Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query disability returned 8404 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.I.
	OPINION/ORDER We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Harris immediately fell to the ground and was later hospitalized. An MRI was performed on Harris's lumbar spine. During which he was treated for disc disease at the L 5/S 1 level. Following a bone The symbol L 5 represents one of five lumbar vertebrae which are located between the thorax and the pelvis. The S 1 is located just below the L 5. 2 Stenosis identifies the
	JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563) We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
	OPINION/ORDER Lines 1 2 the sentence is changed to begin
	WILLIAM F. ALLEN, V. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI With him on the brief was Stephen L. With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. Was ". We hold that we have jurisdiction over this remand order because the Veterans Court
	OPINION/ORDER Who was a member of the panel. This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Have their primary effect on claimants' applications when the claimants appear before the agency to have their claims decided on the merits. The change in the rule is thus not impermissibly retroactive. When Combs' claim was administratively adjudicated. It was not impermissibly retroactive in its effect. The district court correctly concluded that the Agency's determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The five steps are as follows: In step one. The SSA identifies claimants who
	JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563) We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: 12202 STEVEDORING SERVICES v. We held that the employee's permanent partial disability award was to be measured based on the difference between his pre injury average weekly wages and his post injury wage earning capacity. Another way to understand the inflation adjustment is as follows. Employee B's pre injury average weekly wage is $1000. The inflation rate in the hypothetical is 192% ($48 divided by $25). Employee B's inflation adjusted pre injury average weekly wage is $1920 (192% of $1000). PRICE 12203 reveals that at the time of the second accident employee B continues to have a diminished earning capacity as a result of the first accident. Is consistent with our conclusion here. The court reasoned that the permanent total disability award would be
	OPINION/ORDER LLP was on brief. Including questions about the extent to which the EEOC's informal interpretations of the borrowed definitions are binding in the FMLA context.
	OPINION/ORDER I. Factual background DeGrado is a forty year old man who. DeGrado was compensated by base salary and sales commissions. DeGrado temporarily stopped working due to symptoms he was experiencing from his disease. Jefferson concluded that DeGrado's claim was one for a new period of disability beginning on November 28. Jefferson concluded that DeGrado
	OPINION/ORDER We are asked to decide whether the decision of the Retirement Board for the National Football League's retirement plans. Was arbitrary and capricious. Courson contends he is entitled to a higher level of disability benefits. Because we find the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Is now in need of a heart transplant. Courson was drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers Football Club. Courson played professional football for the Steelers from the time he was drafted in 1977 until the end of the 1983 season. He was traded to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Football Club in 1984 and played for that team during the 1984 and 1985 seasons. Which was eventually published in 1991 under the title. Courson found out he was flat broke. Courson was exposed to the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (
	OPINION/ORDER An employer's duty to pay benefits is limited to a two year period. If the employer can establish that an employee's work related injury was made
	96-2194 -- RASCON V. U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 05/06/1998 Rascon was participating in the program. He tried to explain to her what it was and why he was seeking this type of treatment. She did not know what posttraumatic disorder was. That a four month duration was likely. Sullivan to find out what information was needed. On January 14. Rascon that U S West did not have enough information to grant a paid disability leave but that U S West would grant unpaid departmental leaves of absence. He reminded her that the estimated duration was four months. The best way to ensure that this process occurs smoothly is to complete a release and waiver before absence occurs.
	96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999 We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a
	96-3018A -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999 The plaintiff appellant should have been listed as follows: GENEVA M. Deceased. A copy of the corrected slip opinion cover page is attached. Sincerely. We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a
	OPINION/ORDER I. Background Welsh is an employee of Wachovia. Welsh was injured in a motor vehicle accident in December 1991. He was denied both short term and long term disability benefits. A. Short Term and Long Term Disability Plan Liberty is the Claims Administrator for both short term and long term disability claims brought pursuant to Wachovia's Short Term and Long Term Disability Plans (
	OPINION/ORDER The KRS disability retirement benefits plan (hereinafter
	OPINION/ORDER They argue that the district court's grant of summary judgment was erroneous because Ceridian provided vested disability benefits and did not unambiguously reserve the right to retroactively change the level of disability benefits that employees would receive in the future. 1 who were disabled before January 1. Dental insurance in which they were enrolled at the time they became disabled. Ceridian is the successor in interest to Control Data Corporation. We will refer to the appellee as Ceridian. The class specifically excluded those individuals who were members of the class in Chiles v. An opinion regarding this class action is recorded at 95 F.3d 1505 (10th Cir. 1996). 22 1 Appellants brought this action alleging that Ceridian's refusal to continue paying their insurance premiums violates ERISA. Disabled employees were eligible for long term disability status beginning after their fifth consecutive month of disability. Employees who qualified under this plan were entitled to up to 60% of their predisability salary.
	OPINION/ORDER Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
	OPINION/ORDER Regula contends that the Delta Plan should have accorded deference to the opinions of his treating physicians and considered vocational evidence in making its benefits determination. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a determination as to whether the Delta Plan may have been acting under a conflict of interest. Thus whether the court should have applied a less deferential standard of review to the Plan's decision to discontinue Regula's benefits. I. The Delta Plan is a non contributory employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that when an increase in an employee's average weekly wage between the time of a prior permanent partial disability and subsequent permanent total disability is not caused by a change in his wage earning capacity. Price was awarded permanent partial disability benefits of $196.01 per week under the LHWCA.1 SAIF Corporation. Is responsible for those benefits. Administrative Law Judge Brissenden determined that Price's residual wageearning capacity after the injury was $333.87 per week.2 1 The 1979 award is not at issue in this case. The amount of his previous award is relevant in determining the appropriate compensation for Price's present claims. 2 The award was calculated by subtracting Price's residual wage earning capacity from his pre injury average weekly wage: $627.88 $333.87. Which is multiplied by two thirds as required by the LHWCA to obtain the award of $196.01. He could no longer work as a fisherman because it was too hard on his back. He was restricted to light jobs as a longshoreman.
	OPINION/ORDER Because the worker's disability was due in part to pre existing conditions. An administrative law judge found that the employer merited § 908(f) relief because the worker's disability was materially and substantially greater than that which would have resulted from the asbestosis alone. Because there was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ's award. The Claim under the LHWCA Callis Carmines (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. She is judicially estopped from arguing that she is a
	OPINION/ORDER The Board also said that the award was not nominal. Nevertheless held that Newport News was not entitled to § 8(f) relief because the award was so small in fact. While Stallings was on the job welding. He was promptly diagnosed with metal fume fever. He was unable to return to work until September 28. Stallings was assigned to work inside in close proximity to several other welders. The doctor again warned Stallings to avoid inside welding and confirmed that Stallings's medical restriction to outside work was permanent. On those days he was
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for petitioner. Section 8(f) of the LHWCA provides that an employer obliged to pay disability benefits to an employee may be relieved from full liability if the employee's compensable disability was
	96-4040D -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997 Any such sharp dichotomy...
	96-4040A -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997 The correct sentence should read:
	OPINION/ORDER Was not the plan administrator. The Benefit Plan At issue in this case is the Long Term Disability Income Plan of the CocaCola Company (the
	HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY The correct sentence should read:
	96-4040 -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: 1. Change footnote 3 to read: change Both parties refer us to this Guidance although it was published after the decision by Cyro to reject Grenier's application. We note that a revised version of the Guidance was issued October 10. When an employer could reasonably believe that an applicant will need reasonable accommodation to perform the functions of the job. Jamieson & Nelson was on brief for appellant. Jernigan and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon were on brief for appellee. District Judge. (
	OPINION/ORDER While Cordoba's appeal from the order granting summary judgment was still pending. Costs were assessed separately and were not part of the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. It is unaffected by our decision. 2 1 * pay $191. The parties agree that Cordoba was a competent employee. Cordoba was one of about 250 employees in the Sanford store. The store is managed by a store manager. Who is assisted by an operations manager. Each department within the store is managed by an area sales manager (ASM). Her immediate supervisor was Tambrina Stossel. The store's operations manager was Kathy Groo. Because Cordoba had some concerns as to whether the nightgown matched the customer's receipt or was even Dillard's merchandise. Stossel was not in the store. Cordoba claims that Sebben was rude to her and caused unnecessary delay in processing the return. Says that she was completely professional and that Cordoba inexplicably refused to give her necessary information about the nightgown over the phone. Sensing that Cordoba was unhappy.
	OPINION/ORDER Paul Revere paid Hangarter benefits for an eleven month period and then terminated her benefits based upon the opinion of its medical examiners and claim investigators that Hangarter was not
	98-4106 -- KIMBER V. THIOKOL CORP. -- 11/10/1999 The Plan is managed and self funded by Thiokol and is subject to the requirements of ERISA. John Hancock Managed Care Group (
	OPINION/ORDER LLP were on brief. This case requires us to address what is meant by de novo judicial review under ERISA of a denial of benefits when the ERISA plan does not preserve discretion in the plan administrator. That raises concomitant questions of whether the claimant is entitled to trial in the district court and what. Evidence may be admitted that is not in the administrative record before the ERISA administrative decision maker. Our conclusion is that given the nature of the claimant's challenge here that he did in fact establish his eligibility to benefits before the ERISA decision maker the claimant was not entitled to trial or to admit desired new evidence outside the administrative record or to discovery. This plan is an employee welfare benefit plan as defined by ERISA. In June 1995. There was considerable exchange of medical information between Orndorf and Revere. Revere determined that Orndorf was not disabled due to pain from his back. The administrative record was closed. In February of 2002.
	OPINION/ORDER Randall Pounders (
	OPINION/ORDER Opinion by Judge Fisher *Judge Tallman was drawn to replace Judge Henry Politz.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court found no abuse of discretion in the Trustees' decision that Buzzard was not entitled to a disability pension under the 1974 Pension Plan. We find that the denial of disability pension benefits in this case is not supported by substantial evidence. Mine Accident and Subsequent Medical Treatment Buzzard was employed as a laborer in the West Virginia coal mines from October 20. Buzzard was immediately hospitalized and treated for injuries to his head. Schmidt subsequently noted in a letter to the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Fund that although his physical examination of Buzzard was
	OPINION/ORDER District Judge In recognition of the fact that discrimination against the physically and mentally disabled was a
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant Central States and the Disability Pension Central States is an employee pension benefit plan. Central States is a tax qualified. Not for profit trust fund that is administered by employer and employee trustees. Payment of plan benefits is governed by the Fund's Pension Plan Document particularly. (2) have ten years of Credited Service under the Plan. (2) after completion of 10 years of Credited Service (as defined in Section 3.03) if at least 35 weeks of contributions to the Pension Fund have been made or were required to have been made on behalf of the Participant during each of 5 calendar years of Covered Employment. Or at least 225 weeks of contributions have been made or were required to have been to the Pension Fund on his behalf. Shall be eligible for a Disability Pension Benefit under this Plan if he is entitled to disability benefits payable under Title II of the Social Security Act (as evidenced by a Certificate of Social Insurance Award) or if said Participant has sustained a disability which would satisfy the medical and physical requirements for such Certificate of Social Insurance Award where the Participant did not receive such Certificate for reasons unrelated to his medical and physical condition. (b) . . . (c) Disability.
	OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is
	OPINION/ORDER Concluding that Giddens was entitled to payment under the policies for one of his claims. If more than one) in which you are regularly engaged for gain or profit at the time you become disabled.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? 1 Second. Is withdrawn. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action because the facts of the case do not bring it within the alleged source? Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there matters that are nonjusticiable because of their unique military implications? Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty he should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. Therefore under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 he should have been retired for disability. The matter was exclusively one for military determination. Appeal was timely taken. In light of the statutes on which the cause was based and the facts alleged.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? 1 Second. Is withdrawn. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action because the facts of the case do not bring it within the alleged source? Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there matters that are nonjusticiable because of their unique military implications? Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty he should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. Therefore under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 he should have been retired for disability. The matter was exclusively one for military determination. Appeal was timely taken. In light of the statutes on which the cause was based and the facts alleged.
