In Gordon v. Astrue, plaintiff Ronald Gordon sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming disability from January 2006 due to depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and adopted it, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The remand was limited to the period from January 2006 through September 2008, prior to a later favorable disability determination, and directed the ALJ to properly weigh physicians' opinions, explain reliance on non-examining consultants, support the residual functional capacity finding with specific evidence, and pose updated hypothetical questions to a vocational expert if the RFC changed. The court emphasized compliance with due process regulations for any termination of eligibility and the need to address identified deficiencies in the original administrative decision.
In Henke v. Arco Midcon, LLC, property owners filed a putative class action against current and former pipeline owners and operators, alleging that leaks of petroleum products and hazardous chemicals from an underground pipeline on or near their land caused ongoing contamination and damage. The district court addressed multiple motions to dismiss the various counts of the complaint. It granted the motions in part by dismissing Count I as to Wiltel and Magellan, Counts IV, V, and VI as to all defendants (with leave to amend Count VI against Wiltel only), and striking the demand for medical monitoring, while denying dismissal of Counts II and III against Wiltel and Magellan. The rulings rested on whether the claims stated viable causes of action under Missouri law and whether certain remedies or standalone claims were permissible.
This case involved a challenge by Neighborhood Enterprises, Sanctuary in the Ordinary, and related parties to the City of St. Louis's denial of a permit for a large sign/mural reading "End Eminent Domain Abuse" painted on a building in a multiple-family dwelling district. Petitioners claimed the denial under the city's zoning code violated their free speech, equal protection, and due process rights under the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions, and sought relief via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the City and Board of Adjustment, affirming the permit denial and holding that the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. The court reasoned that the sign code provisions applied to the mural were constitutional as applied and supported by substantial evidence.
The case involves plaintiff Roger D. Pogue's action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits based on mild mental retardation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for an award of benefits. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's hypothetical to the vocational expert was deficient because it omitted the plaintiff's need for ongoing assistance from a job coach or life coach, and the vocational expert testified that such a requirement would preclude all competitive employment; the record was found to convincingly establish disability warranting an immediate award without further proceedings.
This case involves Diane Schulte's challenge to the denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) application by the Social Security Commissioner, after she alleged disability starting in 2002 due to conditions including depression, arthritis, ankle and knee problems, and back injury. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied DIB, finding her not disabled before her insured status expired, but granted Supplemental Security Income from a later date. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to reverse the decision, reasoning that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the plaintiff's credibility using the Polaski factors and did not adequately consider whether subsequent medical diagnoses related back to the period before her insured status expired. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved a lawsuit by Rock Hill Mechanical, Inc. against Liebert Corporation and Electronic Support Systems, Inc. (ESS) over alleged damages from a defective Liebert Mini-Mate 2 environmental control unit that leaked water onto MRI equipment at a hospital. The plaintiff asserted claims including strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligent inspection, stemming from its installation of the unit under a design-build subcontract. The court granted summary judgment to Liebert, finding that it had validly limited its warranties and that the plaintiff had not shown Liebert was unable to fulfill the limited remedy. It denied summary judgment to ESS, determining that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding ESS's duties and potential breaches in performing a post-installation inspection. Several related motions on expert testimony and warranty limitations were denied as moot.
