Robert Harlan Henry

Terry Gunderson, a coal miner with over thirty years of experience, sought black lung benefits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act after being diagnosed with pneumoconiosis from coal dust exposure, claiming his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease qualified as legal pneumoconiosis. The administrative law judge denied the claim, finding the conflicting medical opinions from Gunderson's doctors and those retained by his employer Blue Mountain Energy to be equally well-reasoned and supported, so that Gunderson had not carried his burden of proof; the Benefits Review Board affirmed. On petition for review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the ALJ's brief statement assigning equal weight failed to provide the reasoned explanation required by the Administrative Procedure Act, warranting remand for further proceedings, while upholding the exclusion of an additional letter from a government institute. The core issue on appeal was the sufficiency of the administrative explanation for denying benefits based on the medical evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Vance Bradshaw's conviction for bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) after he passed a note to a teller demanding money from the till, took approximately $1,200, and fled; he was later linked to a backpack, ski mask, and BB gun found nearby. The district court admitted the BB gun into evidence and declined to instruct the jury on bank theft under § 2113(b) or allow argument that Bradshaw committed only theft rather than robbery. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that the BB gun was relevant circumstantial evidence of intent to intimidate and identity, that bank theft is not a lesser-included offense of bank robbery because it lacks the force-or-intimidation element, and that permitting such an argument would risk jury confusion and encroach on prosecutorial charging discretion. The court noted that the jury instructions adequately covered the general intent requirement for intimidation and that acquittal was available if the jury found no intimidation occurred.

criminal law

The case involved United Rentals seeking indemnification from Yearout under a rental agreement for a scissor lift after settling claims from an accident that killed two Yearout employees. The district court dismissed the claim, finding the indemnity provision unenforceable under New Mexico's anti-indemnity statute for construction contracts. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court the question of whether the equipment rental agreement qualifies as a "construction contract" under N.M. Stat. § 56-7-1(E) (2005), which would render the provision void. The court reasoned that this is an important and unsettled question of state law best resolved by the state supreme court.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability