Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought an action alleging that his dismissal from medical school for unprofessional behavior violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the medical school and plaintiff appealed. Because the court agreed with the district court that, with or without a reasonable accommodation of plaintiff's ADHD and anxiety disorder, plaintiff was not "otherwise qualified" to participate in the medical school's program, the court affirmed the judgment.

Decedent Charles Gray sought treatment for epilepsy at Defendant University of Colorado Hospital. In the course of his withdrawal from medication, hospital staff left Decedent unattended and he died after suffering a seizure. Plaintiffs, decedent’s estate and family members, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit alleging that the hospital (and affiliated doctors, nurses, and staff) deprived Decedent of life without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a constitutional claim. Plaintiffs appealed. Applying the appropriate legal standards, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but for reasons somewhat different than those of the district court: "The state actor’s affirmative act creating the danger or rendering the victim more vulnerable to it does not constitute a constitutional deprivation."

Main & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Southern Springs Healthcare Facility, filed an action in the Bullock Circuit Court, on behalf of itself and a putative class of Alabama nursing homes, against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBS), asserting claims of breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, negligence and/or wantonness, and unjust enrichment and seeking injunctive relief. BCBS removed the case to the the federal court, arguing among other things, that Southern Springs' claims arose under the Medicare Act and that the Medicare Act, as amended by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the MMA) completely preempted Southern Springs' state-law claims. Southern Springs moved the federal court to remand the case to the circuit court, arguing that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. The federal court granted the motion and remanded the case to the Bullock Circuit Court. After remand, BCBS moved the circuit court for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Southern Springs had not exhausted its administrative remedies and that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The circuit court denied BCBS's motion, and BCBS petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss Southern Springs' claims. Upon review, the Court concluded that Southern Springs' claims were inextricably intertwined with claims for coverage and benefits under the Medicare Act and that they were subject to the Act's mandatory administrative procedures and limited judicial review. Southern Springs did not exhaust its administrative remedies, and the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. Therefore, the Court granted BCBS's petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the claims against BCBS.

In 2003, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services and a certified class of Medicaid-eligible children reached a settlement agreement and proposed a consent decree that outlined the Department's obligations to provide dental services to Medicaid-enrolled children in accordance with federal law. The district court approved the Decree in 2004. Between 2007 and 2010, the district court denied four motions alleging that the Department was not in compliance. The First Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court's requirement that the Class to file a motion for contempt to enforce the Decree; denial of a 2010 motion for contempt; denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing in 2010; and holding the Class to a clear and convincing burden of proof on its 2010 motion to modify or extend the Decree.

Plaintiffs, physicians and abortion providers, sued the State under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against alleged constitutional violations resulting from Texas House Bill 15, an act "relating to informed consent to an abortion." Plaintiffs contended that H.B. 15 abridged their First Amendment rights by compelling the physician to take and display to the woman sonogram images of her fetus, make audible its heartbeat, and explain to her the results of both exams, as well as have her sign a consent form. The court held that the enumerated provisions of H.B. 15 requiring disclosures and written consent were sustainable under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were within the State's power to regulate the practice of medicine, and did not violate the First Amendment. The court also held that the phrase "the physician who is to perform the abortion," the conflict between section 171.012(a)(4) and section 171.0122, and the provision in section 171.0123 regarding the failure to provide printed materials were not unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on any of the claims on which the injunction was granted and the court vacated the preliminary injunction.

This case involved Commonwealth Care, a state-initiated program that provided structured premium assistance for low-income Massachusetts residents. In 2009, the Legislature made certain changes to the eligibility requirements of Commonwealth Care, enacted in a two-part supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2010. Section 31(a) of the appropriation excluded all aliens who were federally ineligible under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646, from participation in Commonwealth Care. Plaintiffs were individuals who either have been terminated from Commonwealth Care or have been denied eligibility solely as a result of their alienage. The court held that section 31(a) could not pass strict scrutiny and that the discrimination against legal immigrants that its limiting language embodied violated their rights to equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution.

Plaintiffs, Washington Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental and physical disabilities, appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the operation of a regulation promulgated by Washington's DSHS that reduced the amount of in-home "personal care services" available under the state's Medicaid plan. The court concluded that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury because they have shown that reduced access to personal care services would place them at serious risk of institutionalization. The court further concluded that plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits of their Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794(a), claims, that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor, and that a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest. Accordingly, the court remanded for entry of a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff was enrolled in the Counselor Education Program at Augusta State University (ASU), seeking to obtain her master's degree in school counseling. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that requiring her to complete a remediation plan addressing what the faculty perceived as deficiencies in her ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor violated her First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights. Plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent ASU's officials from dismissing her from the program if she did not complete the remediation plan. The district court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction and plaintiff appealed. The court held that because plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her free speech and free exercise claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for a preliminary injunction.

An inmate began suffering from pain in his groin after an injury in 2004. Staff at the prison health unit recognized that his pain was caused by an inguinal hernia but gave him only mild pain medication. The inmate complained and was examined by a doctor who pushed the hernia back into his abdomen and refused a request for surgery. For several months the condition worsened, with a visible bulge and pain, but medical staff continued to refuse surgery. The inmate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed prior to service. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to the physicians and remanded for determination of whether their response to more than two years of complaints has been blatantly inappropriate in the face of the inmate's pain and the risk the worsening hernia poses to his present and future health.

Plaintiff sued the Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners, claiming its status requirement violated the Constitution when the Board denied her a license solely on account of her immigration status. Plaintiff was an alien who had applied for permanent residence. The district court granted the Board summary judgment on all grounds. The court held that because applicants for permanent resident status did not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, and a rational basis supported the immigration-status requirement, the judgment was affirmed.