disability - duty of ALJ to develop record - pro se claimant - mental health issues

Comiskey v. Astrue - ED Pa. - January 2010

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0088P.pdf

This case was remanded, consistent with Magis. Judge's recommendation, for further development of the record.

The Third Circuit repeatedly has recognized that an ALJ must “assume a more active role when the claimant is unrepresented.” Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 407 (3d Cir. 1979); see also Reefer, 326 F.3d at 380; Livingston v. Califano, 614 F.2d 342, 345 (3d Cir. 1980). An ALJ “owes a duty to a pro se claimant to help him or her develop the administrative record.” Reefer, 326 F.3d at 380; see also Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 902 (3d Cir. 1995) (“ALJs have a duty to develop a full and fair record in social security cases.”). In particular, “‘[w]hen a claimant appears at a hearing without counsel, the ALJ must scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts.’” Reefer, 326 F.3d at 380 (quoting Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Ventura, 55 F.3d at 902 (“[A]n ALJ must secure relevant information regarding a claimant’s entitlement to social security benefits.”). Although lack of counsel alone is not cause for remand when the claimant knowingly has waived the right to counsel, remand is appropriate when the lack of counsel prejudices the claimant or causes unfairness at administrative level, such as when the ALJ fails to adequately develop the administrative record. Livingston, 614 F.2d at 345.

The court was especially troubled by the lack of any "indication that the ALJ made any effort to obtain plaintiff’s medical records from any of the treating sources he identified. The need for such information was particularly important given the conflicting opinion evidence in the record regarding the extent to which plaintiff’s medical and physical impairments limited his ability to work.

Although the Third Circuit has declined to “say that an [ALJ] must search out all the relevant evidence which might be available,” Hess v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 497 F.2d 837, 840 (3d Cir. 1974), in the circumstances presented here [where the claimant had a mental impairment] the ALJ should have obtained medical records from plaintiff’s treating sources as part of his obligation to help the pro se plaintiff develop the administrative record. See Reefer, 326 F.3d at 380 (stroke pro se claimant); Isaac v. Astrue, No. 08-1661, 2009 WL 1492277, at *13 (W.D. Pa. May 28, 2009); Sloss v. Astrue, No. 07-344, 2008 WL 2355853, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 9, 2008)

In addition to the heightened duty of care an ALJ owes when the claimant is unrepresented, the ALJ is also obliged, under the applicable regulations, to ensure that the claimant’s complete medical history is developed for at least the twelve months preceding the month in which the claimant filed his application. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(d), 416.912 (d); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B).16 Thus, at a minimum, the ALJ should have obtained plaintiff’s medical records from those medical sources from which plaintiff received treatment in the twelve months prior to October 2006, when plaintiff filed his applications for DIB and SSI.

While the ALJ’s failure to develop the record must have prejudiced the claimant in order for remand to be appropriate, see Livingston, 614 F.3d at 345, the Third Circuit has not required the claimant to produce the very records to be considered in order to show prejudice, see Reefer, 326 F.3d at 380...; Dobrowolsky, 606 F.2d at 407-08...; Jozefick v. Shalala, 854 F. Supp. 342, 349 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (noting that the Third Circuit has remanded cases “in order to more fully develop the record without requiring the claimant to make a specific proffer of the evidence that would be presented to the ALJ on remand”). Rather, remand is appropriate when the ALJ “has failed to exercise his authority to attempt to fill significant evidentiary gaps that are material to the disability determination.” Id.

wages - FLSA - overtime - professional capacity

Pignataro v. Port Authority of NY and NJ - Third Circuit - January 27, 2010

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/083605p.pdf

This case concerns helicopter pilots, not likely to be our clients, but it cites important general principles of FLSA law.

Helicopter pilots were held to be not exempt as “professional” employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), and therefore are entitled to mandatory time-and-a-half overtime compensation. The court award them two years of damages rather than three, because it concluded that the employer's FLSA violation was not willful.

The FLSA mandates that if an employee works more than forty hours per week, he must be compensated for overtime hours at a rate at least one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Employees who work in a “professional capacity,” however, are exempt from this rule.

Exemptions from the FLSA are to be narrowly construed against the employer, and the employer has the burden of establishing an exemption. Guthrie v. Lady Jane Collieries, Inc., 722 F.2d 1141, 1143 (3d Cir. 1983). Whether an employee is an exempt professional is a mixed question of law and fact.

To establish that the employer's violation of the FLSA was willful, plaintiffs must prove that the employer knew it was violating the FLSA or acted in reckless disregard of whether it was violating the FLSA. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 135 (1988). Whether a violation of the FLSA is willful is a question of fact that is reviewed for clear error. See Bianchi Trison Corp. v. Chao, 409 F.3d 196, 208 (3d Cir. 2005).

UC - willful misconduct - remoteness doctrine

Rich Carbide Burs, Inc. v. UCBR - Cmwlth Court - January 22, 2010 - unreported memorandum decision

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/520CD09_1-22-10.pdf

The employer did not violate the remoteness doctrine by waiting from Thursday to the next Tuesday to fire the claimant for misconduct, because there was no substantial delay between the alleged act and the termination.

Where “there is an unexplained substantial delay between the claimant’s misconduct and the employer’s act to terminate the claimant, the remoteness doctrine will preclude an employer from seeking a denial of benefits based on allegations of willful misconduct.” Raimondi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 863 A.2d 1242, 1247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (emphasis in original). In the case at bar, the three-day delay between the altercation and Claimant’s discharge was, by any measure, insubstantial.

custody - homosexual parents - Constant A. overruled - shared custody - school-age children

M.A.T v. G.S.T - Superior Court - January 21, 2010

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/e03008_09.pdf

Appellant M.A.T. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order dated August 11, 2008 denying her petition for modification of a custody order granting Appellee G.S.T. (“Father”) primary physical custody of their daughter K.J.T. (“Daughter”).

The trial court based its decision on (1) its application of an evidentiary presumption against a homosexual parent, see, e.g., Constant A. v. Paul C.A., 496 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1985); and (2) rejection of uncontroverted expert testimony recommending shared custody.

For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the trial court’s order and grant Mother’s petition for modification of the custody order. In doing so, we overrule the holding and reasoning in Constant.

We further rule that the trial court in this case abused its discretion in rejecting the recommendations of the jointly retained custody evaluator and basing its decision to award primary physical custody to Father upon the trial court’s personal opinion that shared custody is seldom (if ever) in the best interests of school-age children.

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order dated August 11, 2008 and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

Authenticating Web Pages as Evidence

An informative article entitled Authenticating Web Pages as Evidence, has been published in the Law Technology News section of law.com.

The article addresses the issue of how to authenticate evidence of something published on the Internet, typically in the form of a screen shot or PDF copy of a web page. it discusses authentication under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the use of the Internet Archive, and the issue of judicial notice of information on web sites.

The article was authored by M. Anderson Berry and David Kiernan. David C. Kiernan is a litigator in the Trial Practice Group of Jones Day in its San Francisco Office and is a member of the firm's E-discovery Committee. M. Anderson Berry is also an attorney in the same office.

mandamus

Petsinger v. OVR - Cmwlth. Court - January 21, 2010


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/263MD09_1-21-10.pdf


Petitioner brought mandamus action against the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation concerning his termination from employment following his threats against a fellow employee. The court held that mandamus would not lie.


The Civil Service Act, the federal Rehab Act, and the PA Rehab Act provided petitioner with adequate statutory and administrative remedies to seek redress for OVR’s alleged discriminatory treatment in his employment, his termination from that employment, his request to be reinstated or returned to his former civil service position, as well as OVR’s denial of his repeated requests to reopen his application for vocational rehabilitation services. Therefore, he is barred from raising these issues by petition for mandamus.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which compels the official performance of a ministerial act or a mandatory duty only where there is a clear legal right in the plaintiff, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and a lack of any other appropriate or adequate remedy. McGill v. Dep’t of Health, Office of Drug & Alcohol Programs, 758 A.2d 268 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

“Thus, in an action involving an administrative agency’s exercise of discretion, the court may only direct the agency to perform the discretionary act and may not direct the agency to exercise its judgment or discretion in a particular way or direct the retraction or reversal of action already taken.” Id. at 270. “The purpose of mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce those rights already established beyond peradventure.” Id.

A party challenging administrative decision-making who has not exhausted available administrative remedies is precluded from obtaining judicial review by mandamus6 or otherwise. Matesic v. Maleski, 624 A.2d 776 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). The availability of adequate, meaningful administrative remedies is a bar to a mandamus action. Mueller v. Pa. State Police Headquarters, 532 A.2d 900 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). In addition, an individual who allows his statutory appeal rights to expire cannot at a later date reclaim those appeal rights under the guise of a petition for mandamus. Lizzi v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 466 Pa. 450, 353 A.2d 440 (1976).

disability - attorney fees - reasons for rejection of evidence - clearly established precedent

Kutoloski v. Astrue - ED Pa. - Janaury 2010

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0062P.pdf

The ALJ's failure to explain his consideration of the testimony of the claimant's parents, after being directed to do so on remand, was contrary to clearly established precedent.

“[T]he burden is on the government to demonstrate that its position was ‘substantially justified.’” Watkins v. Harris, 556 F. Supp. 493, 498 (E.D. Pa. 1983). Specifically, the commissioner must show that its position has “a reasonable basis in both law and fact.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 555 (1988).