	CHILES V. CERIDIAN CORP. The word defendents' is misspelled and should read defendants'. The issues presented are whether the plaintiffs have vested rights to company paid health insurance as long as they remain disabled and. The district court found that these benefits were not vested and that the employer properly exercised its right to discontinue paying the premiums. Our inquiry is guided by these documents and federal ERISA law. Our jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. 1291. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are former employees of Imprimis. Which we are told describe in language comprehensible to the average participant the terms and conditions of the plan. Plaintiffs had all been deemed disabled and were receiving long term disability benefits under the Control Data Long Term Disability Plan (
	OPINION/ORDER P.L.L.C. was on brief for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Fletcher was drawn to replace him. ORDER The Government's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. Add a footnote at p. 8391 at the end of the last sentence before section
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. The trial court upheld the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (
	01-6234 -- NANCE V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA -- 07/02/2002 The district court ruled that Sun Life's decision to deny benefits based on Plaintiff's back condition and depression was not arbitrary or capricious. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Fletcher was drawn to replace him. ORDER The Government's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. Add a footnote at p. 8391 at the end of the last sentence before section
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On page 4. Were on brief for petitioner. Murphy & Beane were on brief for employer respondent. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Who is the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (
	OPINION/ORDER No. 01 CV 410 P) Will K. Gaither was suspended from employment because his employer determined that his medical condition—his use of narcotic painkillers—made him unable to perform his job. Was under no obligation to find out. He was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Gaither was once again taking prescription painkillers. Continuing until he was terminated for unauthorized personal use of a company credit card on September 2nd of that year. Denied him benefits on the ground that there was
	OPINION/ORDER Thomas Bordeaux was injured in the course and scope of his employment and his employer began voluntarily paying him temporary disability benefits. Page 2 dispute later developed over whether Bordeaux's disability was permanent. A formal hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Thomas Bordeaux was injured in the course and scope of his employment. A dispute later developed over whether Bordeaux's disability was permanent. A formal hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Wishart and Jackman & Roth were on brief for appellant. Schnitzler & Krupman were on brief for appellee. Although Barbour was performing his job satisfactorily. An employee who is still disabled must then apply for long term disability benefits. Which are provided through a funded insurance program. A Physician's Certification of Disability form (the
	FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566) Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was
	FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566) Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was
	OPINION/ORDER P.A. were on brief for petitioners. Were on brief for respondent. An exception from total liability is provided to employers under 8(f) of the LHWCA when the employer proves. Which is not specifically elucidated in the statutory language. That the pre existing disability was
	OPINION/ORDER On the ground that her condition had improved to the point that she was no longer
	OPINION/ORDER Fletcher was drawn to replace him. I. The BIA's factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. We may reverse if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that a well founded fear of persecution has been established. Lal was a prominent member of the Fijian Labor Party. The Labor Party was successful in its 1987 electoral bid. Which was controlled by members of the native Fijian population. Lal was dragged from his 1 The application for asylum is based on Mr. Since the applications of both his wife and child are derivative of his claim. We will focus on Mr. He was placed in detention and held for three days by the army. Explaining that his treatment was in retaliation for his work on behalf of the Labor Party. Lal was stripped of his clothes. Urine was forced into his mouth. He was cut with knives and singed with burning cigarettes. He was deprived of food and water. Lal was in jail. Sometime after he was released from detention. Lal was forced to watch the assault at gunpoint.
	OPINION/ORDER Fletcher was drawn to replace him. I. The BIA's factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. We may reverse if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that a well founded fear of persecution has been established. Lal was a prominent member of the Fijian Labor Party. The Labor Party was successful in its 1987 electoral bid. Which was controlled by members of the native Fijian population. Lal was dragged from his 1 The application for asylum is based on Mr. Since the applications of both his wife and child are derivative of his claim. We will focus on Mr. He was placed in detention and held for three days by the army. Explaining that his treatment was in retaliation for his work on behalf of the Labor Party. Lal was stripped of his clothes. Urine was forced into his mouth. He was cut with knives and singed with burning cigarettes. He was deprived of food and water. Lal was in jail. Sometime after he was released from detention. Lal was forced to watch the assault at gunpoint.
	OPINION/ORDER Her employer's plan is subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA). To deny long term disability benefits to Cooper was arbitrary and capricious. She was covered by both short term and long term disability insurance plans administered by LINA. Only the long term disability plan (the Plan) is presently at issue. The Plan defines the term
	OPINION/ORDER The district court dismissed Mote's claims against Aetna upon finding that Aetna was not a proper party to the action. I. Brenda Mote was a human resource generalist with Arthur Andersen LLP until she ceased working on April 10. Which was administered by Aetna. Aetna shall act as the Plan's fiduciary and be vested with
	OPINION/ORDER McCartha was employed by Defendant National City Corporation. The Disability Plan is administered by National City. McCartha's subsequent application for short term disability benefits was approved. At that time McCartha was specifically informed that
	OPINION/ORDER Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The NAP plant is multi leveled. NAP requires employees desiring to return to work following a sick leave to present a physician's fitness for duty certificate showing that the employee is able to perform his or her essential job functions. The handbook states: All employees must submit a written certification from a medical provider that the employee is capable of performing their duty prior to returning to work. No employee will be permitted to return to work without a
	OPINION/ORDER Were asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The only § 1983 claim preserved in this appeal is the claim that. Boddy further indicated that it might take Vinson
	OPINION/ORDER Were asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The only § 1983 claim preserved in this appeal is the claim that. Boddy further indicated that it might take Vinson
	OPINION/ORDER Petition for review of the determination of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) that claimant Robert Castro is entitled to total disability compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. General Construction also claims that the method the administrative law judge (ALJ) used to calculate Castro's average weekly wage was incorrect and that the OWCP violated Gen 2402 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. The ALJ's wage calculation was correct under Ninth Circuit law. The BRB must accept the ALJ's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3). We
	OPINION/ORDER Although we are not persuaded by all of Armstrong's arguments. Armstrong became a full time shipping and receiving clerk.3 Richard Kraus became Armstrong's immediate There are three appellees in this case: the Hospital. The appellees hereafter will collectively be referred to simply as the
	OPINION/ORDER Weber was hired by defendant Strippit. Strippit is engaged in the manufacture of a broad range of tooling and machinery used to punch. Weber was officed out of his home in Minnesota. Weber remained in intensive care for about nine days and was placed on physical and work restrictions. Weber was again hospitalized for his heart condition and spent six days in intensive care. Weber was placed on strict physical limitations and was advised by his doctor not to work for nearly two months. Weber was hospitalized for his heart disease. Defendants stated that locating international sales managers in either their sales territory or at Strippit headquarters was an established policy and practice that had been uniformly applied to all of its international sales managers. Including concern for his wife's health and his desire to have his daughter complete high school in the Minneapolis area. If he was unwilling to leave Minnesota. Weber was either terminated or abandoned his employment. Have expressly considered and rejected the claim that Batson applies to age based challenges.
	OPINION/ORDER Concluding that Wong failed to present a triable issue of material fact as to whether he was
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: WONG v. Wong's claim to be
	OPINION/ORDER You are considered totally disabled and eligible for total disability benefits: During the first 36 months for which benefits are payable and during the applicable elimination period if you are unable to perform the substantial and material duties of your regular occupation and do not engage in any other work for wage or profit for which you are or become qualified by education. After the first 36 months of benefit payments if you are unable to perform the substantial and material duties of any occupation for which you are or become qualified by education. Partial Disability benefits are payable in the same manner as the total disability benefit less a percentage of your monthly earnings during partial disability. Is: 22 (1) continuously unable to perform the substantial and material duties of his regular occupation. Is: (1) continuously unable to perform the substantial and material duties of his regular occupation. (3) not gainfully employed in any occupation for which he is or becomes qualified by education.
	OPINION/ORDER She was earning approximately $11.00 per hour. Humphrey's transcrip1908 tion performance was excellent and consistently exceeded MHA's standards for speed. To pull out strands of her hair and examine them closely because she felt as though something was crawling on her scalp. Once she realized that she was late. This warning required her to call her supervisor before the time she was due to be at work if she was going to be late or absent. She was told that she was expected to schedule and keep counseling appointments with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Her efforts to follow the
	OPINION/ORDER She was earning approximately $11.00 per hour. Humphrey's transcrip1908 tion performance was excellent and consistently exceeded MHA's standards for speed. To pull out strands of her hair and examine them closely because she felt as though something was crawling on her scalp. Once she realized that she was late. This warning required her to call her supervisor before the time she was due to be at work if she was going to be late or absent. She was told that she was expected to schedule and keep counseling appointments with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Her efforts to follow the
	OPINION/ORDER The district court found that the claims were time barred based upon a policy provision which requires actions to be brought no more than three years after written proof must be furnished. The policies provide that the insured must furnish proof of loss within ninety days after
	OPINION/ORDER She was earning approximately $11.00 per hour. Humphrey's transcrip1908 tion performance was excellent and consistently exceeded MHA's standards for speed. To pull out strands of her hair and examine them closely because she felt as though something was crawling on her scalp. Once she realized that she was late. This warning required her to call her supervisor before the time she was due to be at work if she was going to be late or absent. She was told that she was expected to schedule and keep counseling appointments with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Her efforts to follow the
	OPINION/ORDER The JAC is comprised of four members. Ristrom's employer wrote to Ristrom confirming the employer told Ristrom his workmanship was
	OPINION/ORDER She was earning approximately $11.00 per hour. Humphrey's transcrip1908 tion performance was excellent and consistently exceeded MHA's standards for speed. To pull out strands of her hair and examine them closely because she felt as though something was crawling on her scalp. Once she realized that she was late. This warning required her to call her supervisor before the time she was due to be at work if she was going to be late or absent. She was told that she was expected to schedule and keep counseling appointments with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Her efforts to follow the
	OPINION/ORDER Murphey argues the district court erred in holding that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he can perform the essential functions of his job. Murphey injured his lower back on the job and was off work for a period of five years. Murphey again re injured his lower back while dragging a large water hose up an incline and was absent from work for three or four weeks. He was placed under certain medical restrictions. Murphey was placed on workers' compensation. About entering the City's Return to Work Job Bank Program (
	FUSHER V. U.S. Argued for defendant appellee. With her on the brief were David M. Kinsella. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Virginia. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? Second. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action. Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there issues that. Are nonjusticiable?
	RONALD S. DICK, V. OPM With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel was Bryant G. The question is whether he is entitled to reinstatement of his prior disability annuity.
	97-4118 -- NIELSEN V. MORONI FEED CO. -- 12/09/1998 Nielsen (
	OPINION/ORDER His applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. A hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) was held in November 1994. Newton was 37 years old at the time. Were not highly technical in nature. Stated he was fired because of an eye injury. Which is in the borderline range of mental deficiency. That his reading and arithmetic abilities were at a second grade level. He also alleged difficulties with counting Near the and making change and claimed to have trouble remembering things. end of the hearing. Several medical reports were also introduced into evidence. Stephen Newton was easily able to recall his date of birth. Singley concluded that Newton might have dyslexia and was
	OPINION/ORDER Concluding that Keane was not disabled under the ADA. Having found genuine issues of material fact as to whether Keane was disabled. Changed the standard for determining whether an employee is disabled. That no reasonable jury could find that Keane was disabled. Keane's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Klisiak. When Klisiak Nos. 04 2222 & 04 2493 3 was absent. Keane explained to Klisiak the difficulty she was having with her leg and asked if she could eat lunch in the intimate apparel stockroom. Keane explained: I didn't know if I was going to make it out of the store all right. It was very. Keane was diagnosed with neuropathy. Because Klisiak was not in. This is my department.
	JOSE A. SANCHEZ-BENITEZ V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI Argued for claimant appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether a Chapter 7 debtor's right to receive payments under a privately purchased disability insurance policy is fully exempt from the bankruptcy estate under W. Because we cannot assume that payments under this type of policy will be limited to amounts reasonably necessary for support. We hold that the payments are partially exempt under W. Morehead that the market had moved against his open positions and that the firm was making an $850. Morehead was unable to meet the margin call. Morehead was fired from his position as a surgeon at the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Clarksburg. 4 IN RE MOREHEAD the case was closed. Morehead was receiving payments of $10. They listed the disability policy as an asset but claimed that payments under the policy were fully exempt from the bankruptcy estate under W. He argued that the amendment should be disallowed because the Moreheads' failure to disclose the disability policy in their initial bankruptcy filing was a fraudulent effort to conceal an asset.
	OPINION/ORDER He was diagnosed with Small Airways Disease and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Reich was limited to light work and required continuous oxygen. Reich's doctor confirmed that these restrictions were permanent. Stating that the company had determined that there were no jobs within the bargaining unit that Reich could safely perform. Ladish was represented by its in house attorney. Bitters was responsible for the day to day processing of pension benefit applications. In the course of the suit Ladish explained that it was not paying Reich disability benefits because the Plan covered only those employees who were found to be disabled by the Social Security Administration (
	OPINION/ORDER Tracy is not entitled to permanent long term disability payments. Tracy argues that he has demonstrated that he is unable to be gainfully employed because of his The Honorable John R. Tracy's claim was handled by an insurance company hired by the Plan. While Prudential Insurance Company of America was the original disability case manager. That responsibility was transferred to Aetna Life Insurance Company effective January 1. We AFFIRM the district court's finding that Tracy is not entitled to continued long term disability payments under the terms of the Pharmacia & Upjohn Absence Payment Plan. Plaintiff Joel Tracy (
	OPINION/ORDER The ALJ's third order awarding benefits was finally affirmed by the Board. His last employment in the coal mines was with Milburn from 1974 to 1982. The record contains reports from six physicians dating from 1979 to 1988 that conflict as to whether Hicks has a totally disabling respiratory condition or is disabled solely by another ailment such as his heart disease or obesity. His disability was attributable to coal workers' pneumoconiosis or another factor such as his smoking history. The ALJ's 1989 denial of benefits (First Order) was reversed and remanded by the 2 Board in 1993. The ALJ's award of benefits in 1993 (Second Order) was reversed and remanded by the Board in 1995. Which was affirmed by the Board in 1996. Arguing that the arterial blood gas study evidence does not support a finding of total disability and that the reliance upon medical opinion was neither supported by the evidence nor consistent with applicable law. Substantial evidence is
	OPINION/ORDER Line 4 counsel's name is corrected to read
	OPINION/ORDER The district court's decision is reported at Sloan v. The plan provided for twenty four months of disability benefits if Sloan was unable to perform the duties of his
	MCHENRY V. U.S. Font family:Arial'> argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. The National Veterans Legal Services Program. With him on the brief was Barton F. Which is a precursor to AIDS. We affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Subsection (b) provides: (b) Required determinations of disability. Determinations referred to in subsection (a) are determinations by the Secretary that court's improper admission of several items of evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings that Sheriff Claussen violated the ADA. He was able to perform all the functions of the investigator's job. Sheriff Claussen explained that these positions would have constituted promotions from Mr. Where he would have been required to guard prisoners during judicial proceedings. He was not qualified for the job. In late April 1995. He requested an assignment to one of two positions in the investigations division: a position that had been vacated by Ted Hartman or an investigator's position that was scheduled to be created on August 15.
