Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

DiLuzio, owned Yorkville buildings that burned under suspicious circumstances. Fire Chief Klubert led the firefighting and coordinated with Mayor DiFilippo on a decision to demolish part of a building immediately, without inspection or formal decision. Klubert and DiFilippo ordered Officer Davis to find DiLuzio and bring him to a meeting. At that meeting, DiLuzio insisted the buildings could be repaired. DiFilippo ordered Nemeth to demolish most of the south building, but left part intact, even though it had suffered the worst damage. Days later, Police Chief Morelli (on orders from DiFilippo) approached DiLuzio’s son with a low-ball offer from an anonymous investor, to purchase the property “as is.” DiLuzio declined. Morelli approached DiLuzio with another offer months later. DiLuzio declined again. Morelli, Klubert, and DiFilippo began to issue citations, threatening $600 per day fines. The Village dismissed the first citation, which included false statements about inspections and authorizations. Morelli falsified a State Fire Marshall citation threatening $1,000 per day fines. The Village then passed a criminal ordinance concerning unkempt properties. Morelli charged DiLuzio, falsely notarizing his own signature. DiLuzio filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.summary judgment for defendants on some claims, but denied qualified immunity to DiFilippo and Klubert on the due process claim concerning demolition; to Morelli and Davis on substantive due process claims; and to Nemeth because he was not a state actor. View "DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville" on Justia Law

When Colonel Antoon (U.S. Air Force, retired) learned that he needed prostate surgery, he researched options and specialists, which led him to the Cleveland Clinic and Dr. Kaouk. Antoon interviewed Kaouk and arranged for him to perform the operation. When Antoon experienced complications following the surgery, his further investigation caused him to suspect that Kaouk did not actually perform the surgery, but passed off major duties to a surgical resident. Antoon lodged several complaints and filed a medical malpractice action in state court, which was dismissed voluntarily. Antoon then filed suit as a relator under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), premised on the theory that Kaouk billed the government for work he did not perform, and promoted the robotic surgical device he recommended in violation of the anti-kickback statute, 42 U.S.C. 1302a-7b(b)(2). The United States declined to intervene. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, based on a jurisdictional bar. Antoon does not have any direct and independent knowledge of the information upon which his fraud allegations are based; therefore he cannot qualify as an original source of that information, and cannot establish standing as a qui tam plaintiff under the FCA, 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(B). View "Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found." on Justia Law

KIF is a Tennessee coal-fired plant generating electricity. In 2008, a KIF coal-ash containment dike failed, spilling 5.4 million cubic yards of coal-ash sludge over 300 acres of adjacent land. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA delegated authority to TVA, 42 U.S.C. 9604(a)-(b). TVA engaged Jacobs as the prime contractor for planning and oversight of remediation. Jacobs provided a Site Wide Safety and Health Plan that applies to all construction at the site, and to CERCLA remediation activities in accordance with EPA’s Standard Operating Safety Guide. The Plaintiffs worked on the KIF remediation and, in 2013, sued, alleging that Jacobs improperly monitored fly ash; inadequately trained workers about hazards of inhaling toxic fly ash; inadequately monitored their medical conditions; denied requests for respirators and dust masks; exposed them to high concentrations of flyash toxic constituents; and fraudulently concealed that exposure. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that Jacobs was entitled to government-contractor immunity as a corollary of the discretionary-function exception to the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2674. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that such immunity is not jurisdictional and that the court should have considered a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. View "Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp, Inc" on Justia Law

In 1948, the United States and Ohio entered into a cost-sharing agreement to construct and maintain the Tom Jenkins Dam and Burr Oak Reservoir to control flooding in southeast Ohio’s Hocking River Basin. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Project required acquisition of property interests under and surrounding the dam, including subsurface mineral rights. Those interests were acquired and the dam was built. In 2010, Ohio entered into leases that granted Buckingham, a coal company, rights to construct a corridor beneath Project lands to connect non-Project parcels that Buckingham already owned and to sell coal extracted in the process. The United States unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order. The district court determined that the Project would not be placed at risk by the leases. The United States then unsuccessfully sought a declaratory judgment that the cost-sharing agreement preclude Ohio (or any third party authorized by Ohio) from conducting mining activity in Project lands without the Corps’ prior approval. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Ohio was required to acquire land “necessary” for the Project, including “coal in the lands lying below elevation 750,” so that the United States would not have to litigate to protect the Project or to alter operations to avoid litigation. The Agreement did not grant Ohio a unilateral right to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of those same rights. View "United States v. State of Ohio" on Justia Law

The Medocks’ company, MAS, transported patients to kidney dialysis for Medicare reimbursement. Reimbursement of non-emergency ambulance transport is allowed only if medically necessary for bedridden patients; both a driver and an EMT must accompany any such passenger. Certification of medical necessity (CMN) must be signed by a doctor. A “run sheet” is reviewed by a Medicare contractor other than the ambulance company, such as AdvanceMed, to reduce fraud. AdvanceMed identified MAS as a high biller in Tennessee for dialysis ambulance transport and audited MAS. MAS’s records were missing some CMNs. Covert surveillance resulted in videotapes of patients walking, riding in the front seat, being double-loaded, being driven by single-staffed ambulances, or being transported by wheelchair. MAS had billed the transports as single-passenger and “stretcher required.” Executing a search warrant at the Medlocks’ home, agents seized CMNs and run tickets; some had been altered or forged. The Sixth Circuit reversed a conviction for aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A, agreeing that misrepresentations that certain beneficiaries were transported by stretcher did not constitute a “use” of identification, but affirmed health-care fraud convictions, rejecting arguments that the court should have instructed the jury that Medicare, not merely a prudent person, was the relevant decision-maker; that Medicare would have reimbursed MAS without their misrepresentations; and that refusal to sever a defendant was prejudicial. View "United States v. Medlock" on Justia Law

In 1983, Pratt & Whitney made false statements to the Air Force while competing with GE to supply fighter jet engines. Pratt did not obtain more business and the fraud was discovered. The government filed a 1998 action before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals seeking relief under the Truth in Negotiations Act, and a 1999 federal court action, seeking relief under the False Claims Act and common law restitution. The government lost the administrative action. While Pratt’s statements violated the truth-in-negotiation requirements, the Board refused to lower the price of the contracts retroactively (the remedy permitted by the Act) because the Air Force had relied on the competitive bids, not the 1983 false statements, in determining a reasonable price for the contracts. The Federal Circuit affirmed. After it was established that Pratt violated the False Claims Act and that it owed the government $7 million in statutory penalties, the case was remanded for damages calculation. The district court awarded $657 million. The Sixth Circuit remanded again, noting that the matter has been in litigation for 17 years. The award was not supported by the evidence given the government expert’s refusal to account for the competition between the companies in setting a fair market value for the engines. View "United States v. United Techs. Corp." on Justia Law

The False Claims Act (FCA) imposes civil liability for fraudulent claims for payment to the United States, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1), and authorizes qui tam suits, in which private parties bring civil actions in the government’s name. A relator must first disclose his claims to the government, which then decides whether to take over the action. Whipple alleged that Erlanger knowingly submitted fraudulent claims to federally funded healthcare programs and that he discovered the fraud while working at Erlanger in 2006, by analyzing past billings, reviewing patient records, and observing operations. He claimed to have direct knowledge of fraudulent practices from supervising patient admissions, planning discharges, and reviewing submission of claims. Unbeknownst to Whipple, the government conducted an audit and investigation; the matter was resolved without a hearing by Erlanger’s 2009 payment of a $477,140.42 refund to the government. Whipple disclosed his qui tam claims to the government in 2010 and filed suit in 2011, and the government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed, finding the claims jurisdictionally barred under the FCA’s public-disclosure bar. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Holding that the government audit was not a “public disclosure” sufficient to trigger the jurisdictional bar, the court did not decide whether the original-source exception to that bar would apply. View "United States v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp." on Justia Law

The FAA may “delegate to a qualified private person . . . the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate … and … issuing the certificate,” 49 U.S.C. 44702(d)(1), and may rescind delegation “at any time for any reason.” Airworthiness Representative-Maintenance (DAR-T) authorization to conduct aircraft inspections and issue airworthiness certificates has no expiration. Burdue was appointed as a DAR-T in 2001. In 2013, Burdue’s supervisors were informed of issues related to Burdue’s export certifications. The FAA’s Special Emphasis Investigations Team (SEIT) concluded that Burdue performed multiple aircraft inspections out of his assigned geographic area without authorization and had issued export certificates to aircraft owned by his wife, a conflict of interest. After review of Burdue’s response, Burdue’s certificate was revoked, both “for cause,” 14 C.F.R. 183.15(b)(4) and under the discretionary-revocation provision, 14 C.F.R. 183.15(b)(6). An Appeal Panel affirmed. Burdue brought a Bivens action, claiming due process violations and wrongful termination, then filed statutory claims in the Sixth Circuit. The district court stayed the Bivens proceedings. The Sixth Circuit declined to review the statutory claims because the FAA’s decision is committed to agency discretion and declined to review the constitutional claims that belong in the district court View "Burdue v. Fed. Aviation Admin." on Justia Law

The Department of Energy hired Vander Boegh in 1992 as landfill manager at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. In 1998, DOE awarded the Plant’s contract to BJC, which subcontracted with WESKEM for waste management services. Vander Boegh’s employment continued; he engaged in protected activity as landfill manager, including reporting environmental violations. In 2005, after soliciting new bids, DOE awarded the Plant’s contract to PRS. EnergySolutions provided waste management services by subcontract. In 2006, Plant operations transitioned to PRS-EnergySolutions. Vander Boegh applied to be the new landfill manager, but EnergySolutions hired another candidate. Vander Boegh’s employment terminated. He filed an employment discrimination complaint, alleging retaliation for protected conduct in violation of: the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5851; the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h)(1)); the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; and Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The Sixth Circuit reversed with respect to EnergySolutions. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Vander Boegh lacked statutory standing because he was an applicant, not an employee. View "Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc." on Justia Law

The prior owner of the 300-acre STEW Farm in Pickaway County contracted with Watershed Management for construction of waterways and received a subsidy from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA agency, 7 U.S.C. 6962. Kohli, an employee of the Pickaway County Soil and Water Conservation District supervised by NRCS, designed the waterways, and, after certified that they were designed and constructed properly. NRCS also certified the waterways, which allowed the owner to receive the federal reimbursement. The owner failed to pay Watershed, claiming that there was a ridge at the edge of the grass waterways that prevented proper draining. In 2009, Watershed sued for breach of contract; the owner counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of warranty. A state court granted summary judgment against the owner for failure to prove damages. The new owner then filed a federal suit. The district court dismissed, reasoning, as to NRCS, that STEW Farm had not identified a separate source of federal substantive law and failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity because there are no “clear guidelines” which show that the NRCS actions were not committed to agency discretion. As to Watershed, the court concluded that there was no federal cause of action nor did the state claims implicate significant federal issues. As to PCSWCD, STEW Farm alleged only state-law claims that did not implicate significant federal issues. As to PCSWCD and Kohli, the claims were time barred under Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Res. Conservation Serv." on Justia Law