Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc.
In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat.

[07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

[07/03] United Steel, Paper & Forestry, etc. v. TriMas Corp.
In an action to compel arbitration under the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) arising out of the parties' dispute over a neutrality agreement, summary judgment for union is affirmed where the district court correctly: 1) found that the dispute was covered by the language of the arbitration clause; and 2) left consideration of certain extrinsic evidence to the arbitrator.

More...

ERISA

[07/02] Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc.
In an ERISA action arising from a denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of state law claims was proper as defendant's disability plan is governed by ERISA, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice; 2) a California insurance regulation does not require defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of copying the medical records that defendant-insurer/administrator requested, as that regulation is preempted by ERISA; 3) defendants did not violate ERISA's regulation on "claims procedures" by requiring documentation from plaintiff regarding his claim; and 4) a remand was required in part as to dismissal of a claim that defendants violated ERISA section 1132(c)(1) for failing to turn over certain documents.

[07/02] Wakkinen v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
In an ERISA action, summary judgment for defendant upholding its denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-offered plan is affirmed where substantial evidence supported plan administrator's finding that claimant was not "continuously disabled" through the 180 days of his elimination period as defined within the policy in dispute.

[07/02] Newell Operating Co. v. Int'l Union of United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am.
In a declaratory judgment suit arising from plaintiff's decision to amend its employee welfare benefits plan to allow administrators to charge retirees uniform monthly premiums, dismissal of the case is affirmed where: 1) jurisdiction did not exist under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA since the declaratory judgment action was not designed to enforce any provisions of the plan or makes any valid allegations that ERISA will be violated; and 2) although plaintiff's LMRA section 301 claims fall within the statute, the request for declaratory judgment is covered by the Declaratory Judgment Act and the court used the discretion given under the Act to decline jurisdiction.

[06/30] Stamp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
Plan administrators of an employee benefits plan governed under ERISA may reasonably conclude that an insured, killed in a one-car collision with a tree while driving with BAC of 3 times the legal limit, did not die as a result of an "accident" for purposes of his Accidental Death and Dismemberment life insurance policies.

More...

Immigration Law

[07/03] Al Yatim v. Mukasey
Palestinian Christians' petitions for review of denials of their applications for asylum and related relief, as well as a motion to re-open, are denied where: 1) the record did not compel a conclusion that the BIA erred in finding petitioners ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief; and 2) although the election of Hamas may cause increased difficulties for Christians in the Palestinian territories, petitioners failed to identify any additional difficulties they will face which would rise to the level of persecution.

[07/02] Rapheal v. Mukasey
In an immigration proceeding involving a petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, a decision rejecting the claims for relief is reversed and the case remanded where petitioner's hearing before an IJ did not conform to statutory requirements insofar as she did not have a chance to review an Immigration Report admitted against her. Petitioner's challenges to the use of video conferencing for immigration proceedings are rejected.

[07/01] Kabba v. Mukasey
In an immigration proceeding, petition for review of a decision finding petitioner ineligible for both asylum, restriction on removal, and related relief is granted where the BIA did not appropriately review an IJ's earlier credibility determination under the clearly erroneous standard, as required by 8 C.F.R. section 1003.1(d)(3)(i).

[07/01] Kawashima v. Mukasey
Japanese natives' petitions for review of removal orders are granted in part where: 1) under circuit precedent, because the statutes to which petitioners pled guilty to violating do not require proof of any particular monetary loss, the circuit court does not examine the record of their convictions to determine whether they necessarily pled guilty to causing a loss in excess of $10,000; and 2) the government failed to show that petitioners' convictions are aggravated felonies under the categorical approach, and thus they are not removable. (Superseding opinion)

More...

Workers' Comp

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

[07/02] Anderson v. Commerce Construction Services, Inc.
In an action for negligence arising out of a Nebraska subcontractor's employee's injuries while performing demolition work in Kansas, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Kansas courts would have applied the lex loci delicti choice of law rule whereby the state where the tort occurred governs the merits of the litigation; 2) Kansas courts have only applied section 185 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to cases dealing with subrogation; and 3) application of section 184's most significant relationship test would result in defendant prevailing.

[07/02] Wakkinen v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
In an ERISA action, summary judgment for defendant upholding its denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-offered plan is affirmed where substantial evidence supported plan administrator's finding that claimant was not "continuously disabled" through the 180 days of his elimination period as defined within the policy in dispute.

More...

Insurance Law

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/02] Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc.
In an ERISA action arising from a denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of state law claims was proper as defendant's disability plan is governed by ERISA, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice; 2) a California insurance regulation does not require defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of copying the medical records that defendant-insurer/administrator requested, as that regulation is preempted by ERISA; 3) defendants did not violate ERISA's regulation on "claims procedures" by requiring documentation from plaintiff regarding his claim; and 4) a remand was required in part as to dismissal of a claim that defendants violated ERISA section 1132(c)(1) for failing to turn over certain documents.

[07/02] Wakkinen v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
In an ERISA action, summary judgment for defendant upholding its denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-offered plan is affirmed where substantial evidence supported plan administrator's finding that claimant was not "continuously disabled" through the 180 days of his elimination period as defined within the policy in dispute.

[06/30] Stamp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
Plan administrators of an employee benefits plan governed under ERISA may reasonably conclude that an insured, killed in a one-car collision with a tree while driving with BAC of 3 times the legal limit, did not die as a result of an "accident" for purposes of his Accidental Death and Dismemberment life insurance policies.

More...