	OPINION/ORDER The employee is entitled to benefits in her first year of disability if she is unable to perform her regular job.1 Elliott was unable to work 1 Subsection 2.5 of the Plan provides as follows: 2.5. An employee shall be deemed totally disabled while he or she is unable to perform each and all of the duties pertaining to his or her occupation and not engaged in any occupation or employment for wage or profit for which he or she is reasonably qualified by education.
	98-1150A -- HALL V. CLAUSSEN -- 03/06/2001 A corrected copy of page one is attached. Sincerely. Hall's claustrophobia was not a disability covered by the ADA. (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Mr. Hall was disabled under the ADA. (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Sheriff Claussen failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hall failed to establish that he was terminated because of his disability. (6) Sheriff Claussen was prejudiced by the district court's improper admission of several items of evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings that Sheriff Claussen violated the ADA. He was able to perform all the functions of the investigator's job. Sheriff Claussen explained that these positions would have constituted promotions from Mr. Where he would have been required to guard prisoners during judicial proceedings. He was not qualified for the job. In late April 1995.
	OPINION/ORDER We will review a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Appellant is an orthopedic surgeon who. Which is a private. Which is defined as
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kenneth Nord was formerly employed as a Material Planner for Kwikset Corporation. The position is a sedentary one. Nord was enrolled in the Black & Decker Disability Plan. The third party Claims Administrator retained while Nord's claim was under review was Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (
	OPINION/ORDER Or manic depression as it is sometimes called. The District Court held that even if Taylor did have a disability. Was not possible. She was not an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. We held its petition until the Supreme Court announced its decisions in two 2 then pending cases addressing whether disabilities under the ADA are judged with or without regard to mitigating measures. We have granted panel rehearing and vacated our prior opinion. Which was reported at 174 F.3d 142. We conclude that there are genuine factual disputes requiring a trial on whether Taylor's bipolar disorder substantially limits a major life activity while she is taking lithium. Our previous discussion of the interactive process is unaffected. We have incorporated it unchanged in this opinion. I Before she was terminated on October 28. When formal evaluations were instituted in the 1991 92 school year. While Taylor was at work during that week. Menzel and Ferrara were so disturbed by Taylor's behavior that they doubted her capacity to leave on a train by herself and had someone at the school district contact her son.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court determined that Krouse was judicially estopped from claiming to be a
	01-5205 -- HORN V. CENDANT OPERATIONS INC. -- 07/03/2003 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Cathy Horn appeals the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Cendant Operations. We conclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of Cendant was not proper and. Including the division in which she was employed. Were acquired by and merged into Cendant. In October 1998. There was no summary plan description detailing the available benefits. Which is also when you are eligible to elect voluntary benefits.
	OPINION/ORDER Liberty Life does not challenge the district court's ruling that Blankenship was entitled to long term disability benefits. Liberty Life argues that the disability benefits owed Blankenship should have been reduced by the amount of retirement benefits transferred to his Individual Retirement Account (
	OPINION/ORDER Edward Raymond Williams was unable to carry a firearm as the result of a mental condition. Was additionally perceived by his employer to be unable to have access to firearms. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that Williams was actually (or perceived to be) precluded from working in a class of jobs. We will now reverse that grant of summary judgment a n d r e m a n d W i l l ia m s ' s A D A discrimination claim (and corresponding claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act) for further proceedings. We will affirm the District Court's determination with respect to Williams's retaliation claims because Williams has not proffered sufficient evidence to support a retaliation claim. The Facts Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to Williams Williams was hired by PHA as a police officer and worked for PHA for 24 years until his termination. You will have exhausted all of your sick leave and annual leave benefits. You will have to request through memorandum a leave of absence. . . . [F]ailure to do so will mean that you have voluntarily resigned as a member of this police department.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal by Orrin T. We will reverse. We do not think the fact that DuPont's Associate Medical Director was involved in evaluating Skretvedt's claim both during the initial determination and on appeal creates a procedural impropriety that heightens the standard of review. 2 Despite the demanding arbitrary and capricious test. We conclude that the medical evidence of job related stress that Skretvedt presented clearly demonstrates that he is eligible for disability benefits under Dupont's
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Brent Boyd was drafted in the third round of the 1980 National Football League (
	OPINION/ORDER The ruling of the district court is affirmed. Claiming that he was unable to work beginning February 28. His initial application was denied. The claimant underwent neuropsychological evaluation and a supplemental hearing was conducted. Who found that McClanahan was disabled as of July 27. This court must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions unless the Commissioner failed to apply the correct legal standard or made findings of fact that are unsupported by substantial evidence.
	WULFF V. OPM
	OPINION/ORDER The ruling of the district court is affirmed. This decision was originally issued as an
	TALAVERA V. SCH. BD. OF PALM BEACH COUNTY This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Talavera v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: does a plaintiff's certification on an application for social security disability benefits that she is totally disabled bar her from asserting in a subsequent claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act that she is capable. She applied for a transfer to a position in the school board's main office which would have permitted her to sit all day. Talavera was unable to perform the job because it required her to stand all day. No provisions were made for my handicap....<p> <p> I am in extreme pain &. Have trouble walking. I am now homebound.<p> <p> I feel that my skills are good. My mind is intact but my physical appearance is a deterrent. Unfortunately our society is only concerned with your appearance. The Social Security Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-4756.man.html">TALAVERA V. SCH. BD. OF PALM BEACH COUNTY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Talavera v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: does a plaintiff's certification on an application for social security disability benefits that she is totally disabled bar her from asserting in a subsequent claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act that she is capable. She applied for a transfer to a position in the school board's main office which would have permitted her to sit all day. Talavera was unable to perform the job because it required her to stand all day. No provisions were made for my handicap....<p> <p> I am in extreme pain &. Have trouble walking. I am now homebound.<p> <p> I feel that my skills are good. My mind is intact but my physical appearance is a deterrent. Unfortunately our society is only concerned with your appearance. The Social Security Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/975715.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was seriously injured on the job. Motley was denied promotions because he was unable to complete the required annual physical examination. Motley sued the New Jersey State Police and others who are not parties to this appeal. Ruling that Motley's prior admission of permanent and total 2 disability during the disability application process judicially estopped him from asserting that he was qualified for the job he sought. We will affirm. Not because he was estopped. Because Motley was simply not entitled to survive summary judgment in light of his prior assertions of total disability. I. The facts of this case are undisputed. This case arises as a result of an incident in January 1990 in which Motley was seriously injured while on duty. Was promoted to Detective II in 1989. Motley was placed on temporary limited duty status. 1. That it was therefore necessary that the officers be physically able to respond to these situations to protect members of the public. The officers were required to run 1.5 miles in 13 minutes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1337.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hanson & DeTroy were on brief. Gillis and Richardson & Troubh were on brief. Were on brief. The primary obligation to provide LHWCA benefits is triggered by a worker's disability or by his awareness of the potential for disability. The date of disablement is the date on which a worker's long latency disease is first diagnosed or the date on which he first experiences a decrease in earning capacity. We conclude that congressional intent and administrative convenience are best realized by a system in which. Background Background The underlying facts are not seriously disputed. He was totally disabled and entitled to LHWCA benefits. Commercial Union Insurance Company (CUI) was on the risk. Liberty was still the carrier of record. The threshold issue here is whether. In respect to 1The principal respondents in this proceeding are CUI and the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs of the United States Department of Labor (the Director). BIW is a doubly honorific party (petitioner and respondent). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-1159.wpd.html">SIEMON V. AT&T CORP.<BR></A><BR> He was placed under a new supervisor. The relationship between the two was never good. Siemon was unable to find another position within AT&T. When Siemon was placed on disability leave. The amount and duration of benefits depends on the cause of an employee's disability: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-1159.wpd.html">SIEMON V. AT&T CORP.<BR></A><BR> The petition is granted for the sole purpose of deleting footnote 1 of the panel's opinion. The petition is denied in all other respects. A copy of the revised opinion is attached to this order. He was placed under a new supervisor. The relationship between the two was never good. Siemon was unable to find another position within AT&T. When Siemon was placed on disability leave. The amount and duration of benefits depends on the cause of an employee's disability: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964756.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: does a plaintiff's certification on an application for social security disability benefits that she is totally disabled bar her from asserting in a subsequent claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act that she is capable. She applied for a transfer to a position in the school board's main office which would have permitted her to sit all day. Talavera was unable to Talavera perform the job because it required her to stand all day. became bedridden in May 1993. No provisions were made for my handicap. . . . I am in extreme pain & have trouble walking. I feel that my skills are good. My mind is intact but my physical appearance is a deterrent. Unfortunately our society is only concerned with your appearance. The Social Security determined that Talavera was totally disabled and awarded her benefits. By failing to accommodate her disability and then terminating her because of it. consortium.1 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school board on two alternative grounds: (1) Talavera was Talavera's husband brought a claim for loss of judicially estopped from claiming she was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA73E4E997B9FA5688256DA20059339D/$file/0017508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is disabled and can no longer work. Once he was no longer earning a salary. The question in this case is whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). He was earning approximately $36. Was less expensive than the $1. The Branham unit was closer to his mother's home. He was receiving $837 from SSDI per month. Duffus stated that Branham required prospective tenants to have a minimum gross monthly income equaling three times the monthly rent. The minimum required income was $2. After he was informed of his ineligibility. The home was located less than a mile from Branham. Anne Giebeler's income was $3. Stating that Giebeler was disabled and that. The district court held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-5500.man.html">SHAPS V. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. (3/16/2001, NO. 98-5500)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001016.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walton appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment affirming the decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that Walton was not entitled to disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Were pursuant to a regulatory interpretation of the Social Security Act by the Social Security Administration. Which interpretation provides that a return to work prior to the lapse of a 12 month period after onset of disability and prior to the adjudication of disability precludes a finding that a claimant is disabled and does not allow the award of a trial work period. Which latter holding we affirm. 1 Substantial gainful activity is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1420.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lospennato was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. By requiring him to take a road test as a prerequisite to renewing his driver's license when such testing was not a mandatory part of the renewal procedure for all applicants. He maintains that he was required to pass a new test solely because of his disability. I. Background Our review of a district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact. Allowing the court to conclude that the Commissioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although road tests are not always part of the renewal process. Theriault was asked to take a road test again when he first renewed his license in 1991. He was told that the test was necessary at that time because his original license had not been properly coded for the use of special equipment. He successfully completed the test and was issued a license stamped with the letter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/93-6170.opa.html">MARECEK V. BELLSOUTH SERVICES, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Marecek v. We affirm the district court's rulings that Marecek was totally disabled and entitled to disability benefits. Marecek was a BellSouth employee and was covered by BellSouth's Services Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-5500.man.html">SHAPS V. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. (3/16/2001, NO. 98-5500)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-3372.htm">01-3372 -- DOEBELE V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY -- 08/28/2003<BR></A><BR> (2) weighing the evidence against her in concluding as a matter of law that she was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/024123.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company argues that the District Court incorrectly held arbitrary and capricious its determination that Stephen Lasser was not disabled within the terms of his disability insurance policy. Stephen Lasser is an orthopedic surgeon who was employed by Townsquare Orthopedic Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/93-6170.opa.html">MARECEK V. BELLSOUTH SERVICES, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Marecek v. We affirm the district court's rulings that Marecek was totally disabled and entitled to disability benefits. Marecek was a BellSouth employee and was covered by BellSouth's Services Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964756.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: does a plaintiff's certification on an application for social security disability benefits that she is totally disabled bar her from asserting in a subsequent claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act that she is capable. She applied for a transfer to a position in the school board's main office which would have permitted her to sit all day. Talavera was unable to perform the job because it required her to stand all day. No provisions were made for my handicap.... I am in extreme pain & have trouble walking. I feel that my skills are good. My mind is intact but my physical appearance is a deterrent. Unfortunately our society is only concerned with your appearance. The Social Security Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3430.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was denied on December 31 of that year. It initially </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/993023P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hazel Fields seeks appellate review of the District Court's order upholding the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) that Field's disability insurance benefits be reduced because she was receiving other public disability benefits. We conclude that the Commissioner's interpretation of the SSA regulation in question is reasonable. I. Fields was born in 1943 and has been statutorily blind since childhood. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1582.1 It was determined. That she was not entitled actually to begin receiving benefits because she was capable of engaging in substantial gainful activity. She filed a claim to begin receiving her social security disability benefits and was informed she was entitled to such benefits as of 1 This regulation provides as follows: If we find that you are blind and you meet the insured status requirement. A period of disability protects your earnings record under Social Security so that the time you are disabled will not count against you in determining whether you will have worked long enough to qualify for benefits and the amount of your benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/02-31135-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was first promoted in 1979. Vercher was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 19. She was referred to Dr. Fresh assessed that the pain was myofascial. The ASA also gave MetLife discretionary authority for determining eligibility for disability benefits and for construing plan terms.2 Disability under the plan is determined as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-8046.htm">98-8046 -- RENAUD V. WYOMING DEPT. OF FAMILY SERVICES -- 02/08/2000<BR></A><BR> His first claim was that Defendant Wyoming Department of Family Services violated the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. His second claim was that the Department violated the Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA]. Were against Defendant Shirley R. Were against both defendants for breach of an implied contract of employment created by Wyoming government personnel rules and policies and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. <p> The district court entered an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denying it in part. Judgment was entered in favor of the Department. <p> On appeal. He asserts a lack of evidence to support the jury finding on his FMLA claim. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/02-31135-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was first promoted in 1979. Vercher was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 19. She was referred to Dr. Fresh assessed that the pain was myofascial. The ASA also gave MetLife discretionary authority for determining eligibility for disability benefits and for construing plan terms.2 Disability under the plan is determined as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0194p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that CCC's denial of disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious. This case is remanded to the district court for the entry of an order requiring CCC to provide a full and fair review of Smith's disability claim. She was treated for multiple medical problems. Her estimated return to work date was listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3413.htm">96-3413 -- ALDRICH V. BOEING CO. -- 07/01/1998<BR></A><BR> The district court held that Aldrich was judicially estopped from pursuing a claim under the ADA and. That he had failed to establish that he was a qualified individual with a disability.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610241.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were delayed but eventually paid under his pension plan. Is clearly precluded by our decision in Flint v. He is not entitled to interest pursuant to ERISA § 502(a)(3). I. BACKGROUND The facts of Green's case are undisputed. Green was employed as a coal miner with Jim Waters Resources. Green was offered employee benefits through the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-3256.htm">00-3256 -- CALDWELL V. LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA -- 04/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Caldwell is entitled to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0012p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 02 3898 Joanne Hedrick was born on June 10. Hedrick was diagnosed as having osteoarthritis in her left knee. Hedrick was diagnosed as having and was treated for osteoarthritis in both knees. Nash and expressed her reservations about her ability to return to work as a general duty staff nurse because she was concerned that she would be unable to perform her duties. Joanne has shared with me that she does not believe that she is going to be able to return to bedside nursing. If it was determined that she was able to return to work. She would have. Hedrick asked to be placed upon WRCS's list of employees who claimed to have permanent work restrictions.1 This list was commonly referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972647.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is an appeal from an October 22. Appellants are the Trustees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2457.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Fisher is an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation. From 1982 87 he was on a disability leave of absence from the company. The Tax Court concluded that Digital's distribution of stock to John Fisher in 1986 was a taxable transfer of property under 26 U.S.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991188.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. District Judge: This is an appeal from an order entered December 16. The primary question in this case is whether the appellee violated the ADA by discharging Lamb. Because Lamb was unable to perform the essential functions of his job. We hold that he was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1400p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this long running litigation aspects of which have been before this court before appellants. All of whom we will refer to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0299p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jones is employed by the Salvation Army Harbor Light ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963289P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court2 ruled that Dush's characterization of herself as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981972.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was employed by ITO as a longshore worker.1 The question presented for our review concerns the proper measure of benefits under Section 8(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The combined weekly benefit awarded by the BRB to Green in compensation for his independently disabling ankle and shoulder injuries exceeded the amount to which he would have been entitled had he been totally disabled. We agree with ITO that such a result is illogical. Green was entitled to additional compensation for the lasting attenuation of his physical abilities. Green would have been foreclosed from engaging in his former work: The Employer argues that the . . . injury to Claimant's shoulder does not cause Claimant to be disabled when considered alone. The compensation for the particular disability is expressed in terms of payment for a fixed number of weeks at a rate of two thirds the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of the injury. Where the loss is incomplete. The duration of the award is proportionately reduced. § 908(c)(19). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0507n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the Plan's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Wical was covered by the Plan. Wical claimed that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962546.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. All appeals to the Board relating to claims under LHWCA which have been pending before the Board for more than one year. Caused a greater degree of disability than would have resulted solely from the injury Harcum sustained on October 21. The ALJ found Newport News was entitled to § 8(f)2 relief because it had established each of the required elements. The ALJ found that Harcum's pre existing disability </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5081.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SBC self insures the Plan and is the plan administrator and fiduciary. The district court decided that Sedgwick's denial of short term disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. Arguing that (1) the district court should have applied a sliding scale arbitrary and capricious standard of review and (2) even under a pure arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The denial of benefits was not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and there were other indicia that the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which is the administrator for SBC's short term disability plan. Atkins' medical evidence was insufficient to support her claim for continued benefits. The court found that Sedgwick's decision was supported by the opinions of three physicians who had reviewed the medical record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F37D428B8113024E8825733A004B6F53/$file/0416087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The panel reasoned that Pallas no longer controlled because it was inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority governing retroactivity principles. Because we conclude that Pallas is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962546.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 1 the status is changed from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-3102.htm">98-3102 -- MARTIN V. STATE OF KANSAS -- 08/19/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3266.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John E. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was J. The administrative judge issued an initial decision holding there was a procedural due process violation. The Board's final decision upheld a finding by the administrative judge that the agency had complied with its prior order and was not required to provide any remedy beyond the date of Smith's removal. Smith engaged in a prolonged process with the agency seeking to have the agency recognize his condition as an occupational injury and secure assignment to a light duty position. Smith was 05 3266 2 willing and able to work a light duty position that did not require the use of hearing protective equipment but was repeatedly told no such position existed. Smith alleged that he was constructively See 1997 suspended as of July 14. The Americans with Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/96-7089b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kestell was on the briefs. Hamilton were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Thereafter was unable to perform his prior job as an orderly at Washington Hospital Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1922p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge We are asked to determine if the delay of the Board of Revision and Review in reviewing a decision of an administrative law judge deprived the Board of jurisdiction under the facts of this appeal. That the Board's delay caused the ALJ's decision to become a final order that we now have jurisdiction to review. We further hold that the ALJ erred in deciding that a maritime employer is entitled to relief from the Special Fund established under S 8(f) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Where the employee's disability was not manifest during the time of his employment. We will reverse the decision of the ALJ. 2 I. Nine years after he retired he was diagnosed with asbestosis resulting from his years of work related asbestos exposure while at Sun Ship. The same month he was diagnosed. Ehrentraut's asbestosis was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1284.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which dispute: (1) the district court's refusal to consider evidence beyond the claim record that was closed in 1997. The court's decision to award Ray benefits for the eight years after the record (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. <hr> was closed. (2) the district court's determination that working in a large office building environment was a material duty of Ray's occupation. (3) the district court's finding that Ray was totally disabled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. I. Ray was a partner at Gibson. She was insured under the firm's Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4318.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is. The Commissioner may not discredit the claimant's testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001815.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Winn ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/991434P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On behalf of themselves and a class of Ceridian employees who were disabled before January 1. One of which was paid for by employee contributions and one of which was paid for by Ceridian. This benefit was funded by employee contributions. The other component was the payment of health. This benefit was paid for by Ceridian. When it was briefly mentioned in Ceridian's summary plan description for its 1 Ceridian was formerly called Control Data Corporation. We will use the current name Ceridian throughout this opinion. 2 disability plan. The 1978 disability plan summary was the first plan document that clearly described the benefit. In Barker I we quoted the description of the insurance premium benefit from the 1986 summary plan description: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04914F4B99357779882572A60080CDF9/$file/0457046.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted for his predecessor. Congress amended the Social Security Act to preclude an award of disability benefits if drug or alcohol abuse is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0007p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated. Defendant claims the termination was solely due to plaintiff's failure to provide information concerning his disability status and ability to return to work. Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in which his wrist was broken and his spine was fractured. His memory was poor. United Parcel Service 3 airline pilot was impaired and raises no argument against defendant's conclusion that he should no longer be flying. Doctor Lawrence initially believed that plaintiff's major problem was fatigue. Lawrence sent an update of plaintiff's condition in which he indicated that plaintiff was improving both physically and mentally. Lawrence noted that he planned to see plaintiff in four weeks to evaluate whether he was ready to work and stated. I anticipate that he will be ready for a restricted return to work on a limited hour basis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0EA70B347B8D1DE888257203005677C7/$file/0417295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is part of the FEHA and provides. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/918203EF0C43575888256E5A00707AF0/$file/0016090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for Kenneth S. The SSA explained that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/61BCA5069D837B2688256A31005B4E7A/$file/0016090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for Kenneth S. The SSA explained that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0514n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge This is an appeal in a wrongful discharge case arising under the Tennessee Handicap Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410629.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001589.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case requires us to resolve an issue of first impression in the appellate courts: is a hostile work environment claim cognizable under the Americans with Disabilities Act? We conclude that it is. Was on disability leave until September 1991. Fox reinjured his back and was forced to take disability leave again. He was able to return to work. It is the period of employment preceding this leave from October 1994 until August 1995 that is at issue in this case.1 When Fox returned to work in Fox returned to work at the Martinsburg GM plant in May 1998 and. They took pictures of the tasks that Fox performed and asserted that those tasks were no different. Who was working at the light duty table. Asked Fox to perform a task that was beyond his physical ability. Fox explained that his abilities were medically limited because of his back. I have back problems and I can't go by your feelings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0212n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Debra Hawkins Dunn appeals the District Court's holding that she is not entitled to an additional 0.8 years of participation under the Extended Disability Benefits plan of her former employer. General Motors.1 Because General Motors' interpretation of the disability plan is not arbitrary and capricious. We also deny Hawkins Dunn's request for attorney's fees because the issue was not properly raised in the District Court. Hawkins Dunn also claimed she was entitled to additional service time under General Motors' pension plan. The District Court held that she is entitled to the additional pension credit and General Motors does not contest that decision on appeal. 1 No. 05 2124 Hawkins Dunn v. Neither was long enough to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7095.html">NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS' ADVOCATES V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5MjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3922-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Plaintiff Appellee Dennis Paese was entitled to benefits under a long term disability plan provided by his employer. Rather is an affirmative defense. Which was issued by Hartford and governed by ERISA. Could not perform the essential duties of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611098.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is deaf. Bircoll's Disability Bircoll is a profoundly deaf individual with no hearing in his left ear and ten percent hearing in his right ear. Was raised in the hearing world. Bircoll's primary form of communication is lipreading. Bircoll is more effective in reading lips if he is facing the speaker with good light and little background noise. Bircoll has greater success in communicating with speakers who do not have facial hair. Bircoll usually understands about fifty percent of what is said. Bircoll usually communicates with an amplified telephone (one that is louder than a normal phone) and a teletypewriter. Such as calling someone to say he will be late. He will make the phone call. One leg is shorter than the other. He was wearing his hearing aid that evening. Bircoll did not finish his drink because his stomach was bothering him. As he was leaving the gas station. Because trees and bushes were obstructing his view. Bircoll pulled into the intersection to see if there were any oncoming cars. When Bircoll saw that it was clear. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1781.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson with whom Law Offices of Ronald Coles were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Smith & Lancaster were on brief for appellee. On the ground that Arnold had not shown that he had a disability and therefore was not protected by the ADA's antidiscrimination provision. Arguing that such an analysis was legally erroneous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-7045.html">BARRERA V. GOBER<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5051.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Meraou was hired by TWC in 1987 as a systems analyst. She continued to receive these benefits until they were terminated in August 2002. Meraou was approved for social security disability benefits. Which were awarded retroactively to July 1992. a. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. (1) References to specific provisions of the Plan are to the January 1. Have cited this version of the Plan for its relevant terms. Who was Totally Disabled on such date. The Supplemental Appendix volumes are paginated as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1740p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in the case were developed at the trial of the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court. Rhett informed her supervisors and co workers that she was pregnant. Of her pregnancy both asked if she was going to get married. Turndorf commented that being a single parent was difficult. Rhett claimed that Gormisky said that getting married was: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3034.html">BRUCE A. BRACEY V. OPM<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief was <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Paul St. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that an employee is ineligible for disability retirement as long as the employee is retained at the same grade and pay. Even if the employee is unable to perform the duties of his official position. Even if he is not transferred to a vacant position within the agency. Because that ruling is contrary to the language of the governing statute and regulations. Bracey was a civilian employee of the Navy at the Naval Aviation Depot in Norfolk. While he was assigned to the light duty shop. The tasks he performed were not those of an Electronics Worker.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1740p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613365.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3258_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Though he had not taken a driving test for at least four years before he was put on disability leave and a willingness and ability to travel as much as fifty percent of the time. In 1992 Timmons was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80B97FB14A01E13588256E5A00707CBE/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023559P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background It is undisputed that Marion Leonard is entitled to disability benefits for injuries suffered while working for Southwestern Bell. Leonard was placed on leave in 1995 because of her injuries. The employee benefit plans in which she participated were the Southwestern Bell Corporation Disability Income Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011182P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 2 when he was suspended from further duties in the department of anesthesiology. At that time his annual salary was $89. Ferrari was enrolled in TIAA's group long term disability benefits plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-2201.man.html">CRAWFORD & CO. V. APFEL (12/14/2000, NO. 99-2201)<BR></A><BR> 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.932 and 416.1432.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-2201.man.html">CRAWFORD & CO. V. APFEL (12/14/2000, NO. 99-2201)<BR></A><BR> 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.932 and 416.1432.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031652np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose work was otherwise satisfactory. Was dismissed by the Postal Service. Claiming that he was discriminated against because of his disability. The Postal Service responded that Verzeni was not discriminated against because of his disability and that they had a legitimate business reason for firing him namely. The issue we face on this appeal is whether the instructions given to the jury adequately enabled the jury to consider the complexities of discrimination in a claim brought for a disability. That he was being harrassed in his home at night. Verzeni thought that his neighbors were purposefully waking him up in the middle of the night in order to try to induce him to have a heart attack. Verzeni thought that someone was spiking the community well with No Doz so that he would not be able to sleep. This conversation caused Hawxhurst to become concerned that Verzeni was not mentally well. It was Dr. Verzeni sought a second opinion and was seen by Dr. Both doctors were concerned that Verzeni might react violently if he should feel threatened enough. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-7029.html">RICARD V. DEOT. OF VA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1292p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this diversity action we are called upon to interpret the meaning of insurance policy language that a state statute requires to be included in all Pennsylvania insurance contracts. The district court declined to follow the majority of state and federal courts that have interpreted identical policy language to require only that a claimant submit adequate proofs of loss within ninety days after an uninterrupted aggregate period of disability covered by the policy The language contained in the Provident policy is essentially a verbatim recitation of the terms of the Pennsylvania statute we must interpret. The Pennsylvania courts have not addressed the issue as to when proofs of loss are required to be filed in cases involving a continuous period of disability. We predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would elect to follow the majority of courts that have interpreted the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-6385.wpd.html">SMITH V. CALLAHAN<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal involves the purely legal question of whether the Secretary correctly interpreted 42 U.S.C. 416(i)(2)(E) in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits. The ALJ found that plaintiff was disabled beginning November 4. The final decision of the Secretary regarding the SSI application was that plaintiff was disabled as of September 3. The functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. Is substituted for Donna E. Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in this caption. In the text we continue to refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision. (2) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The ALJ found that plaintiff was disabled from August 26. That his condition improved and plaintiff was not disabled from May 1. 1979 through the date he was last insured. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B59A3A43DA54A9B88256AC5005B2A39/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-6385.htm">96-6385 -- SMITH V. CALLAHAN -- 10/09/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appeals from the district court's order affirming the final decision of the Secretary denying plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability benefits. 416(i)(2)(E) in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits. <p> Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) on September 3. The ALJ found that plaintiff was disabled beginning November 4. The final decision of the Secretary regarding the SSI application was that plaintiff was disabled as of September 3. The ALJ found that plaintiff was disabled from August 26. That his condition improved and plaintiff was not disabled from May 1. 1979 through the date he was last insured. It was ultimately determined that plaintiff again became disabled as of September 3. The ALJ concluded that because plaintiff was not disabled within twelve months prior to the date he applied for disability benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001279.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is receiving ongoing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1341.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hopgood and McConnell Vald‚s were on brief for appellant IBM Corporation. With whom Mendoza & Bac¢ was on brief for appellee Elizabeth Criado. The defendant IBM Corporation appeals from a final judgment in favor of plaintiff Elizabeth Criado on her claim that her employment with IBM was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I. Factual and Procedural History The jury was entitled to find the following facts. During this period Criado was under the care of a psychiatrist. None was so severe that it required Criado to take a leave of absence. She was married in January of 1994. Lee's managerial style was more formal and rigid than Criado's previous supervisors. He thought that if Criado were granted a one month leave he could ameliorate her condition to the point that she could return to work and once again be a productive employee despite her illness. It was not until mid July that the leave was granted. IBM's medical department only granted leave through August 1 because that was the date originally requested by Dr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0185p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The declaration that Citizens is first in priority for the payment of medical expenses incurred as a result The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster. The holding of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this ruling. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in this case are undisputed. Jacqueline Bradshaw ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/982014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commissioner of Social Security determined that Olson was eligible for social security disability benefits but reduced those benefits under the federal statute that offsets social security and worker's compensation disability benefits. Concluding that North Dakota worker's compensation impairment awards are not subject to the § 424a offset because they are payments for loss of bodily function. Worker's compensation benefits subject to this offset are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Greer alternatively failed to prove that Emerson's stated reason for her termination was a pretext for disability discrimination. Greer was on an extended medical leave of absence to recover from a fractured rib. These three absence occurrences consisted of: (1) January 24 because Greer was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/021504.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She alleges that her termination from MBNA was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court concluded that Conneen was not entitled to the protection of the ADA because she could not demonstrate that she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without an accommodation. We nevertheless affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of MBNA as there is no genuine issue of material fact that would allow a reasonable 1. Margaret Conneen is now known as Margaret Dayton. We will refer to her as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-3253.htm">96-3253 -- LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA V. CENTENNIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 01/14/1998<BR></A><BR> District Judge<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Duran</U> was on brief. Calabria</U> was on brief. Were on brief. A was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012467.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 12 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7044a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-7070.html">SELLERS, JR. V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <u>David M. Of counsel was <u>Robert E. Woodrow</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Richard J. ) that they are not entitled to increased disability ratings for service connected post traumatic stress disorder (". Sellers is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-1141.htm">99-1141 -- SELENKE V. MEDICAL IMAGING OF COLORADO -- 05/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Lynn Wright was Ms. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspection indicated that foreign material was interfering with the reading of mammograms. Although there was an odor of acetic acid in the darkroom. Around the time that the study was completed. She noticed that ventilation was lacking. After the vents were installed. Selenke observed that the darkroom was still not receiving fresh air. An additional vent near the area where the chemical odor was strongest. MIC had made all the changes in the ventilation system that she had requested and that those changes were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1382p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether Appellant is judicially estopped from contending that he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2116.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blickenstaff was covered by the employee benefit plan at issue here. The short term disability portion of the Plan was self funded by Donnelley. She was entitled to receive short term disability benefits for twenty six weeks if she met the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/021883P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FMC is the Plan's administrator and fiduciary. Provided the following conditions exist: (1) Such disability is certified as total and permanent by a physician selected by the Company or by the Participant and confirmed by a physician selected by the other party. 2 (2) Such disability shall have existed for a period of at least 26 consecutive weeks. (3) The Participant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1484.htm">01-1484 -- RAKITY V. DILLON CO. INC. -- 08/29/2002<BR></A><BR> Rakity did not have a covered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/053974P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GE Group Life Assurance Company (GEGLAC) are all parties having various roles in this appeal. I. Hillstrom is a physiatrist (a physician specializing in physical medicine or physical therapy) who is seeking long term disability benefits under a policy issued by Phoenix American Life Insurance Company to an entity called Rehab One. Some of the preliminary orders in this case were entered by the Honorable Arthur J. The terms of the policy are set out in two documents. Whether they 22 1 That policy is an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA.3 GEGLAC is defending the suit as Phoenix's successor in interest. Kenefick is an attorney and a shareholder in Briggs and Morgan. Of which Hillstrom was part owner. Hillstrom's compensation was limited to stock options in Rehab One </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0368p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ultimate question in this appeal is whether an insurance company that was both the administrator of a disability benefits plan under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/024328np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a cross appeal from an order of summary judgment approving the termination of plaintiff's health care benefits. We will vacate and remand to the District Court for further development of plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim. Was employed as a dentist by KidsPeace Corporation. Post developed severe joint problems and was ultimately diagnosed with irreversible arthritis. The KidsPeace Health Care Plan provides that termination is one of the five enumerated ways an employee. The Plan provides: Coverage under this Plan for you and your covered dependents will terminate on the earliest of the following dates: 1. The last day of the month in which an employee is terminated. 2 2. 3. 4. 5. Except if an employee is not working because of an approved leave of absence. Coverage will be continued during that time until discontinued by the Employer. (emphasis added). Employment with KidsPeace will be terminated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1208.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fongemie</U> was on brief. Kelley</U> was on brief. Was awarded medical benefits in 1991 because of a work related injury stemming from exposure to asbestos dust and other pulmonary irritants. Birmingham Fire Insurance Company (Birmingham) was ruled to be the responsible carrier. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Hutchins had been exposed to additional irritants while BIW was self insured and therefore shifted responsibility for his payments to BIW. He was found to have multiple. Work related lung diseases and was awarded medical benefits. There was no evidence presented during the original proceedings that he was exposed to harmful stimuli in his new position. Was assigned full responsibility for Hutchins' payments. <U>See</U> <U>Liberty Mut. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-7206a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Vicki G. With her on the brief was Paul J. I This is not the first time this litigation has come before us. Whitbeck no longer needed a wheelchair and was able to make sales calls with the aid of a cane. Whitbeck began to have difficulty walking long distances. He informed her that her problems with walking were not likely to improve and that she might develop total paraplegia. Whitbeck was distraught that her tumor had regrown and said that she would not use a motorized cart to make sales calls because she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-6001.html">OFFICE OF SSAA V. OFFICE OF SFEP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511663.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is ambiguous. We are presented with an issue of first impression in this circuit. Which fails to provide whether an illness is categorized as mental based on its symptoms or etiology. Is ambiguous. We hold that it is and affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment. UNUM challenges the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law that Billings is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-7112a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Lisa Burns. Because it was not at the relevant time </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-7009.html">DEGMETICH V. BROWN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2013.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-7112b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Lisa Burns. Because it was not at the relevant time </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0987p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented in this appeal is whether Beatty is entitled to benefits if he is able to prove a total disability due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mining employment in combination with other nonrespiratory or nonpulmonary impairments. Although this is a close question. One on which we have received little guidance from Congress. We conclude that the Director's position is reasonable. We will affirm the orders of the Benefits Review Board. His last job was as a beltman. His lungs were continuously exposed to coal dust. His attendance record at work was good. A formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3462.html">VERNON G. PITSKER V. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <u>David W. S decisions were based on an error in the interpretation of the governing statute. Retirement annuities at a higher rate.</p> <u> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E849F658B958535388256EA6005212EA/$file/9956346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of her fringe benefits was long term disability insurance under Northrop's company plan for employees. She wrote that she had pain that interfered with performing her job: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BD6E45E04A4C20A88256F3B00686CD1/$file/0235668.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> See Portland City Code 29.20.010 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-7073c.html">JIMMY L. DUNCAN V. WMATA<BR></A><BR> Sullivan were </P> <P>on brief.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0172p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (TP&A) is a federally mandated independent non profit agency that investigates allegations of abuse against the disabled. Is not covered under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act). When he was 20 years old. He was permanently disabled and must live in a nursing home because he is unable to care for himself. TP&A is the Tennessee chapter of a network of independent agencies. Each state must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/99-7073c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullivan were on brief. Sally Dunaway and Melvin Radowitz were on brief for amici curiae American Association of Retired Persons and National Employment Lawyers Association. Ann Elizabeth Reesman was on brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Advisory Council. Were on brief for amici curi ae United States of America and The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2000 but continues to participate as a member of this en banc court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 46(c)(2). failed to establish he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-1481.htm">96-1481 -- SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. -- 11/26/1997<BR></A><BR> Who are twin sisters. Are currently commercial airline pilots for regional commuter airlines. (United) and were invited to interview in Denver. Plaintiffs were informed that their uncorrected vision disqualified them from pilot positions with United. In that applicants for pilot positions must have uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better in each eye. Plaintiffs' uncorrected vision is 20/200 in the right eye and 20/400 in the left eye.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02934893458B94F2882572C6007C9F95/$file/0535209.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DaVita argues that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/982052.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is set in the familiar factual pattern of an employee's being denied a more advantageous pension because of a minor shortfall in the required period of service. When Harte's service was terminated. He was nineteen days short of eligibility for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0232n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed by the U.S. The machine is operated by a crew of employees who rotated among the three different tasks. The claim was denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2689_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When her disability benefits were terminated. The Plan is an employer sponsored disability plan within the meaning of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1002. Schneider notified Sentry that she was disabled under the terms of the Plan. The Healthy Return Plan is not implicated in this action. Schneider was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9 of the opinion delete the last six lines of the carryover paragraph starting with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962693.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The SSA determined that the date of the onset of disability was August 14. Norman was also involved in a mining accident in 1980. Continued to work after that time. 2 A subphrenic abscess is an abscess occurring beneath the diaphragm. 4 J.E. Norman was totally disabled because he received Disability Insurance benefits for two periods of disability (August 14. Norman's primary diagnosis in the first period was the subphrenic abscess which did not result from a mining accident. Norman submitted to the Trustees additional evidence indicating that the disability was due to problems with his back and the subphrenic abscess. The district court held that the denial of benefits was an abuse of discretion. This appeal ensued. 3 An award of Disability Insurance is a prerequisite for application to the United Mine Workers Pension Plan. 3 Standard of Review This court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment by the district court. District courts reviewed pension plan eligibility decisions of trustees for support by substantial evidence and to determine that the decisions were not arbitrary and capricious. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen & Snyder was on brief for appellees. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND City Metal is a corporation that buys and sells scrap metal. Katz was hired by City Metal on July 1. Because the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0886p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The matter is before the court on a petition for review brought by BethEnergy Mines. Vrobel was a coal miner who for approximately 34 years worked underground. Are the respondents. The Department of Labor initially awarded benefits to Vrobel but BethEnergy denied liability and accordingly the claim was submitted as a contested matter. There was a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-3220.htm">02-3220 -- WELCH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 09/01/2004<BR></A><BR> Welch was an employee of the Coleman Company and was eligible for coverage under Coleman's long term disability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1642.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002305.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 Judge Michael's name is deleted. The district judge's name is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001439.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before the Court are whether Hooven Lewis has a disability under the Rehabilitation Act or was regarded by her employer as having such a disability. Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board was arbitrary and capricious or abused its discretion in finding that Hooven Lewis' employer did not terminate her for informing upon her superior. The Court holds that Hooven Lewis does not have a disability under the Rehabilitation Act because she does not have a condition that substantially limits her in any major life activity. Hooven Lewis received training as a medical laboratory specialist1 and was ultimately assigned to the Walter Reed Army Hospital Institute of Research ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971542.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In this employment discrimination case arising out of the termination of Gasper's employment with the federal agency known as the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA).1 Gasper alleges that his employment was terminated because of his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the Rehabilitation Act). Because Gasper has failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that his employment was terminated because of his disability. Gasper was catastrophically injured in a motorcycle accident. To have difficulty reading social cues. We will do the same. 2 On October 7. Gasper was hired as a cartographer at DMA's Brookmont. At the time he was hired. Gasper was transferred to DMA's Reston. Gasper's supervisor was Martha Nelson. His performance evaluation during the time he was supervised by Nelson indicated satisfactory performance. John Doty was Gasper's second level supervisor. Gasper was instructed on the proper use of the DTC winder cleaner and specifically instructed not to open the back of the machine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/061517P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson is eligible for disability benefits under the Plan if he becomes totally and permanently disabled. A player is considered to be totally and permanently disabled if he is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyMjlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9229_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Plaintiff Appellee was entitled to disability benefits under a long term disability plan provided through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Appellant. That PlaintiffAppellee Marianne Locher was entitled to disability benefits under a long term disability plan provided by her employer through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Appellant. We affirm the judgment of the District Court and write to clarify the standard to be applied by district courts in determining whether to consider evidence outside the administrative record upon a de novo review of factual issues bearing on an administrator's denial of ERISA benefits. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 BACKGROUND The following are facts that the District Court found. Was employed as a legal secretary at Katten Muchin & Zavis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7007.html">PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA V. DISBLED AMERICAN VETS<BR></A><BR> For petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of America.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lawrence B. Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Ronald L. Joseph Holmes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stephen B. Flagg</u </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2329.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: page 3. Hoag & Eliot was on brief for appellee. Of the District of Rhode Island. The district court granted defendants' summary judgment motion as to all eleven claims raised by August's complaint.1 The sole issue now presented is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of OUI on August's claim that his employment termination constituted a discriminatory discharge on the basis of a handicap in violation of Massachusetts statute Mass. The district court's jurisdiction over the state law claims was conferred by 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). This court's jurisdiction to hear August's present appeal is conferred by 28 U.S.C. 1291. 2. That it is an unlawful practice 3 I. As the other two defendants were not named as respondents in a charge of discrimination filed by August with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. That motion was granted by this court on January 14. OUI is the only appellee in this case. 4 recommending that August be given a month's leave of absence from work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fired from her job at a nursing home. We conclude that the district court did not err in partially denying the nursing home's motion for judgment as a matter of law but that it should not have granted the motion with regard to punitive damages. A viral disease that is transmitted by blood to blood contact. Edwards began regular medical treatment in 2000 and by January 2001 there was no detectable amount of the hepatitis C virus in her blood. Although according to her physician she will always have chronic hepatitis. Please indicate if you are under a doctor's care or taking medications now. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946265.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Herman Marcum's total The sole issue on appeal is whether disability was due to pulmonary pneumoconiosis. 1980. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032105.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Smith was a vice president of sales in the floor covering department at J.J. Where he was in charge of carpet. He was required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972780.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key question in this case is whether Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act). I. The facts are undisputed and can be stated in short order. Major Rogers was employed by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) as a maintenance engineer for approximately 22 years. As a state worker Rogers was a participant in a long term disability plan sponsored by the State of South Carolina (the State) for the benefit of its employees. The plan administrator was the South Carolina Budget and Control Board. It appears that all eligible state employees were covered by the same plan. Rogers was diagnosed with a panic anxiety disorder. He alleged (1) that he was discriminated against because he was denied the same level of benefits as someone with a physical disability and (2) that the plan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5400a.html">MODDERNO MARSHA V. KING, JAMES B.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031065.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Evans was given a week off from work. While Evans was away from work. Because Evans was feeling somewhat better. His last day at work was July 27. MetLife is also the administrator of the Plan. B&W indicated that Evans's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1758.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where he was required to constantly lift. He continued to work after the second injury and did not have it repaired until after retiring from the coal mines. That claim was administratively denied on March 9. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding of total disability. Ray was required to show that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/001753.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by Plaintiff Randy L. We must determine whether T ice was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DCB629F9A8638E8A88257036004CFF9B/$file/0335567.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Terminated him after he got a loader he was operating stuck in the mud. It was undisputed that Head had received this policy. Head was diagnosed with depression or bipolar disorder. Was granted. Of relevance to this appeal were Head's claims under the ADA and Oregon law for disability discrimination based on Head's disability. Head's counsel asked a lay witness the following question about the incident with the loader that preceded Head's termination: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding Peebles' continuing injuries were non occupational. Northcross then placed Peebles on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-5052.htm">03-5052 -- ALLISON V. UNUM INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/25/2004<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was entitled to disability benefits under the plan. Finding that the bad faith claim was preempted by ERISA. 1132(a)(1)(B) claim was correct because UNUM has established by substantial evidence that its denial of benefits. Was reasonable. Under a provision entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0252n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was injured on the job. He was never rehired for reasons disputed by the parties. Alleging that Metro's refusal to allow him to return to the force was part of a departmentwide unofficial policy of not rehiring disability pensioners. All three motions were denied by the district court. Metro should have received a new trial or a remittitur because the jury verdict was excessive and against the weight of the evidence. Metro claims that the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider prejudicial testimony that should have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay. Injured his back and neck in a motorcycle accident that occurred while he was on duty. He received a disability pension when he was not working. When he was reevaluated by his personal physician. Arrangements were immediately made for Knight to attend a 13 week lateraltraining course </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1146.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> First Bank was the actual entity involved. Management and payment of the benefits described in the Plan that she was medically cleared. She was involved in an automobile accident. Rekstad administratively appealed that decision and was again denied further benefits. Rekstad was receiving neuropsychological treatment. This was the first time she had ever been released to do any type of work since her automobile accident. Rekstad would have residual deficits with fatigue. Rekstad was terminated by Norwest in February 1997. She was terminated from that position in May 1997 but was again quickly employed by Chase <hr> Manhattan Mortgage ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0328p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other named Defendants are Minnesota Regis Corporation. She started out as a hairstylist but was quickly promoted to shift manager and then store manager. Bryson's immediate supervisor was Kim Sawyer. She went to see a doctor the following day and was instructed only to keep her leg elevated. These were inconclusive. Hester because her knee condition was worsening and the physical therapy seemed only to be exacerbating it. There was no improvement. Hester advised Bryson that she would need to have surgery. The surgery was scheduled for December 16. Bryson kept Sawyer advised about her knee condition and what she was doing to treat it throughout the fall of 2003. She informed Sawyer in a voice mail that she needed to have corrective surgery on her knee and that her doctor had scheduled the surgery for December 16. Telling Bryson that she could not take the time off because the store was too busy. Sawyer told Bryson that her absence would hurt the store and that she was behaving selfishly. Bryson was left with the impression that Sawyer was going to fire her for taking any time off to deal with her knee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/849C8721950AF06288256AB4006DB400/$file/0035181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He would have discovered her herniated discs. The ALJ would then have found her disabled and therefore eligible to receive disability insurance benefits. Mayes therefore asks this court to reverse the district court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision and to remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration of whether she is disabled in light of her herniated discs. We affirm the ALJ's determination that Mayes was not disabled. We find that this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995755.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case compels us to revisit the use of the medical vocational guidelines in the regulations 2 promulgated under the Social Security Act to establish that there are jobs in the national economy that a claimant can perform when the claimant has both exertional and nonexertional impairments. At least one of which (left eye blindness) is a nonexertional impairment under the regulations. We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to return the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. This work was physically strenuous. During his recovery Sykes was unable to work for nine months. The final blow to Sykes's employment as a tractor trailer operator came when a bungee cord snapped as he was securing metal to his truck and ruptured the globe of his left eye. The ALJ concluded that Sykes's depression was not severe. He also concluded that Sykes was not disabled because there was other work in the national 4 economy that Sykes could perform. He argued that the ALJ erred in relying exclusively on the grids in assessing whether there were jobs in the national economy that Sykes could perform when his impairments were both exertional and nonexertional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkwNjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9061_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Leval was thereafter added to the panel by random selection. Who received payments of disability benefits after the date he alleges they were due to be paid. The following facts were not in dispute: Plaintiff Douglas Dobson was employed as an anesthesiologist at the West Central Anesthesiology Group. The Plan was administered by defendant Hartford. Is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/982052.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is set in the familiar factual pattern of an employee's being denied a more advantageous pension because of a minor shortfall in the required period of service. When Harte's service was terminated. He was nineteen days short of eligibility for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0567n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phelps was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in both of his thumbs. Phelps' hand surgeon noted in June that Phelps was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22C53F51FDEB64D988256F7100075B68/$file/0370442.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether he is entitled to unscheduled compensation under 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(21) on the ground that his shoulder injury prevented him from accepting a more lucrative foreman's position. If neither form of compensation is granted. Petitioner is entitled to a de minimis award under 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(21). We hold that petitioner is entitled to neither scheduled nor unscheduled recovery. That he is entitled to a de minimis award to preserve the possibility of a modified award should his earnings fall below pre injury levels. Until he was able to secure a mostly clerical position with Eagle. Keenan's employment history and earnings since the injury are presently in dispute. The only fact that remains in dispute is the probability of future changes in Keenan's economic position. Keenan argues that he is entitled to receive scheduled benefits from Eagle for permanent partial disability to his arm under 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(1). That he is entitled to unscheduled benefits for permanent partial disability as defined by his economic losses under 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(21). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215525.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. This is an appeal from a district court order granting final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Because there are genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Shaw was totally disabled at the time he stopped working for his employer. I. The relevant facts and procedural history are straightforward. Was employed as a purchasing manager in UTC's automotive division from 1977 until April 19. Connecticut General was the claims administrator for both plans. (The short term plan was self insured.). To work at any job for which you are qualified by training. The Group Long Term Disability Contract defines </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0454p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was still working in the coal mines. The claim was finally denied The Honorable Gerald E. No. 01 3111 in 1981 because Flynn failed to prove that he was totally disabled due to the pulmonary ailment pneumoconiosis. Responsibility for payment would have been assumed by the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/638928EF249D934C88256E5A00707C77/$file/0035181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He would have discovered her herniated discs. The ALJ would then have found her disabled and therefore eligible to receive disability insurance benefits. Mayes therefore asks this court to reverse the district court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision and to remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration of whether she is disabled in light of her herniated discs. We affirm the ALJ's determination that Mayes was not disabled. We find that this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1757p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the orders granting summary judgment and denying the motion for reconsideration and will dismiss the cross appeal. Kralik alleged in her complaint that she is an individual with a disability employed as a toll collector by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Durbin is Executive Director of the 2 Commission so as a matter of convenience and reality we will refer to him as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043182P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was released from the hospital nine days later. Weyrauch returned to work shortly after his release and was working six hours a day by January of 1997. Weyrauch apparently was working full time for Salomon Smith Barney even though his speech was somewhat slurred and he had weakness in his hand and left leg. Weyrauch was able to perform the duties of his job. 911.47 in 1998.1 Although it is unclear when Weyrauch's condition degenerated. He was diagnosed with a permanent. The report recommended vocational counseling because return to unrestricted employment at professional levels was doubtful. The cause for termination is not reported in the record. It appears that Weyrauch was continually absent from work after April 10. The amount of benefits and the time period to which the payments related are not stated. 2 1 In July of 2000. The claim was as follows: Mr. Weyrauch was employed at SalomanSmithBarney [sic] October 31. Enclosed you will find a letter describing his neuropsychological evaluation done March 13. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/99-15411.man.html">DOUGHTY V. APFEL (3/28/2001, NO. 99-15411)<BR></A><BR> Doughty was denied benefits pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915411.