Thus, “[w]hen the government’s legal position clearly offends established precedent . . . its position cannot said to be ‘substantially justified.’” Washington v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 959, 962 (3d Cir. 1985).

For this purpose, the government’s position includes “not only its litigation position but also the agency position that made the lawsuit necessary.” Id. at 961.

The commissioner has not met his burden. All of the commissioner’s arguments, in fact, fail for the same reason: The ALJ’s failure to explain his treatment of the testimony of plaintiff’s parents was contrary to established Third Circuit precedent. Although the ALJ recite[d] the testimony of plaintiff’s parents, the ALJ fail[ed] to properly explain his consideration of that testimony....

This failure violated the Third Circuit’s directive in Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000), that the ALJ “must give some indication of the evidence which he rejects and his reason(s) for discounting such evidence,” id. at 121 (emphasis added) – a requirement that exists because “‘[i]n the absence of such indication, the reviewing court cannot tell if significant probative evidence was not credited or simply ignored,’” id. (quoting Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981)).

In other words, the ALJ’s failure to explain his disregard of the testimony proffered by plaintiffs’ parents “clearly offends established precedent.” It therefore has no reasonable basis in law.

__._,_.___

UC - voluntary quit - sexual harassment

Miscoe Chiropratic Clinic v. UCBR - January 13, 2010 - unpublished memorandum opinion

http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1050CD09_1-13-10.pdf

The court rejected the employer's appeal and upheld the UCBR decision that claimant had good cause to quit her job because of sexual harassment by her employer, himself.

The court said that "[i]In order to establish a necessitous and compelling cause to leave employment, a claimant must establish that circumstances that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment existed; a reasonable person would act in the same manner; she acted with common sense; and she made a reasonable effort to preserve her employment. First Fed. Sav. Bank v. UCBR, 957 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

Sexual harassment may constitute a necessitous and compelling reason to voluntarily leave employment if the claimant can show that she acted with common sense and prudence to alleviate the sexual harassment. Hussey Copper Ltd. v. UCBR, 718 A.2d 894 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Such common sense action includes providing the employer an opportunity to understand the nature of a claimant’s objections and to take steps to resolve those objections. Collier Stone Co. v. UCBR, 876 A.2d 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

Where a mechanism, such as an employment policy, exists to deal with problems of sexual harassment, a claimant must make a good faith effort to utilize that mechanism. Hussey Copper Ltd. However, a claimant is not required to perform a futile act. Mauro v. UCBR, 751 A.2d 276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). Further, where a claimant’s supervisor has knowledge of harassment against a claimant, the employer is deemed to have the knowledge as well, and the claimant is not required to report the harassment to higher levels of management. Peddicord v. UCBR, 647 A.2d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

Ultimately, the employer is responsible for eliminating harassment in the workplace. Collier Stone Co. We agree with the Board that Claimant would have committed a futile act by reporting the harassment to the office manager or Dr. Miscoe. It is undisputed that Dr. Miscoe is in charge of Employer’s office and is the only person in the office with the authority to terminate an employee. As the Board found, Dr. Miscoe grabbed and hugged Claimant, attempted to kiss her several times a week, and made inappropriate sexual comments to her. Claimant had no obligation to report the harassment to the office manager or Dr. Miscoe because the facts found by the Board establish that such report would have been futile. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

employment - wages - FLSA pre-empts Article III, sec. 24, of Pennsylvania Constitution

Council 13, AFSCME v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Pennsylvania Supreme Court

majority - http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-98-2009mo.pdf

consurring and dissenting opinion http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-98-2008codo.pdf

Article III, Section 24* of the Pennsylvania Constitution is preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a).

The governor is not prohibited from paying the wages of state employees who are covered by FLSA, but who are required to work from monies in the Commonwealth’s Treasury, where that money has not yet been appropriated by the General Assembly.

* Section 24 provides: No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except on appropriations made by law and on warrant issued by the proper officers; but cash refunds of taxes, licenses, fees, and other charges paid or collected, but not legally due, may be paid, as provided by law, without appropriation from the fund into which they were paid on warrant of the proper officer. PA. CONST. art. III, § 24.

TILA - disclosure violations - actual damages - detrimental reliance

Vallies et al. v. Skye Bank - Third Circuit - December 31, 2009

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084160p.pdf

In this putative class action, the sole issue presented by this appeal is whether a plaintiff must prove detrimental reliance in order to recover actual damages sustained because of a disclosure violation under § 1640(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601–67.

The District Court, following persuasive authority from our sister courts of appeals, concluded that detrimental reliance was required, and granted summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff failed to plead and could not prove detrimental reliance. We will affirm.

In fact, every court of appeals that has spoken on this issue has required a showing of detrimental reliance.5 Most district courts are in accord.6

Courts of appeal cases 5 Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 297 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[A]ctual damages require a showing of detrimental reliance.”); McDonald v. Checks-N-Advance, Inc. (In re Ferrell), 539 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding no valid basis to overturn the rule requiring a showing of detrimental reliance to establish actual damages); Gold Country Lenders v. Smith (In re Smith), 289 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We join with other circuits and hold that in order to receive actual damages for a TILA violation . . . a borrower must establish detrimental reliance.”); Turner v. Beneficial Corp., 242 F.3d 1023, 1028 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“We hold that detrimental reliance is an element of a TILA claim for actual damages . . . .”); Perrone v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 232 F.3d 433, 434–40 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that detrimental reliance is an element of a claim for actual damages and rejecting numerous arguments to the contrary); Stout v. J.D.Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 718 (6th Cir. 2000) (affirming the denial of class certification based on the need for individualized assessment of whether “each putative class member relied upon false representations or failures to disclose”); Peters v. Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Co., 220 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2000) (requiring a showing of proximate causation and adopting a four-prong reliance test for establishing actual damages); Bizier v. Globe Fin. Servs., Inc., 654 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1981) (noting in dicta the need to show causation for an award of actual damages “in addition to a threshold showing of a violation of a TILA requirement”).

District court cases 6 Inc., No. 04-2474, 2005 WL 1398512, at *9–10 (D.N.J. June 13, 2005); Nevarez v. O’Connor Chevrolet, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 927, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2004); In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig., 265 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Cannon v. Cherry Hill Toyota, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D.N.J. 2001); Anderson v. Rizza Chevrolet, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 908, 913–14 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Brister v. All Star Chevrolet, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 1003, 1008 (E.D. La. 1997); Barlow v. Evans, 992 F. Supp. 1299, 1301 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Cirone-Shadow v. Union Nissan, 955 F. Supp. 938, 943 (N.D. Ill. 1997); Wiley v. Earl’s Pawn & Jewelry, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 1108, 1114–15 (S.D. Ala. 1997); Adiel v. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 630 F. Supp. 131, 133–35 (S.D. Fla. 1986), aff’d, 810 F.2d 1051 (11th Cir. 1987); McCoy v. Salem Mortgage Co., 74 F.R.D. 8, 12–13 (E.D. Mich. 1976). But see Lopez v. Orlor, 176 F.R.D. 35, 40 (D. Conn. 1997) (granting class certification and rejecting the argument that TILA plaintiffs cannot recover actual damages unless they could have gotten more favorable terms elsewhere); Sutliff v. County Sav. & Loan Co., 533 F. Supp. 1307, 1313 (N.D. Ohio 1982) (measuring actual damages to be the difference between the improperly increased interest rate and the original interest rate); In re Russell, 72 B.R. 855, 857 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (concluding that actual damages are available for “substantial” TILA violations without the need to prove detrimental reliance).

What constitutes detrimental reliance not decided - This case does not present an occasion to evaluate which specific facts and circumstances constitute detrimental reliancebecause Vallies does not contend that he relied on Sky Bank’s disclosure violations. Because we find that a showing of detrimental reliance is required to recover actual damages for a TILA disclosure violation, and Vallies neither pled nor made such showing, the grant of summary judgment was proper on the claim for actual damages.19

19 The District Court supported its grant of summary judgment by reciting a four-prong test from the Eighth Circuit: “a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) he read the TILA disclosure statement; (2) he understood the charges being disclosed; (3) had the disclosure statement been accurate, he would have sought a lower price; and (4) he would have obtained a lower price.’” Mem. Order at 10 (citing Peters, 220 F.3d at 917). No doubt a plaintiff who can satisfy the Peters test will successfully establish detrimental reliance. Although Peters has been influential in many courts, including those in our circuit, e.g., Cannon v. Cherry Hill Toyota, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D.N.J. 2001), others have used different language. For accuracy-of-disclosure violations like the ones presented here of determining actual (in contrast to statutory) damages.”). In sum, we have never rejected the requirement of detrimental reliance to recover actual damages for TILA disclosure violations.

For accuracy-of-disclosure violations like the ones presented here, other courts have held that detrimental reliance can be shown where plaintiffs can establish that they would have foregone the loan completely had they received and reviewed an accurate disclosure. See, e.g., United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 297 (6th Cir. 2009) (“To establish detrimental reliance, the debtor must demonstrate that he or she would either have received a better interest rate for the loans elsewhere or would have elected not to take the loan had the required information been available.”); McDonald v. Checks-N-Advance, Inc. (In re Ferrell), 539 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The consumer must show that she ‘would either have secured a better interest rate elsewhere, or foregone the loan completely.’” (quoting Gold Country Lenders v. Smith (In re Smith), 289 F.3d at 1157)); Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 718 (6th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, plaintiff here does not assert and cannot prove he detrimentally relied. This case does not present the occasion to formulate factors that may constitute detrimental reliance.