Tuesday, August 30, 2005

sec. 1983 - police liability for part in private repo. in DV case

Harvey v. Plains Township Police Department - 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, August 30, 2005

Summary judgment in favor of individual police officer reversed (2-1) in 42 USC 1983 case.  Plaintiff alleged that the officer took part in an improper entry into her apartment and an ex parte private repossession of her property by her former boyfriend.  The court held that, in a summary judgment procedural posture, the evidence showed that

        a) the officer took part in "state action" by ordering the landlord to open plaintiff's apartment, contrary to the direction of an existing protection from abuse (PFA) order.

        b) such action violated plaintiff's clearly established 4th Amendment  constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches/seizures

        c) the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity -- There was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights, and a reasonable police officer would have believed that his conduct deprived plaintiff of her constitutional rights.  The court held that a letter from the boyfriend's attorney to the plaintiff's attorney did not give the officer a reasonable belief that plaintiff consented to the boyfriend's seizure of property at her home, especially given knowledge of the PFA order.  "A reasonable offivce at least would have refused to assist with opening the door until he was satisfied that consent was given."  His actions went well beyond keeping the peace.

The dissent felt that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services - Gettysburg

Steininger v. Barnhart - hypo must include all credibly established limitations - ED Pa.

Steininger v. Barnhart -- ED Pa. August 24, 2005

The court remanded the case because the ALJ's hypothetical to the vocation expert was inadequate at step 4 in the disability determination process -- involving determination of ability to do past relevant work.

The court said that "an ALJ hypothetical must include all of claimant's impairments," citing Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2004), and that the claimant's mental impairments were not adequately set out. They didn't even comport with the ALJ's own findings on the issue.

An ALJ need not submit "every impairment alleged by a claimant," but it is "required that 'the hypothetical posed must accurately portray the cliamant's impairments and that the expert must be given an oppportunity to evaluate those impairments as contained in the record'....The ALJ's hypothetical 'must accurately convey to the vocational expert all of a claimant's credibly establish limitations.'" (emphasis in original). The court said that ''great specificity' is required when an ALJ incorporates a claimant's mental or physical limitations into a hypothetical," citing Ramirez, 372 F.3d at 554-5.

The court also said that even though the issue in the case arose at step 4 in the 5-step disability process, the Ramirez analysis was still dispositive, even though that was a step-5 case, since the ALJ's decision relied "exclusively" on the VE's testimony.

Donald Marritz, staff attorney
MidPenn Legal Services - Gettysburg