Susan C. Bucklew

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.

criminal lawhealthcare

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a 2006 loan participation agreement under which PNC Bank agreed to fund amounts above $26.5 million on a $36.5 million construction loan originated by Colonial Bank (predecessor to defendant Branch Banking and Trust Co.), with principal repayments to be applied on a LIFO basis. PNC alleged that Colonial breached the agreement by failing to administer the participation on a LIFO basis for nearly a year, by not remitting 100% of principal repayments promptly, and by allowing loan proceeds to be used for golf course expenditures, asserting claims including breach of contract and gross negligence. After a non-jury trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law determining that PNC had waived strict LIFO compliance through its conduct and communications, that Colonial later corrected the administration and made all required remittances, and that Colonial's actions did not constitute bad faith or willful misconduct, resulting in judgment for the defendant on all claims.

business & regulatory

The case involved a claim by Clayton Kearney against Auto-Owners Insurance for bad faith handling of an uninsured motorist claim under an umbrella policy following a 2002 car accident that left him severely injured. The dispute centered on the limits of underlying primary insurance policies, including whether a Zurich policy stacked to allow much higher coverage, and Auto-Owners' obligations under its $5 million umbrella policy after Zurich paid its $500,000 limit. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding numerous unresolved issues of material fact that prevented a ruling on the claims.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a commercial lease agreement for a vacant property in Broward County, Florida, where Sembler Family Partnership (landlord) sued Brinker Florida, Inc. and Brinker International, Inc. (tenant) for damages and declaratory relief after Brinker terminated the lease instead of constructing a Chili's restaurant. The court granted summary judgment to Brinker on all counts, finding that the termination was effective and timely under the lease. The lease allowed Brinker to terminate within a conditions period if, in its sole discretion, it could not procure a general contractor and construction contract at a cost reasonably satisfactory to it, which Brinker determined was impossible after economic changes raised the required sales hurdle and made the needed $900,000 construction cost unfeasible based on its internal data. The court also rejected Sembler's argument that the termination notice was untimely, holding that the lease terms did not create a strict five-day window after completion of the landlord's work and that Brinker's notice was valid.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is an appeal from bankruptcy court orders in Terri Steffen's bankruptcy proceeding concerning the IRS's claim for over $5.8 million in unpaid taxes filed jointly with her husband. The primary dispute centered on the tax year in which Bicoastal stock became worthless for deduction purposes, along with related claims for a theft loss deduction and a bad debt deduction. The district court applied de novo review to legal issues and clear error review to facts, affirming the bankruptcy court's finding that the stock became worthless in 1993 rather than 1989 or 1992, while reversing in part on other determinations regarding basis, theft loss eligibility in 1991, and bad debt in 1993. The court directed the bankruptcy court to recalculate the tax liabilities accordingly.

taxesprocedure

In this case, Shin Crest, a manufacturer of folding chairs insured by AIU under a general liability policy that also covered Sam's Club as an additional insured, sued AIU for bad faith. The suit arose after a 2001 accident in which a user of one of Shin Crest's chairs became a paraplegic, leading to a 2003 lawsuit against Sam's Club that AIU defended and ultimately settled for the $2 million policy limits in 2005, leaving Shin Crest exposed to a potential direct claim by the injured parties. The court granted AIU's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding bad faith. The core reasoning was that the evidence showed no clear liability on the part of the insureds, AIU had reasonably valued the claim and was not obligated to make an early policy-limits offer, and its decision to settle when a demand at that level was made aligned with its duties to the primary insured while avoiding excess exposure risks.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In United States v. Paige, the defendant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) for knowingly permitting his minor child to engage in sexually explicit conduct to produce visual depictions, with the images allegedly produced using materials that had traveled in interstate and foreign commerce; he was also charged with possession under a separate statute. The defendant moved to dismiss the § 2251(b) count, arguing that the statute exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority by criminalizing purely intrastate, non-economic conduct akin to bad parenting, relying on Lopez and Morrison. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute is constitutional because it includes an express jurisdictional element tying the offense to materials shipped in interstate commerce and forms part of a comprehensive federal scheme regulating child pornography that substantially affects interstate commerce. The court followed Eleventh Circuit and other precedents applying Gonzales v. Raich to uphold similar provisions, finding the regulated activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved plaintiffs suing adoption-related defendants for negligent and intentional misrepresentation, claiming they were told adopted children were healthy and could be normalized by love, leading to delayed medical care after the family relocated to Florida. Defendant Adoption Options moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion, holding that a single telephone call initiated by plaintiffs did not satisfy Florida's long-arm statute because it caused no reliance or resulting injury as required for a tort claim, and that continued post-relocation communications alone were insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Florida under the Due Process Clause.

proceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

Plaintiff Mark Miller sued Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston under ERISA to recover short-term and long-term disability benefits under plans sponsored by his employer, claiming he remained disabled after surgery to repair a left posterior tibial tendon tear and subsequent shoulder issues. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant after reviewing the administrative record, holding that the denial of benefits beyond September 24, 2004 for STD and the denial of LTD benefits were reasonable because objective medical evidence did not support ongoing restrictions preventing sedentary work, and the employer could accommodate such duties. The court further found no improper conflict of interest or inconsistency affecting the decisions, as the plan terms and evidence supported Liberty Life's determinations of eligibility.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved plaintiffs, a licensed prosthetist-orthotist and his company supplying orthotics and prosthetics under Medicare and Medicaid, who faced proposed civil money penalties, assessments, and a seven-year exclusion from federal health programs based on allegedly improper billing claims. Plaintiffs challenged the administrative sanctions in federal district court, seeking injunctive relief and raising issues including constitutional violations, inadequate discovery, and lack of Attorney General authorization in the proceedings before an ALJ. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after finding that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 405(h), that their claims were not sufficiently collateral to the administrative process to permit judicial review at this stage, and that no other basis for jurisdiction existed.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case involved a dispute under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in which plaintiff Holly Giertz-Richardson challenged Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's termination of her long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff, who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and worked as a vice president, claimed she remained disabled from performing the essential duties of her occupation or any occupation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, entering judgment for Hartford. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory proof of disability, as independent medical reviews found evidence of malingering on neuropsychological tests and insufficient support for claims that her symptoms prevented her from working.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case arose from a dispute over who was responsible for funding a $2.725 million settlement in a negligence lawsuit brought by an employee of Comcar Industries against Martin Gas, based on a Terminal Access Agreement between the companies and related insurance policies. AISLIC, which had issued an umbrella policy to Martin Gas, moved to dismiss Comcar's counterclaims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, arguing that the agreement was not an insured contract and that its policy provided only excess coverage. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Comcar had adequately alleged facts supporting its claims that the agreement could qualify as an insured contract making it an additional insured, and that whether the umbrella policy's excess coverage would be triggered could not be resolved without further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Sharon Creel sued Wachovia Corporation seeking continued long-term disability benefits under its ERISA-governed plan after receiving payments for 24 months based on major depression and migraines. The plan limited mental illness benefits to 24 months unless the claimant was hospitalized and required objective proof of inability to perform any occupation thereafter. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, applying the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard due to a conflict of interest and finding the administrator's termination decision reasonable under the plan terms.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Mendez v. Unitrin Direct Property & Casualty Insurance, plaintiffs sued their auto insurer for bad faith failure to settle a wrongful death claim stemming from a 2004 fatal car accident, after the insurer sent two unanswered letters to the claimant and later had its $10,000 policy-limits offer rejected, resulting in a $630,000 judgment against the plaintiffs. A jury found the insurer liable for bad faith, but the court denied the insurer's motion for judgment as a matter of law while granting its motion for a new trial. The court explained that whether the insurer acted in bad faith remained a jury question on the facts presented, yet the admission of irrelevant evidence about execution of the judgment and the plaintiffs' inability to pay it created undue prejudice that likely swayed the verdict, which was against the great weight of the evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Patrick Hannon, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death for the 1991 premeditated murders of Brandon Snider and Robert Carter, who filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions and sentences. The district court reviewed Hannon's multiple claims, including issues related to trial counsel performance, prosecutorial arguments, and postconviction proceedings, after detailing the factual background of the crimes and the procedural history through direct appeal and state postconviction review. The court applied the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and determined that none of the claims had merit under clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the petition was denied in full.

criminal lawprocedure