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

Ryan sought worker’s compensation and entered into a settlement with his employer, calling for "$150,000 to Rodney Ryan, minus attorney fees and costs listed below; $400,000 to the Trust Account of Fortune & McGillis for disbursement to medical providers and lienholders, it being understood that from any balance remaining Mr. Ryan shall receive 80% and Fortune & McGillis shall receive 20%.” Fortune, Ryan’s law firm, received $30,000 in fees. The employer agreed to fund a Medicare Set Aside for Ryan’s future medical expenses. A state administrative law judge approved the Settlement.Weeks later, before any of the $400,000 was distributed to his doctors, Ryan filed for bankruptcy and attempted to exempt the $400,000 from the estate, citing Wisconsin Statutes 102.27(1), which says no “claim for [worker’s] compensation, or compensation awarded, or paid, [may] be taken for the debts of the party entitled thereto.” Ryan owed more than $800,000 in unpaid medical bills. His medical creditors cited Section 102.26(3)(b)(2), “[a]t the request of the claimant[,] medical expense[s], witness fees[,] and other charges associated with the claim may be ordered paid out of the amount awarded.” The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court holding that Ryan could not exempt the $400,000. The Order created an express trust in favor of the doctors with Fortune as trustee. There were also "grounds to impose a constructive trust because allowing Ryan to keep the $400,000 would have amounted to unjust enrichment.” View "Ryan v Branko Prpa MD LLC" on Justia Law

Five days after Carter was booked into the Macon County Jail, he died of diabetic ketoacidosis. In the hours preceding his death, Carter exhibited symptoms commonly associated with diabetic ketoacidosis: confusion, lethargy, and labored breathing. He was denied timely medical care because the jail nurse thought he was faking his condition. She assured the corrections officers tasked with transferring Carter out of the medical unit that his vitals were within a normal range. Relying on the nurse’s medical judgment, the officers declined to intervene and proceeded to relocate Carter, believing that his failure to follow orders stemmed from deliberate refusal, not medically induced incapacity.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including claims against five corrections officers, the district court denied the officers’ summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding there to be a material factual dispute over whether they had reason to know that Carter was receiving inadequate medical care, creating a duty to intervene. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Established circuit precedent entitles a corrections officer to defer to the judgment of medical professionals. That is what the officers did here; they are entitled to qualified immunity. View "McGee v. Parsano" on Justia Law

Dorsey, an Illinois state prisoner, was emptying a bucket in the prison laundry when he felt a pop in his lower back and felt pain shoot down his leg. He asked to see a nurse and was told to “go lay down.” Dorsey took ibuprofen and lay down for two hours, but his pain worsened. He again, unsuccessfully, requested permission to seek medical care. The next morning, Dorsey could barely move. Six days later, a nurse concluded that he was exaggerating his symptoms. Dorsey alleges that instead of being treated for back pain, he was prescribed psychiatric medications without his knowledge or consent and was disciplined for refusing to take those medications.Dorsey sued. The district court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A and determined that Dorsey had improperly joined unrelated claims. His complaint asserted three claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against 12 defendants. Two claims alleged Eighth Amendment violations based on the poorly maintained washing machines and deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition, his back injury. The third alleged a due process violation, that Dorsey was prescribed medications without his consent. After deeming three amended complaints unsatisfactory, the district court dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. Dorsey’s claims met both requirements of Rule 20(a)(2), so joinder was legally permissible and the dismissal was an abuse of discretion. The court rejected his other claims. View "Dorsey v. Varga" on Justia Law

After exchanging hundreds of messages with an FBI agent—who posed first as an 18-year-old woman and then as a 15-year-old girl—and driving to a planned rendezvous at a gas station, Anderson was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). Anderson appealed whether he offered sufficient evidence of entrapment to have the jury instructed on that defense. Seventh Circuit precedent holds that a defendant who offers “some evidence” of both government inducement and his own lack of predisposition is entitled to have the entrapment defense submitted to the jury.The Seventh Circuit remanded for a new trial in which Anderson should be permitted to present his entrapment defense. On this record, a jury could find government inducement in the form of “subtle, persistent, or persuasive conduct.” As for predisposition, Anderson had no record of any sexual misconduct or any other offenses against children. It was the government agent, not Anderson, who first suggested a criminal liaison. Anderson repeatedly expressed reluctance, and the agent responded with persistent coaxing and persuasion. Anderson agreed to meet for sex with someone he thought was an underage girl but whether his entrapment defense should succeed was an issue for the jury. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) terminated McHugh’s employment, he sued seven individuals under federal law, alleging due process violations, and sued IDOT under an Illinois statute, the Ethics Act. IDOT argued that sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit. The district court held that McHugh’s claim against IDOT could proceed in state court but not federal court, and entered judgment on the merits. The Seventh Circuit modified the judgment to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. If a defendant enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from a claim and invokes that immunity, it deprives a federal court of jurisdiction over the claim. View "McHugh v. Illinois Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Wallace and Santos, inmates at Menard Correctional Center in Illinois filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Menard’s “double-ceiling” policy of housing two inmates in single-person cells violated their Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e.The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. Where a plaintiff is able to point to some evidence that administrative remedies were not “available” to him under the PLRA, as described by the Supreme Court in its 2016 Ross v. Blake decision, the district court must decide whether remedies were “available” before granting summary judgment on exhaustion. The plaintiffs claimed to have submitted grievances, offered some evidence that other inmates complained of the same issue with no response, and cited a mechanism by which prison officials can allegedly use state law to reject their grievances without any consideration of their merits. The court remanded for consideration of the exhaustion question as it applies to double-celling at Menard. If the district court finds that double-celling remedies were “available,” then the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies. The court affirmed a factual determination that Santos did not file a grievance regarding Menard’s double-celling policy. View "Wallace v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

In 2006, Price approached Marcone about using e-commerce in the appliance parts industry. Price and Marcone entered into a non-disclosure agreement while evaluating the concept, but no partnership resulted. Price then created PartScription. Both companies sell appliance replacement parts online. In 2017, Price restarted talks with Marcone. In 2018, Marcone’s CEO proposed that PartScription and Marcone form a “50-50” partnership. Price accepted, and they shook hands on the idea. Price drafted a term sheet for the contemplated partnership. The first line sheet states “PartScription and Marcone (PSM) have agreed to form a partnership/joint venture to serve the independent hardware industry.” Negotiations continued. During a conference call, Marcone representatives purportedly “stated that they approved of the terms,” and offered one change regarding a joint bank account. Days later Price sent a follow-up email saying that his notes indicated “Marcone ha[d] approved the terms outlined in the draft PSM term sheet” and asking whether they needed to memorialize the agreement. No further memorialization took place. Marcone's representatives became unresponsive.In 2021, PartScription filed suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. PartScription’s complaint fails to plausibly allege a valid contract; any amendment would be futile. The only documentation speaks of general goals— not obligations—and fails to identify definite and certain binding terms. View "KAP Holdings, LLC v. Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co." on Justia Law

Uebelacker sent a former coworker (Schuman) private Facebook messages disparaging her bosses. Soon afterward, Uebelacker’s employer discovered the messages while another employee (Booth) was transferring files from Schuman’s former work computer so others could access them. Schuman was still signed in to her personal Facebook account on the active internet browser. Booth opened the conversation and took screenshots of the conversation. Uebelacker was demoted and eventually fired. Uebelacker sued under the Stored Communications Act, which prohibits unauthorized access to communications in electronic storage, 18 U.S.C. 2701(a).The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer based on the statute of limitations, which requires that suits be filed no later than “two years after the date upon which the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.” The Act’s limitations period began running in January 2019 and expired in January 2021. Uebelacker did not file suit until March 2021. A vague fear of termination cannot save Uebelacker’s claim. View "Uebelacker v. Rock Energy Cooperative" on Justia Law

An informant purchased 3.1 grams of methamphetamine from Smith. Later, an undercover agent purchased 0.7 grams of fentanyl and heroin from Smith. Smith was subsequently arrested on an outstanding warrant, carrying a loaded semiautomatic handgun; 23 packages collectively containing 3.1 grams of fentanyl and heroin; several hundred dollars in cash; and a digital scale bearing fentanyl residue.Smith was convicted (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C)) for both purchases and the drugs recovered during his arrest; of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c); and as a felon in possession of a firearm, 922(g)(1). The PSR grouped Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 together for an offense level of 23 because Smith’s semiautomatic firearm was “capable of accepting a large capacity magazine,” and a one-level multiple-count enhancement applied. The court awarded one point for acceptance of responsibility. Smith was in the highest criminal history category. The Guidelines range on the grouped counts was 84–105 months; the 924(c) conviction carried a 60-month mandatory consecutive minimum sentence. Smith argued that he had possessed small quantities of drugs, that his criminal history was nonviolent, and that he only carried a gun for protection. The district court noted that fentanyl was especially dangerous and that Smith's presence with a gun created “a very dangerous event” but determined that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors made a downward variance appropriate. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Smith's 120-month sentence. Smith failed to establish any procedural error. His below-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

ADT installs and services security systems. Before 2020, ADT had offices in Rockford, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin. Since 1994 the Rockford employees have been represented by a union. The most recent collective bargaining agreement ran from 2017-2020. The Madison employees were not represented by a union. In 2019 ADT announced that it would close both the Rockford and Madison facilities and combine the operations in a new Janesville, Wisconsin office, stating that the Rockford employees would “stay in the Union.” A few months later, ADT purportedly withdrew recognition of the Rockford union, based on a decertification petition that had not been signed by any member of the certified bargaining unit. ADT then unilaterally changed several terms and conditions of the union members’ employment.The union filed unfair labor practice charges. The NLRB found that ADT had unlawfully withdrawn recognition from the union, unlawfully made unilateral changes to the Rockford unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment, and unlawfully interrogated and threatened a Rockford unit employee about his support for the union. Citing ADT’s history as “a recidivist violator” and “its evident disdain” for the rights of employees, the Board issued a broad remedial order. The Seventh Circuit granted a petition for enforcement, calling the situation a “disappointing and transparent attempt by an employer to avoid its obligations under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151.” View "ADT, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law