms handgun tucked into her purse. She allowed Herman to handle the gun. Herman pulled out a revolver and said, “stay seated. I don’t want to blow you guys back, but I will if I have to,” then ran outside. Kirk and Daniels pursued him. Herman spun around, with a gun in each hand, and fired a shot that flew past Daniels’s head. Herman pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g). On remand, the court adopted the version of events set forth in the PSR, to add two offense levels because Herman “physically restrained” his victims, U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B); seven levels because a firearm was discharged; and one level because a firearm was taken. It subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility and calculated a recommended guidelines range of 120-150 months. The court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months.The Seventh Circuit vacated, agreeing with the circuits that have found that more than pointing a gun at someone and ordering that person not to move is necessary for the application of section 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). The court “disapproved” prior holdings that allowed for the application of the enhancement based solely on psychological coercion, including the coercion of being held at gunpoint. The court requested the Clerk of Court to send the opinion to the U.S. Sentencing Commission for consideration. View "United States v. Herman" on Justia Law

A CTA bus passenger threatened Pickett, the driver. He took six months off from work while recovering. After his physician concluded that he could return to work (though not as a driver), Pickett requested a light-duty job. He was given one but four days later he was told that the CTA was not ready to permit his return to work. Pickett had been told that before returning to work he needed to complete a (provided) form and report to CTA’s Leave Management Services office, which would administer tests (including a drug screen). He ignored those directions until 2017. He was then approved for work and retired five days later. Before visiting Leave Management Services in 2017 he had filed an EEOC charge of age discrimination, claiming that during 2015 he saw persons younger than himself doing light-duty tasks. After receiving his right-to-sue letter, Pickett sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621–34. The district court granted the CTA summary judgment after denying Pickett’s request for appointed counsel without explanation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court’s failure to explain its decision was harmless error. Pickett has not shown how a lawyer could have helped him overcome his biggest obstacle: he never took the steps that CTA told him were essential. View "Lawrence Pickett v. Chicago Transit Authority" on Justia Law

Guerrero was trying to drive to his job at BNSF Railway through a snowstorm early one morning. His car skidded, collided with a snowplow, and he was killed. His widow sought compensatory damages from BNSF under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA, 45 U.S.C. 51–59). The district court ruled in favor of BNSF. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Stating that the question of whether Guerrero was within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred was a close one, the court declined to resolve the issue. Guerrero was not heading to his normal job, but had accepted a special assignment; his union contract provides that “the time of an employee who is called after release from duty to report for work will begin at the time called.” Looking at the evidence favorably to Guerrero, he was not commuting, but was “on the clock” and working on the special assignment. No jury, however, could find that BNSF was negligent in any action it took or failed to take with respect to Guerrero. FELA does not make the employer the insurer of the safety of his employees while they are on duty. The only action BNSF took was to ask Guerrero to come to work under conditions known to both parties. View "Guerrero v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Schmidt was camping in a national forest in Wisconsin when a Forest Service Officer approached and discovered that Schmidt, who had three felony convictions, had a handgun in his tent. Schmidt agreed to pay $1,600 in restitution to the Forest Service for having cut down trees in the national forest without authorization and pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). During a presentence interview, Schmidt told his probation officer of his belief in white supremacy, his hatred for minority races, and his desire to relocate to Germany to embrace his Nazi roots. Schmidt had 17 adult criminal convictions for bail jumping, child abuse, taking and driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent, unlawful use of the phone to threaten harm, criminal damage to property, carrying a concealed weapon, and disorderly conduct and resisting an officer. His Guidelines range was 51-63 months imprisonment. The district court sentenced him to 48 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Schmidt’s argument that consideration of his beliefs at sentencing violated his First Amendment rights. Schmidt’s statements, in light of his criminal history and his continued disrespect for the law, raised a serious question in the sentencing judge’s mind as to whether he posed a threat of violent or anti-social conduct; Schmidt’s beliefs were reasonably related to a legitimate sentencing purpose. View "United States v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Under 28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6), quarterly fees paid by a chapter 11 debtor to the bankruptcy Trustee are based on the debtor’s disbursements. The Bankruptcy Court determined that certain payments made by the customers of CranGrow to its lender should not be considered “disbursements” for purposes of that calculation. The payments covered a post-petition revolving line of credit that was used both to pay operating expenses and reduce the balance of CranGrow’s pre-petition debt to the same lender. CranGrow’s customers made payments to the lender directly. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the language of the fee statute requires that payments made by CranGrow’s customers to CranGrow’s lender be considered disbursements. The term “disbursements” has been interpreted broadly to mean all payments by or on behalf of the debtor. The payments by CranGrow’s customers to CoBank were payments made on behalf of CranGrow and resulted in the reduction of CranGrow’s prepetition debt. The customer payments, therefore, are disbursements under section 1930(a)(6). The court found no authority for a waiver and declined “CranGrow’s belated invitation to consider the constitutionality of the fee statute. View "Cranberry Growers Cooperative v. Layng" on Justia Law

