William T. Lawrence

The case involved Patriotic Veterans, Inc., an Illinois nonprofit seeking to make automated interstate telephone calls to Indiana residents to convey political messages about candidates and issues relevant to veterans. Indiana's Automated Dialing Machine Statute generally prohibits such calls unless the recipient has consented or a live operator obtains consent first, with violations constituting a misdemeanor, and the state attorney general intended to enforce it against the plaintiff. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motion, and issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the state statute against interstate political calls. The core reasoning was that the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act preempts the Indiana law as applied to interstate automated dialing, based on the TCPA's savings clause that preserves only certain intrastate state regulations and on legislative history showing Congress's intent to address states' lack of jurisdiction over interstate calls.

free speechfederal power

This case involves a dispute among insurance companies over coverage obligations following a workplace injury on a construction project. An employee of Central Steel Erectors sued Indiana Steel Fabricating (ISF) after falling through a roof; Amerisure initially defended ISF under its CGL policy before Scottsdale took over defense pursuant to an additional insured endorsement in Central Steel's Scottsdale policy, which was required by the subcontract to provide primary coverage. After the underlying suit settled, Amerisure and National Surety sought contribution from Scottsdale for defense costs and the settlement amount. The court granted summary judgment to Amerisure and National Surety, holding that Scottsdale's policies provided primary coverage to ISF and that Scottsdale was obligated to reimburse the other insurers, while rejecting Scottsdale's arguments based on policy exclusions, waiver, and estoppel.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Gregory Demaree, who sued Life Insurance Co. of North America (LINA) after it denied his claim for long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan. Demaree had a history of multiple injuries and surgeries affecting his knee, back, shoulder, and neck that left him unable to perform his heavy physical job as a maintenance mechanic or any other work. The court granted Demaree's motion for summary judgment and denied LINA's, holding that the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The core reasoning was that LINA relied on flawed or selective reviews by its consulting physicians, disregarded consistent opinions from Demaree's treating doctors that he could not work at any level, and failed to properly account for the combined effects of his conditions.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves personal injury claims by David Walker and his wife arising from an incident during a law enforcement training class on protective equipment use, conducted by defendant SAIC under a contract with the federal Center for Domestic Preparedness. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment, including whether SAIC could invoke the government contractor defense to immunity under Boyle v. United Technologies. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' partial motion while denying all defendants' motions. Core reasoning focused on the Boyle test's first prong, finding SAIC presented no evidence that the government was actively involved in developing the course curriculum beyond reviewing the completed manuals, so the defense did not apply and factual disputes remained for trial.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in an ERISA action against Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company after the defendant approved her long-term disability benefits claim following litigation. The court granted the motion in part, awarding fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) because the plaintiff achieved some success on the merits. The core reasoning applied Seventh Circuit tests focusing on whether the defendant's position was substantially justified, finding it was not due to the insurer's unreasonable discounting of the plaintiff's subjective pain complaints without examination, while reducing claimed hourly rates based on market evidence and excluding hours spent on an unnecessary motion to unseal.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Becky E.S. Gaines seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on claimed disabilities from right shoulder, knee, neck, and leg problems. The ALJ had found at steps one through four of the five-step analysis that Gaines had not engaged in substantial gainful activity, had severe impairments including degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis, did not meet a listed impairment, and had the residual functional capacity for a full range of sedentary work, leading to a denial of benefits. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ failed to articulate an adequate explanation for finding that Gaines could stoop occasionally in light of conflicting medical evidence on her limited lumbar flexion and did not properly resolve that evidentiary conflict or explain the weight given to various opinions. The core reasoning emphasized the requirement that the ALJ build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion regarding residual functional capacity, particularly where it affected the determination of past relevant work and ability to perform other jobs.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involved a federal enforcement action under the Safe Drinking Water Act against Thomas Ritz and related defendants concerning the Cottonwood Campground in Indiana. The government alleged that the campground, which had multiple water spigots and sewer hookups, qualified as a public water system but had failed to conduct required testing for nitrates and total coliform since at least 2002, in violation of a 1998 EPA administrative order. On the government's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the campground met the statutory definition of a public water system due to its fifteen or more service connections, but found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Thomas Ritz qualified as an owner or operator subject to liability. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part on these grounds, while also denying the defendant's separate motion to enforce a prior settlement agreement and rejecting arguments about notice requirements, the order's expiration, and the statute of limitations.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Stacy Staggs filed for judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, based on claims of disability from degenerative disc disease, lumbar facet syndrome, obesity, depression, and related conditions beginning in 2002. The ALJ determined at steps one through four that Staggs had severe impairments but could still perform light work with some limitations and was therefore not disabled. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the ALJ had not adequately evaluated whether Staggs' impairments met or medically equaled a Listing of Impairments and had failed to explain or obtain vocational expert testimony on how her nonexertional limitations, including depression, affected the occupational base for unskilled light work.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved a dental student at Indiana University who was dismissed in 2010 after multiple disciplinary proceedings for alleged professional misconduct, including issues with remediation exams, attendance, confidentiality, and contact with committees. She sued the university and officials, claiming violations of federal due process and equal protection rights as well as breach of contract, alleging inadequate notice, lack of opportunity to defend herself, and unequal treatment. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the breach of contract claim failed to identify specific enforceable promises in the student handbook or policies that were breached, the due process claim did not show a protected property interest or inadequate process given the circumstances, and the equal protection claim lacked any factual allegations of membership in a protected class or discriminatory intent.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves Edward Schimpf's appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, based on impairments including diabetes, COPD, coronary artery disease, sleep apnea, and obesity. The ALJ found at steps four and five that Schimpf retained the residual functional capacity for certain light work and could perform jobs existing in the national economy, without expressly addressing his claim of illiteracy under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Schimpf argued that the ALJ should have applied Grid Rule 202.09 to deem him disabled due to his age and illiteracy as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.964(b)(1). The court remanded for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ's implicit finding against illiteracy lacked a logical bridge to substantial evidence in the record and that the Commissioner's additional supporting evidence could not be considered because it was not cited in the ALJ's decision.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a dispute over whether Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) must reimburse a student's family for private school tuition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) after the family claimed IPS failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student with an emotional disability that caused disruptive behavior. An administrative hearing officer and appeals board ruled in favor of reimbursement, but IPS appealed to federal court. The court reviewed the administrative record and held that reimbursement requires both a violation by the public school and proof that the private placement was appropriate under the IDEA, including evidence that the private school provided special education services addressing the student's specific needs. The only evidence offered was the grandmother's testimony about general academic support and grades, which the court found insufficient to establish that the private school delivered the required services for the emotional disability. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to IPS and denied reimbursement.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

