Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff challenged the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff claims that he is disabled as a result of osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease of the hips, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spines, sensory and motor neuropathies, chronic shoulder pain and osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. The court concluded that the ALJ did not err in failing to find that plaintiff's impairments met or equaled the criteria of Listing 1.02A; substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a receptionist and thus was not disabled; and the denial of disability insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Igo v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Crete, alleging it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., by requiring a medical examination and discriminating on the basis of a perceived disability. Crete required its truck drivers with Body Mass Indexes (BMIs) of 35 or greater to get medical examinations to determine whether they had obstructive sleep apnea. When Crete ordered plaintiff to undergo an examination because his BMI was over 35, he refused. The district court granted summary judgment to Crete. The court concluded that the district court property admitted an expert's testimony regarding obesity and obstructive sleep apnea; by the undisputed facts, the sleep study requirement is job-related because it deals with a condition that impairs drivers’ abilities to operate their vehicle; the requirement is also consistent with business necessity; the district court correctly granted Crete summary judgment on the medical-examination claim where Crete carried its burden of showing it defined the class reasonably; and the undisputed evidence shows that Crete suspended plaintiff for refusing to submit to a lawful medical examination, which does not violate the ADA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Parker v. Crete Carrier Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits. The ALJ concluded that she suffered from severe but not listed impairments – mood disorder, anxiety disorder, residuals of brain tumor with surgical resection, degenerative disc disease of the thoracic and cervical spine, and scoliosis – but that plaintiff was not disabled because, while she could not perform her past relevant work, she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a limited range of light work. In this case, the ALJ expressly incorporated into the RFC work-related limitations suggested by medical source opinions regarding plaintiff's slow pace; the cumulative evidence submitted did not undermine the ALJ's RFC determination; and the ALJ properly weighed and considered the extensive medical evidence in the record in making the RFC determination. Therefore, the court concluded that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s decision and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Harvey v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former acting director of cyber security at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, was convicted of multiple child pornography-related offenses following a jury trial. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the interception of electronic communications where the application was properly authorized; the affidavit in support of the search warrant provided more than enough information to support a finding of probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity would be found at defendant's residence; the district court did not err in denying his motion to exclude evidence of his "fantasy chat messages" at trial where the court has previously held that personal chats on child pornography websites are admissible as circumstantial evidence; defendant failed to demonstrate that the chats were prejudicial; but defendant was improperly convicted of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction on that count and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. DeFoggi" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. The court concluded that the information before the district court was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to investigate further defendant's mental competency; while the preferred practice would include the presence of the defendant when it appears likely that the defendant and the lawyer are at odds about the necessity of a competency evaluation, the court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the process and procedures undertaken by the district court were sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process; defendant's asserted lack of notice and opportunity to be personally heard would constitute, at most, a trial error; even assuming a constitutional violation, defendant has not demonstrated prejudice that resulted from the committal process; the committal process did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial where defendant managed to work through three different lawyers, requested motions to continue, and failed to identify any prejudice caused by any period of delay; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A), specifically excludes from consideration delay resulting from an examination to determine mental competency; defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Zavesky" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of DISH subscribers, seeking monetary relief for Turner and FOX News services interruptions. The court concluded that, under Colorado law, the subscription agreement between DISH and its customers, which is comprised of both a Digital Home Advantage Plan Agreement and a Residential Customer Agreement (RCA), is not illusory. In this case, the district court’s interpretation of Section 1.I. and Section 7.A. of the RCA improperly converted the covenant of good faith and fair dealing into an additional contract term. It allowed plaintiffs to recover monetary relief for services interruptions, a remedy that is unambiguously precluded by the express terms of the parties’ contractual bargain. Therefore, the duty of good faith and fair dealing may not be applied to require DISH to provide any monetary relief when it deletes or changes programming for which subscribers have already paid. Because plaintiffs' claims for class-wide monetary relief failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stokes v. DISH Network" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 240 months in prison after being convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the firearm charge because the guns found in his home were not readily accessible. The court rejected defendant's argument and concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the required nexus exists between the loaded firearms and defendant's drug trafficking offenses. Accordingly, because the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the firearms charge, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the University of Minnesota, David Andersen, and Ted Swem, alleging sexual harassment under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Swem was a mentor and guide to plaintiff. The district court denied Swem's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to review claims raised in this interlocutory appeal based on the purely legal issue of whether the facts, taken most favorably to plaintiff, support a finding that defendant violated her clearly established constitutional rights. On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that Swem is not entitled to qualified immunity and that summary judgment should be denied. Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that Swem’s conduct toward her was unwelcome harassment, and that it was serious enough to alter a term or condition of her employment. She also showed that Swem’s conduct violated a clearly established right, based on the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jenkins v. Swem" on Justia Law

In 2013, the IRS seized $32,820.56 from Carole Hinders’s business bank account based on allegations that Hinders had unlawfully “structured” deposits to avoid federal currency reporting requirements. The government then filed a civil forfeiture complaint against the seized currency, and Hinders filed claims to the seized property. The district court eventually dismissed the action without prejudice. The district court then denied Hinder's motion for fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. 2465(b)(1), and declined to reconsider its prior dismissal without prejudice. The court concluded, however, that Hinders has not “substantially prevailed” in this action where the district court’s dismissal without prejudice did not materially alter the legal relationship of the parties. Therefore, Hinders is not eligible for an award of attorney fees, costs, or interest under CAFRA. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice rather than with prejudice. In this case, the district court considered each of the relevant factors in deciding to grant the government’s motion and Hinders had not shown that she would be prejudiced by a dismissal without prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hinders" on Justia Law

Debtors argue that the bankruptcy court erred in not awarding them all the attorney fees they incurred in their adversary proceeding against Champion for its violation of the discharge injunction. Debtors also argue that the bankruptcy court erred in not awarding them punitive damages for Champion's violation of the discharge injunction. The BAP concluded that both arguments failed for the same reason. In this case, the record on appeal affords the panel no basis for evaluating their merits. Therefore, the BAP is unable to review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact or its conclusions of law, and cannot say, without the transcript, that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in reaching the decision it did. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Huonder v. Champion Milking Systems" on Justia Law