Alden and his ex-wife shared custody of their children. Alden’s ex-wife complained that Alden was trying to turn the children against her. The court-appointed psychologist, Gardner, evaluated the children, concluded that Alden was using “severe alienation tactics,” and recommended that the court limit Alden to supervised visitation and give full custody of the children to their mother. The court terminated Alden’s custody and ordered all of Alden’s visitation to be supervised. The Appellate Court affirmed. After three unsuccessful attempts to change the decision in state court, Alden filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Gardner, challenging the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act as permitting state courts to take parents’ constitutionally-protected speech into consideration when deciding the best interests of the child and treating parents differently based on whether they are divorced. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Alden could challenge the Act in his state custody proceedings. The court stated: “This is abusive litigation. Alden, a lawyer representing himself, seems determined to continue the child-custody litigation in another forum even if that means exposing an innocent person such as Gardner to travail and expense. He concedes—indeed, he trumpets—that he has sued someone who he knows is not responsible for enforcing the state’s child-custody laws” and referred the matter to Illinois authorities for determination of whether Alden’s misuse of the legal process calls into question his fitness to practice law. View "E.A. v. Gardner" on Justia Law

In 2005 Paramount leased a parcel of highway-adjacent property in Bellwood, Illinois, planning to erect a billboard. Paramount never applied for a local permit. When Bellwood enacted a ban on new billboard permits in 2009, Paramount lost the opportunity to build its sign. Paramount later sought to take advantage of an exception to the ban for village-owned property, offering to lease a different parcel of highway-adjacent property directly from Bellwood. Bellwood accepted an offer from Image, one of Paramount’s competitors. Paramount sued Bellwood and Image, alleging First Amendment, equal-protection, due-process, Sherman Act, and state-law violations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Paramount lost its lease while the suit was pending, which mooted its claim for injunctive relief from the sign ban. The claim for damages was time-barred, except for an alleged equal-protection violation. That claim failed because Paramount was not similarly situated to Image; Paramount offered Bellwood $1,140,000 in increasing installments over 40 years while Image offered a lump sum of $800,000. Bellwood and Image are immune from Paramount’s antitrust claims. The court did not consider whether a market-participant exception to that immunity exists because Paramount failed to support its antitrust claims. View "Paramount Media Group, Inc. v. Village of Bellwood" on Justia Law

A certified class claimed that during 2011 female inmates at an Illinois prison were strip-searched as part of a training exercise for cadet guards; the inmates were required to stand naked, nearly shoulder to shoulder with other inmates in a room where they could be seen by others not conducting the searches, including male officers. Menstruating inmates had to remove their sanitary protection in front of others, were not given replacements, and many got blood on their bodies, clothing, and the floor. The naked inmates had to stand barefoot on a floor dirty with menstrual blood and raise their breasts, lift their hair, turn around, bend over, spread their buttocks and vaginas, and cough. The district court awarded summary judgment to defendants on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 Fourth Amendment theory, because Seventh Circuit precedent holds that a visual inspection of a convicted prisoner is not subject to analysis under that amendment. The jury returned a defense verdict on the Eighth Amendment claim. Because analysis under the Fourth Amendment is objective, while a successful claim under the Eighth Amendment depends on proof of a culpable mental state, the plaintiffs argued on appeal that they could succeed on a Fourth Amendment theory despite the jury’s verdict. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasserting that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to visual inspections of prisoners. Their convictions allow wardens to control and monitor prisoners’ lives, extinguishing the rights of secrecy and seclusion. View "Henry v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

University Park’s mayor and board fired police chief Bradley without any notice of good cause or any form of hearing, in violation of his employment contract. Bradley sued the village and mayor under 42 U.S.C.1983 for violating his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Bradley’s due process claim on the pleadings. The parties agreed that Bradley had a protected property interest in his continued employment; that the mayor and the village board are the policymakers for their municipality; and that although there was ample opportunity for a hearing, Bradley received no pre-termination notice or hearing. Those points of agreement suffice to prove a section 1983 due process claim against the individual officials and the village, where the village acted through high-ranking officials with policymaking authority. The court rejected the defense’s argument, based on cases that excuse liability for the absence of pre-deprivation due process if the deprivation is the result of a “random, unauthorized act by a state employee, rather than an established state procedure,” and “if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the loss is available.” The court reasoned that such a broad reading of precedent would effectively impose an “exhaustion of remedies” requirement that has been rejected by the Supreme Court. View "Bradley v. Village of University Park" on Justia Law