This ERISA case involves a plaintiff's challenge to Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's denial of her claim for long-term disability benefits under an employee benefit plan. The court addressed the plaintiff's objection to a magistrate judge's order that had granted the defendants a protective order barring discovery. The court reconsidered and denied the protective order, holding that discovery into the plan administrator's conflict of interest should be permitted. It reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn requires treating such a conflict as a factor in reviewing benefit denials under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, making relevant evidence necessary to weigh the factor appropriately, and that prior Seventh Circuit precedent limiting discovery to exceptional cases was effectively superseded.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between mineral rights holders American Land Holdings of Indiana, LLC and Midwest Coal Reserves and surface owners including the Jobe defendants over whether a 1903 severance deed permits surface mining to extract coal from tracts in Sullivan County, Indiana. After a bench trial, the court reviewed the deed's text conveying all coals and minerals with rights to mine and remove them, provisions addressing surface use for mining operations, and the full chain of title including later conveyances and a quiet title action. The court concluded that the deed language was not ambiguous in a manner that would bar surface mining and that the surface owners had notice of the severed mineral estate, rendering them unable to claim bona fide purchaser status under Indiana law.

property

The case involved Indiana Bell Telephone Company (AT&T Indiana) seeking review of an Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) order that required continued network sharing with competitors based on the number of fiber-based collocators (FBCs) at certain wire centers under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The dispute centered on whether CLECs cross-connecting via coaxial cable to a host CLEC's fiber should be counted as additional FBCs, with AT&T arguing for inclusion and the IURC and intervenors arguing against it. The court, applying de novo review to the purely legal question, denied AT&T's summary judgment motion, granted the cross-motions, and affirmed the IURC order, holding that the IURC's exclusion of cross-connecting CLECs from the FBC count was consistent with FCC definitions in the TRRO, avoided double-counting, and aligned with the policy focus on actual competitive fiber deployment.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Magee v. AllianceOne, Ltd., the plaintiff sued a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after receiving a letter seeking to collect on her past-due credit account that listed a "Minimum Amount Due" of $383.85 without stating her total outstanding debt of over $10,000. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's, ruling that the letter violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) by omitting the amount of the debt and violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by misleadingly stating an incorrect minimum amount due. The core reasoning was that the letter did not explain it sought only past-due amounts and that the actual minimum to bring the account current exceeded the figure provided, creating a false impression for the recipient. The defendant was acting as a debt collector under the FDCPA when sending the letter.

business & regulatory