Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Claimant Debra Ann Luttrell appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. Claimant challenged the Commissioner's decision on the grounds that the ALJ did not perform: (1) a proper determination at step five; (2) a proper analysis of the medical source opinions; and (3) a proper credibility determination. Finding that the ALJ's decision was free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits. View "Luttrell v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Petitioner Dewey MacKay, M.D. petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review a decision of the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that revoked his registration to dispense controlled substances and denied all pending requests for renewal of modification. This case concerned Petitioner's prescribing behavior from 2005 to 2009 when his practice focused primarily on chronic pain management. The DEA began investigating Petitioner after receiving information from local authorities that he was issuing unlawful prescriptions for controlled substances. the Deputy Administrator of the DEA issued an order to show cause why it should not revoke Petitioner's registration, alleging that Petitioner "issued numerous purported prescriptions for controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose outside the usual course of professional practice." The Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review: "Petitioner never admitted any fault or taken responsibility for his misconduct. Nor [could] he point to any evidence that he reformed his habits. Instead, he continued to illegitimately dispense controlled substances even when he knew the DEA was investigating him. The Deputy Administrator’s revocation of [Petitioner's] registration is consistent with the DEA’s policy and practice of revoking registration under such circumstances."

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Jordan brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Plaintiff was convicted of multiple armed robberies in 1994 and the stabbing death of a fellow inmate in 1999. When he filed this action, he was imprisoned at an Administrative Maximum Facility, known as the ADX or the Supermax. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants improperly denied several separate requests for information he made pursuant to FOIA or the Privacy Act. First, Plaintiff asked for the names and titles of all staff at the Supermax, denied on the basis that the request could "reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." Second, Plaintiff asked for all documents pertaining to his psychological or psychiatric profile maintained by the prison. Plaintiff was given redacted copies of the information because some of the information in those files would not otherwise be available by law to anyone other than "an agency in litigation with the agency." In his third request, Plaintiff asked for copies of all mail that was sent to or from him and copied to staff at the Supermax. This request was denied as "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that would disclose" law enforcement or prosecutorial strategy that otherwise would not be subject to disclosure. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit was not persuaded that Plaintiff was entitled to the documents he requested through FOIA, and affirmed the district court's judgment.

On its second trip to the Tenth Circuit, this case arose from a dispute over payment for trial transcripts. After the City ordered and paid for original hearing transcripts prepared by Ms. Bean, Mr. Livingston asked the special master to direct the City to file copies with the clerk so the plaintiffs could access them without having to obtain copies from Ms. Bean at higher cost. When the special master refused, Mr. Livingston ordered copies of the transcripts directly from the City through New Mexico’s Inspection of Public Records Act. After Ms. Bean complained to the district court, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay reasonable court reporter’s fees for any copies of transcripts, the district court also placed a lien on any future recovery by the plaintiffs to secure payment of the yet-to-be determined amount claimed by Ms. Bean. The case eventually settled, and a final judgment entered. After he failed to submit a motion for costs and fees, including any fees owed to Ms. Bean under the lien, the court found Mr. Livingston personally liable for Ms. Bean’s fees and held back a portion of the funds from his fee payment. Mr. Livingston appealed, arguing that Ms. Bean was not a party in the district court proceedings and had not asked to intervene. The Tenth Circuit concluded Ms. Bean did not have a proprietary interest in the contents of the transcripts, and reversed the decision releasing funds to her. Ms. Bean did not appeal to the state supreme court but instead filed a "special appearance to object to subject matter jurisdiction" to vacate the Tenth Circuit's prior order. In this second appeal before the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Bean's appeal was not preserved because she did not appeal to the state supreme court.

The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether Plaintiff Altheia Allen was disabled when her employer SouthCrest Hospital allegedly failed to accommodate her disability and terminated her employment. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded after review of the trial court record that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning her alleged disability, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SouthCrest.

Appellant Taissiya Oleyniikova , an employee of the State of Colorado's Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Information Tenchology Services brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages against the DHS' executive director and some of the agency's employees (Defendants). Appellant challenged the grant of summary judgement in favor of DHS. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff emailed a supervisor stating that she felt "insulted" by another co-worker, because that co-worker accused her of lying. Over the next few months, Plaintiff sought a promotion within her department, but claimed that this attempt was thwarted. Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of her right to freedom of speech. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's ruling on the retaliation claim only. Finding that Plaintiff's statements were not on a matter of public concern, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Petitioner Compass Environmental, Inc. challenged a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) which found a serious safety regulation violation and assessed a $5500 penalty against it. Specifically, the Commission held that Compass failed to train a now-deceased employee to recognize and avoid an electrocution hazard presented by a high-voltage overhead powerline at his worksite. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Compass argued that the Commission failed to apply the correct legal test and erred in concluding that a reasonably prudent employer would have anticipated this employee's potential exposure to the power line. "Although Compass might not have been able to predict the manner in which [the employee] would have been exposed to this hazard," the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in holding that Compass should have trained the employee on the fatal danger posed by the high-voltage lines located in the vicinity of his work area. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dana Franklin appealed a district court's order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her application for Social Security disability benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability based on degenerative disc disease, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety and depression. The agency denied her applications initially and on reconsideration. Applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework, and and considering the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised two issues: (1) the ALJ erred by by failing to evaluate properly the opinions of her treating physician; and (2) the ALJ’s analysis of her credibility was contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence. Upon review, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate reversible legal error or lack of substantial evidence in the ALJ's treating-physician analysis. Furthermore, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff's credibility was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Petitioners Qi Hui Chen and his son, Yiyao Li Chen, natives and citizens of China, sought to overturn Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decisions affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision to deny their requests for asylum and restriction on removal. Qi Hui arrived in the United States in January 1997. He submitted his asylum application in September 2006. Yiyao Li came to the United States in October 2004. He submitted his asylum application in December 2007. Petitioners sought asylum and restriction on removal based on their political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Their applications were based on his opposition to the family-planning policy in China. Qi Hui testified that, at the end of 2006, he and Yiyao Li sent a letter to their church in China suggesting that the church should not endorse the birth-control policy anymore. Qi Hui testified that a few weeks after they sent the letter, his wife received a notice instructing the Chens to surrender. Although the Chens each filed their own asylum applications, they moved to consolidate their removal proceedings. The IJ held one hearing on both applications and issued one decision denying all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. Although the Tenth Circuit agreed that the better practice would have been for the Chens to file separate petitions for review from the separate BIA decisions, under the circumstances in this case, it was sufficient to file a single petition for review and it was not in the interests of judicial economy to bifurcate the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioners' motion to bifurcate.

Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Zaricor-Ritchie appealed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and Supplement Security Income. Plaintiff claimed she was disabled by bipolar disorder and depression. After administrative denials of her claims for benefits, she had two hearings before an ALJ, who concluded she was not disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process. Plaintiff raised three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical source evidence; (2) the ALJ erred in his credibility assessment; and (3) the ALJ failed to perform a proper analysis in concluding that she could return to her past relevant work as a dishwasher. Taking each of Plaintiff's arguments in turn, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ's analysis was sufficient to support its decision. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits.