This case involves allegations by the Government under the False Claims Act that dermatologist Steven Jay Wasserman and pathologist Jose Suarez-Hoyos, along with their associated entities, engaged in a kickback arrangement starting around 1997. Wasserman received improper Medicare reimbursements for pathology slide readings he did not perform in exchange for referring patients to Suarez's lab TPL, and also allegedly upcoded evaluation and management services and tissue transfers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied both motions to dismiss, holding that the allegations sufficiently stated claims with particularity under the applicable pleading standards, including facts showing awareness of Anti-Kickback Statute violations and concealment efforts.
The case involved Sarasota County, through its Clerk, suing Wells Fargo as successor to Wachovia Bank over losses from three investments (Altius Bonds, OONIM Notes, and Lehman Notes) made by Wachovia as the County's agent in a securities lending program governed by an Agreement and Guidelines. The County asserted claims for violations of the Florida Securities Investor Protection Act, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the motion to dismiss the FSIPA claim because the County did not purchase the securities from Wachovia, Wachovia was not liable as an agent under the statute, and FSIPA does not cover merely holding securities or providing investment advice. It also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim due to the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter. The court denied dismissal of the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Wendy Johnson, an African-American postal worker, sued Postmaster General John E. Potter alleging race discrimination in workplace discipline, route adjustments affecting full-time promotions, and denial of committee assignments, plus retaliation after she filed an EEO complaint about unequal treatment. The district court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claims, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to evaluate direct evidence, comparators, and pretext. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims lacking evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive, and denied it in part on issues where disputed facts about Marsh's actions and the timing of the EEO filing could support a jury finding of unlawful conduct.
The case concerns Plaintiff Denise Molina's motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after she obtained a sentence-four remand of her denied Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income claims. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and denied the motion. The core reasoning was that the Commissioner was substantially justified in defending the case because the remand was ordered solely for failure to apply the required special technique mental evaluation analysis under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a and 416.920a, an issue not raised by the plaintiff, while the ALJ's other findings on credibility, obesity, treating opinions, and step-three analysis were upheld.
The case involved a plaintiff suing his auto insurer for breach of contract and bad faith under Florida law after suffering severe injuries in an accident, with separate trials resulting in a $30 million damages award followed by a jury verdict finding the insurer had not acted in bad faith. After the insurer's rejected $1 million settlement offer made more than 45 days before the bad faith trial under Florida Statute § 768.79, the court addressed the insurer's motion for over $258,000 in attorney's fees and $221,000 in costs for the post-offer period. The court awarded $209,685.50 in fees using the lodestar method to adjust for excessive hours and rates but denied the costs request without prejudice. The core reasoning applied Florida substantive law on fee-shifting for rejected offers where the plaintiff obtained no recovery, while reviewing reasonableness under the lodestar approach adopted by Florida courts.
The case involved plaintiffs Jeff and Heidi Bishop suing debt collector I.C. System, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after the company continued contacting them about disputed medical bills. The court granted partial summary judgment to the Bishops on their claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c), which bars further communications from a debt collector after written notice to cease. The court reasoned that Bishop's November 2008 letter, stating that any further correspondence would be discarded or returned unopened, unambiguously demanded an end to contact, leaving no genuine factual dispute for a jury on whether the statutory protection applied.