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Doughty was denied benefits pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0830n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * No. 04 1116 Page 2 Upon de novo review we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on the statutory claims. Of the period for which benefits were sought. The challenged judgment will thus be affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the short term disability claim only. Was born in 1952. This condition is typically characterized by (1) a facial birthmark of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3154DD61D9F508B788256B2900637AEB/$file/0035181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended by adding a new footnote 3. As follows: We need not decide whether good cause is required for submission of new evidence to the Appeals Council. As Mayes conceded in her briefs that good cause was indeed required. Mayes belatedly argues that good cause is required only when new evidence is submitted to a district court. Ramirez does not address whether submissions to the Appeals Council are or are not subject to the good cause requirement. All subsequent footnotes are renumbered accordingly. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. 17157 OPINION MOLLWAY. He would have discovered her herniated discs. The ALJ would then have found her disabled and therefore eligible to receive disability insurance benefits. Mayes therefore asks this court to reverse the district court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision and to remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration of whether she is disabled in light of her herniated discs. We affirm the ALJ's determination that Mayes was not disabled. We find that this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7029.html">JOHN F. DAVIS V. ANTHONY PRONCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F75A1F3AE9A0A9688256E5A00707DA0/$file/0035181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended by adding a new footnote 3. As follows: We need not decide whether good cause is required for submission of new evidence to the Appeals Council. As Mayes conceded in her briefs that good cause was indeed required. Mayes belatedly argues that good cause is required only when new evidence is submitted to a district court. Ramirez does not address whether submissions to the Appeals Council are or are not subject to the good cause requirement. All subsequent footnotes are renumbered accordingly. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. 17157 OPINION MOLLWAY. He would have discovered her herniated discs. The ALJ would then have found her disabled and therefore eligible to receive disability insurance benefits. Mayes therefore asks this court to reverse the district court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision and to remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration of whether she is disabled in light of her herniated discs. We affirm the ALJ's determination that Mayes was not disabled. We find that this </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953179.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ocala Star Banner Corporation and the New York Times Company. whether a plaintiff This appeal presents the question of under the ADA can recover for suing discrimination without showing that his disability was the sole cause for the adverse employment action taken against him. That the district court erred by submitting to the jury a special interrogatory verdict form that allowed recovery for McNely's ADA discrimination claim only if the jury found that he was terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/95-3179.opa.html">MCNELY V. OCALA STAR-BANNER CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McNely v. This appeal presents the question of whether a plaintiff suing under the ADA can recover for discrimination without showing that his disability was the <i>sole</i> cause for the adverse employment action taken against him. That the district court erred by submitting to the jury a special interrogatory verdict form that allowed recovery for McNely's ADA discrimination claim only if the jury found that he was terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4242.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the indictment was returned after the relevant statute of limitations had expired. The fraudulent scheme was fueled by an April 5. 1993 car accident in which Tadros was rear ended by another vehicle. Tadros was released with a prescription for a pain reliever and a muscle relaxant. The crux of the government's allegation is as follows: in an effort to collect money from various insurance agencies which insured the defendant. Tadros fraudulently represented that the injuries he sustained in the August 1993 car accident were greater than they actually were. Because the defendant claims that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. The evidence produced at trial indicated that Tadros was the owner and president of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-5103.htm">97-5103 -- GRIFFIN V. STEELTEK INC. -- 10/29/1998<BR></A><BR> When as a job applicant he or she is asked questions regarding his or her medical history or condition on an employment application. A non disabled job applicant does have such a cause of action. Griffin was not hired for the position. Allegedly because he did not have the two years of grinding experience required by Steeltek. He was never told that Steeltek required two years of grinding experience. In fact was told at the time he applied that he was the best qualified applicant for the position. <p> After Steeltek declined to hire Griffin. That section prohibits employers from asking a job applicant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0279p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Substantive Facts Defendant MTA is an association of approximately 700 member companies in the metalworking industry in Michigan. Plaintiff is a licensed insurance agent in the state of Michigan. While Plaintiff was initially hired as a salaried employee. Plaintiff was deemed an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915411.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Doughty was denied benefits pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1349.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-7087.htm">02-7087 -- HAMLIN V. BARNHART -- 05/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Essentially he contends the ALJ's rejection of his disability claim was not based on substantial evidence. Hamlin contends he is disabled based on severe and constant pain. Was exacerbated by a 1983 horseback riding accident. Who is fifty five years old. Was last insured for disability benefits on December 31. He could no longer work at all. <p> After benefits were denied. Hamlin appealed and was afforded a hearing before ALJ Stephen C. Hamlin was assisted by a non attorney representative. Hamlin's disability application was January 1. Hamlin was not gainfully employed. Hamlin's anxiety related disorder resulted in more than slight restrictions of daily living activities and that the disorder was therefore not severe. The ALJ determined that there were light and sedentary jobs. Hamlin was still able to perform. Hamlin was not disabled. The district court determined in March 1997 that there was good cause pursuant to 42 . He then determined there was no evidence Mr. 1990.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7356.html">DEE W. KILPATRICK V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. Kilpatrick is entitled to the housing benefits at issue. Kilpatrick s spine was the source of his pain. Kilpatrick following the surgery were not the natural consequence of the procedure and rated him as 100 percent disa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1149.htm">98-1149 -- GOHIER V. ENRIGHT -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR> It held that Enright was qualifiedly immune to an excessive force claim. That another caller complained the man was breaking car windows with a pipe. Enright was driving south down Nevada in the vicinity of the incidents when he saw Lucero. Slender object that Enright thought was a knife. Enright decided that Lucero was mentally ill. He was at this point no longer in the area illuminated by the car's headlights. Determined that it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Solely on the legal ground that the amendment would have been futile.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/13/2004<BR></A><BR> <strong> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-15411.man.html">DOUGHTY V. APFEL (3/28/2001, NO. 99-15411)<BR></A><BR> Doughty was denied benefits pursuant to the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3459.html">KATHRYN CONANT V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/95-3179.opa.html">MCNELY V. OCALA STAR-BANNER CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McNely v. This appeal presents the question of whether a plaintiff suing under the ADA can recover for discrimination without showing that his disability was the <i>sole</i> cause for the adverse employment action taken against him. That the district court erred by submitting to the jury a special interrogatory verdict form that allowed recovery for McNely's ADA discrimination claim only if the jury found that he was terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5327a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Witmeyer III argued the cause for appellant. </P> <P>With him on the briefs was David E. With her on the brief was </P> <P>Craig Goldblatt.</P> <P> . With him on the brief </P> <P>was Ann M. Emotional or nervous diseases or </P> <P>disorders of any type. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023627u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and we have jurisdiction over Beasich's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision and remand the case with instructions in turn to remand it to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 I. Who was 30 years old. Inasmuch as there was insufficient information in the record to determine his condition between the ages of 18 to 22 years. Beasich appealed and a hearing was held on April 20. The case was submitted to the district court on the record and briefs without oral argument and the district court affirmed the final decision of the Commissioner on July 30. B. Factual Background Beasich was born on August 31. His father committed suicide when Beasich was nine years old. Beasich is currently 36 years old. When Beasich was 14 years old. He was classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1254.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defenders</U> was on brief. Lougee</U> were on brief. Was better qualified to handle deliveries by HIV positive patients. The baby was delivered there. The gist of her suit is that Dr. Chie denied her treatment solely because she was HIV positive. We hold that the doctor's judgment is to be given deference absent a showing by the plaintiff that the judgment lacked any reasonable medical basis. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I.</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The following facts are undisputed.</P> <P> Vickie Lesley became pregnant in late 1994. The newborn was given AZT syrup. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958526.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is no other basis in the record for affirming the grant of summary judgment. Harris was diagnosed as having active Graves' disease. Harris' thyroid problems have not seriously interfered with her work or other life activities. While she was employed there. The Company was entirely satisfied with Harris' performance as comptroller. Stated that up until the time Harris left the Company </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/962224P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant argues that the district court erred in holding that appellant (1) was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0054p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DiCarlo was terminated near the end of his probationary employment period for what the Postal Service asserted as unsatisfactory work performance. DiCarlo alleges that he was terminated on the basis of national origin. He also asserts that his termination was in retaliation for the Equal Employment Opportunity ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1335_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In 1995 David Stinnett was diagnosed as suffering from depression and as a result has been collecting substantial monthly benefits from two different policies of long term disability insurance. The district court concluded that the disability payments are property of the bankruptcy estate. That Stinnett is entitled to an exemption of $6000 per month under Indiana law. Which we have consolidated for decision. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the disability payments are property of the bankruptcy estate and also that Stinnett is entitled to exempt only $6000 not 100% of the disability payments. Because the disability payments are property of the bankruptcy estate. I. Background David Stinnett worked for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7074.html">SEYMOUR V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-4266_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackson could not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EAABDD953A8D3B7D88256E21005D3621/$file/0217136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that whether or not Eichacker met the physician's care requirement is a disputed issue of fact that warrants a jury trial. I. Factual and Procedural History Milton Eichacker is a lawyer who started his own law practice in Las Vegas. The claimant is (a) unable to perform the important duties of his or her occupation. (b) receiving a physician's care.1 The policy defines </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-2215.htm">98-2215 -- CISNEROS V. WILSON -- 09/11/2000<BR></A><BR> Holding that Plaintiff could not prove: (1) that she was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7381D8D1C24EBB138825707C00768F41/$file/0316855.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec96/95-8526.opa.html">HARRIS V. H&W CONTRACTING CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. There is no other basis in the record for affirming the grant of summary judgment.<p> In addition to her ADA claim. Harris was diagnosed as having active Graves' disease. Harris' thyroid problems have not seriously interfered with her work or other life activities. While she was employed there. The Company was entirely satisfied with Harris' performance as comptroller. Stated that up until the time Harris left the Company </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1840p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. Judge Lewis heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion due to illness. Chief Judge.* This is an appeal by Stacy L. Congress intended that the scope of the Act would extend not only to those who are actually disabled. Those claims are not before us. 2 before the en banc court to settle the question that divided the original panel whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec96/95-8526.opa.html">HARRIS V. H&W CONTRACTING CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. There is no other basis in the record for affirming the grant of summary judgment.<p> In addition to her ADA claim. Harris was diagnosed as having active Graves' disease. Harris' thyroid problems have not seriously interfered with her work or other life activities. While she was employed there. The Company was entirely satisfied with Harris' performance as comptroller. Stated that up until the time Harris left the Company </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Universal Maritime contends that these payments are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY5MTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6914-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That she was improperly denied long term disability benefits. She was fifty five years old. She was a member of Local 32B J. The Fund's Summary Plan Description ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/011705U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Burke was employed by Iowa Methodist Medical Center (IMMC) on two occasions. Burke was exposed. To HIV and was later diagnosed HIV positive. She was. This was a job IMMC created just for Burke involving work similar to the volunteer services she performed while on unpaid leave. The position required Burke to work 32 hours per week and was considered full time. It was classified as light to medium duty requiring her to be on her feet four to six hours per day. Burke was advised that representatives from IMMC were available to answer any questions she might have about the job offer. The letter stated Burke had 30 days to consider the offer and further advised her if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981302.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The BRB affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that: (1) Jerome Puller was permanently totally disabled as a result of a work related accident. Was not entitled to relief under Section 8(f) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-5115.htm">98-5115 -- SHEPHERD V. APFEL -- 07/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Applies in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56C2B33C51CCB8DD88256BAE0073CAE3/$file/0017491.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the insurance policy at issue is a contract of adhesion. The notice provision is part of the conditions requiring proof of claim filed within a certain time limit and enforcement of the provision would result in a technical forfeiture unrelated to the merits of the claim. The noticeprejudice rule under Arizona and Rhode Island law is applicable to the notice of disability requirement in the waiver of premium provision. Reliance rejected the claim because Zipoy was not an employee at the time of his death and neither he nor Carrington had submitted to Reliance notice of his total disability within one year of its onset as required for extension of benefits under the policy's Waiver of Premium in Event of Total Disability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981825.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will remand to the Commissioner for further findings. I. Background Plummer is a high school graduate with an Associate's degree in business. She was twenty six years old at the time of filing. A. Medical History It is not necessary to review all of the evidence in the record pertaining to Plummer's medical impairments. The claimant was diagnosed with deQuervain's tendinitis of the left wrist in September. She was 2 Plummer v. The first mention of potential psychiatric problems in the record is an evaluation on November 26. She was diagnosed with depression. There is a medical note in her file from May 11. The next reference in the record to the claimant's mental health is a July 13. The note states Plummer is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1296.html">WILCOTT V. MATLACK, INC.<BR></A><BR> After the case was removed to federal court. Three federal claims were then tried to the court: (1) denial of short and long term disability benefits due under defendants' ERISA plan. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. I Most of the pertinent facts are undisputed. Defendant Erwin (who was defendant Matlack. (Plaintiff alleges Erwin also assured him at this time that he would have his job for as long as he wished.). Plaintiff was notified that he had been terminated as a part of a general reduction in force. Plaintiff applied for and was awarded social security disability benefits retroactive to May 1990. That he did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-1226.htm">99-1226 -- WELLS V. SHALALA -- 09/21/2000<BR></A><BR> Affirm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0397p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The suit is a public enforcement action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Because the Board's decision is contrary to the language of the governing statute and regulations and results in an error going to the heart of the administrative process. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Gooden was a City Letter Carrier with the U.S. Was referred to a doctor. Gooden was assigned sedentary duties such as filing and answering telephones. Gooden was informed that her workers compensation claim had been denied and the light duty job was withdrawn. The Postal Service advised Gooden that if she was unable to assume the full duties of her position. She had the following options: (1) apply for temporary light duty if the disability was 05 3254 2 temporary in nature. (2) apply for permanent light duty if the disability was permanent. Were later extended. Leaving early at times to do </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B869D5116C929AA288256B4B0008C6BD/$file/0015947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fisher Jo Anne Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor Kenneth S. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide what weight an administrative law judge may give to an applicant's employment that begins after the end of the period for which the applicant is seeking Social Security disability benefits. Is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7347.html">WAGNER V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>David J. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Donald E. 2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the incorrect legal standard was applied to rebut the presumption of soundness under 38 U.S.C. § . Tab stops:.5in'>[E]very veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined. Or <u>where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service</u>. </p> <p class=MsoHeader style='tab stops:.5in'><o:p> . There was evidence that this preexisting injury was aggravated during service.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>For instance. The RO concluded that the claims for service connection and aggravation for the right knee disorder were not well grounded.<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052262p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Throughout this opinion the plaintiff appellant will be referred to simply as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962547.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The issues were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2001_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is administered by Unum Life Insurance Company of America. He was fiftyfive at the time. The plan's administrator is Unum Life Insurance Company of America. Including whether the disability is physical or mental in nature. The plan then defines disabled as being </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051063P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fox stated that Johnson was unable to work any type of schedule and recommended long term disability benefits. Khan stated that Johnson's points of tenderness were also consistent with fibromyalgia. He further observed that there was no synovitis in Johnson's wrist joints and that she had good grip in her hands. Khan noted that he was concerned that Johnson might be complaining of pain because she wanted disability benefits. Were inconsistent with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Fox on the question of whether Johnson was actually disabled. When her short term disability benefits were terminated. Are insufficient to provide proof of disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-11766.ma2.html">HAMILTON V. ALLEN-BRADLEY CO. (3/13/2001, NO. 99-11766)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995472.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His claim was approved on June 18. Benefits are payable under the Plan when a worker becomes totally disabled and remains disabled for six consecutive months.1 See App. at B21. Because Syed was 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032271np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Montell accommodated this request by allowing her to work 32 hours per week and to be paid 80% of the salary she would have earned working a 40 hour week. Alvares was terminated after Montell downsized and eliminated her position. Was paid through June 30. The action was transferred to the District of Delaware. Alvares also argued that she was totally disabled as of June 26. Her claim was time barred. An employee must show that she is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-9313.opn.html">HILBURN V. MURATA ELECTRONICS N. AM. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9313)<BR></A><BR> Or husband were disabled within the meaning of the ADA. It also concluded that Hilburn was not qualified for the positions that she sought to obtain due to a record of extensive absences from work that had been occasioned by her own health problems and those of her family. For the reasons that have been set forth below. Several years later she was reclassified as a material control coordinator. She was considered to be a good employee who received favorable performance appraisals despite a continuing concern by the Company over her extensive absenteeism record.</P> <P> The difficulties that Hilburn experienced in attending work on a regular basis began <STRONG></STRONG>when her son was diagnosed with a brain stem tumor on June 2. Her husband was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis. Hilburn suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with coronary heart disease. Which allegedly caused her to have a decreased tolerance for lifting. She was absent from work for approximately one hundred days between June 1988 and February 1989. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/99-11766.ma2.html">HAMILTON V. ALLEN-BRADLEY CO. (3/13/2001, NO. 99-11766)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0360n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This action is a claim for black lung benefits under Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. Are invalid. Because we find substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2551.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-9313.opn.html">HILBURN V. MURATA ELECTRONICS N. AM. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9313)<BR></A><BR> Or husband were disabled within the meaning of the ADA. It also concluded that Hilburn was not qualified for the positions that she sought to obtain due to a record of extensive absences from work that had been occasioned by her own health problems and those of her family. For the reasons that have been set forth below. Several years later she was reclassified as a material control coordinator. She was considered to be a good employee who received favorable performance appraisals despite a continuing concern by the Company over her extensive absenteeism record.</P> <P> The difficulties that Hilburn experienced in attending work on a regular basis began <STRONG></STRONG>when her son was diagnosed with a brain stem tumor on June 2. Her husband was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis. Hilburn suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with coronary heart disease. Which allegedly caused her to have a decreased tolerance for lifting. She was absent from work for approximately one hundred days between June 1988 and February 1989. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011738.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Tumbleston was a customer service supervisor employed by Smith. Tumbleston was enrolled in Smith's benefits plan. Smith is the Plan Administrator for its Long Term Disability Plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1813.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Costello</U> was on brief for appellees.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1432p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Review of the grant of summary judgment is plenary. Factual Background Unisys is the product of the merger in September 1986 of the Burroughs Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-3018.htm">96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 03/13/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Robert Smith was employed by the defendant. Plaintiff was on a leave of absence and was receiving workers' compensation benefits. He contends that there were numerous job openings at Midland Brake that should have been made available to him and asserts that defendant either could have obtained or did obtain releases from his physician for him to work in those positions. Contends that it made efforts to return plaintiff to work in different positions at the company but was unable to obtain a written release from plaintiff's physician allowing him to return to work. <p> On September 7. Plaintiff asserted that he was discharged in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He was discharged in retaliation for pursuing his workers' compensation claim. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66D4EF636732B79988256C0C007EDFFE/$file/0117225.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of the grounds urged by McCartey for reversal of the Commissioner's decision is that the ALJ erred in rejecting his SSD application without considering the finding of the Department of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1204.htm">01-1204 -- REKSTAD V. FIRST BANK SYSTEM INC. -- 02/12/2002<BR></A><BR> We affirm because we find that Rekstad failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether First Bank's proffered reason for not permitting Rekstad return to work was unworthy of belief. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-5327a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was David E. With her on the brief was Craig Goldblatt. With him on the brief was Ann M. Emotional or nervous diseases or disorders of any type. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A9C04BF22C1E38188256CDF0083055E/$file/0116265.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Littlejohn argued that the two administrative decisions of the VA relating to his disability claims (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-7027.html">ALLEMAN V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>David R. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Jonathan P. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3448E828ACE8EE66882571E200558154/$file/0416501.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Feibusch's principal argument is that the district court incorrectly applied abuse of discretion review rather than de novo review. Feibusch was denied benefits under policy language that states that proof of a disability claim </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2389_036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was released to work without restrictions. She was not to lift in excess of 5 pounds. She was returned to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3664_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Kathleen Semien is a 54 year old woman who began working for BP Amoco in February 1989 as an environmental remediation manager. She was employed as a chemical engineer. Administrative Named Fiduciaries were granted the authority to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1237.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bonifaz</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was entitled to disability benefits under the plan. Which was issued by UNUM with an effective date of June 1. Under a provision entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-3049.html">MCLAUGHLIN V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>Katherine McLaughlin ( McLaughlin ) seeks review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ( Board ) denying her application for disability retirement as untimely because it was filed after the one year statutory filing deadline.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>McLaughlin v. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question of what standard of review we apply to a Board determination that a separated employee is not entitled to a waiver of the one year statutory filing deadline because she was not mentally incompetent during the year following separation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> 5 U.S.C. § 8453 (2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the determination that an applicant is not entitled to a waiver for mental incompetence does not go to the merits of the factual determination of disability. Substantial evidence supports the Board s conclusion that McLaughlin was not mentally incompetent during the statutory filing period. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-7014.html">HAINES V. WEST<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lelm was ten years old. Maintaining Lelm's claim was time barred. The precise issue before us is whether § 541.15 tolls the period of limitation applicable to Lelm's claim for a maximum of seven years. When a plaintiff is under a disability such as infancy. Shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed. Nor in any case for more than one year after the disability ceases: (1) that the plaintiff is within the age of 18 years. (3) is an alien and the subject or citizen of a country at war with the United States. (4) when the beginning of the action is stayed by injunction or by statutory prohibition. ** (b) In actions alleging malpractice. Suspends the period of limitation until the disability is removed. Her claim was time barred. The issue before the LaVan court was whether the 1986 amendments to § 541.15 applied retroactively. Her claim would be barred because the claim would have expired in 1978. The current language of § 541.15 is a result of a 1986 amendment. Shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/972379P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both agreed with Powlishta that the prescription was excessive. Although the Davises provided a second doctor's opinion that the prescribed amount of Ritalin was not having any harmful effects on Shane. When she was replaced by Powlishta. Powlishta's recollection was that she first raised her concerns with Mrs. Who is a trained nurse. Its denial of their request for a preliminary injunction was affirmed on an earlier appeal. Summary judgment was later granted to the district on the basis that the plaintiffs had not produced evidence that Shane had been discriminated against because of a disability and that the alternative arrangement was a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. It will be affirmed if the record. Shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The school district argues that summary judgment was proper because there was no evidence that Shane was treated differently on the basis of his disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-9401.opa.html">EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOC. V. STUDENIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Which was an overhead disability policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982064.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 the names </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411297.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One issue Collado has brought us is particularly interesting because it arises at the intersection some might say collision of two rules of law. It is a wellestablished rule in job discrimination cases involving circumstantial evidence that the existence of a prima facie case should not be revisited after the defendant's Fed. It is an equally well established and even more fundamental rule that judgment should be entered for the defendant where the plaintiff has failed to prove a necessary element of his case. Which also is a component of the prima facie case? P. 50(b) a post verdict judgment for the defendant on the ground that Collado had 2 failed to prove he was disabled. Collado complains that the court's Rule 50(b) post verdict action amounts to revisiting the prima facie case question after it was settled at the Rule 50(a) stage. There are other issues. Before getting to any of the issues we will set out the historical and procedural facts that frame them all. Who has been an insulin dependent diabetic since he was fourteen years old. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001547.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: Claudia Lown argues that the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case because her long term disability plan was a church plan not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Lown further argues that if jurisdiction is proper. The district court erred in finding that she was not totally disabled under the plan. Because Lown did not prove that she was totally disabled. This hospital is located in Columbia. Baptist Healthcare was affiliated with the South Carolina Baptist Convention. After 1993 no Baptist Healthcare board member was a member of or held any office with the South Carolina Baptist Convention. 000 employees were affiliated with a number of different faiths. Participants in the disability plan were specifically advised that the plan was subject to ERISA. Certain Baptist Healthcare employees were also eligible for a retirement plan. This retirement plan was established and maintained by the Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. The retirement plan was constructed as a church plan in order to qualify for exemption from ERISA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3293.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Finding that he had not shown a deficiency in his performance at the time of retirement sufficient to establish that he was disabled for useful service. Holding that Garcia did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to a disability retirement annuity. While Garcia's appeal to this court was pending. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981472.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Based on his claim that he was disabled by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). We will do likewise. Because we agree that the only issues of substance are the two identified by counsel the 1998 award of additional benefits and attorneys' fees. We have considered the unargued issues and conclude that they are without merit. 2 the district court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Reliance's post trial motion was denied.2 By order of May 21. In 1992 was promoted to the position of General Manager of the Pohanka dealership in Fredericksburg. O'Bryhim was responsible for all aspects of the dealership operation. 1996 Amended Memorandum Opinion is not relevant to this appeal. We will designate the opinion issued after trial as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-9401.opa.html">EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOC. V. STUDENIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Which was an overhead disability policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/023752p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949401.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was an overhead The disability policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7122.html">ARTHUR BERNKLAU V. ANTHONY J PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0369p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WesternSouthern terminated McDonald's LTD benefits after it concluded that he was no longer disabled from performing any and every occupation. W e will refer to Defendants Appellants collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0555n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was not the result of a mine accident. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed. The Trustees contend that the district court improperly applied the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2287F97BC4A1EC5488256D470071F41A/$file/0116964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Carmen Celaya was 57 years old when she applied for supplemental security and disability benefits in August 1996. She is illiterate. She was employed as a broccoli buncher. HALTER Celaya was diagnosed with diabetes in July 1995. Which was controlled with medication by December 1995. Her height was measured at 57 in November 1996. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0392p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court rejected Justice's claim that she had been terminated from her grants department position in retaliation for her political affiliation because her position was of a type allowing political discrimination. No. 01 6156 Justice was a certified teacher in the Pike County school system under the Kentucky Teacher's Tenure Act. Was as follows: JOB GOAL: The Grants Department Director is responsible for seeing that the goals and objectives of the Grants Department are achieved. Train and work with teachers at each school who are part of the Pike County grant team. 4. Johns resigned as superintendent and Brenda Gooslin was appointed interim superintendent. Claiming that the grants department was not an efficient use of resources. Justice would have continued to draw the same per diem salary. Because as a classroom teacher she was only expected to work 185 days a year. This would have involved a significant reduction in annual salary. About the same time she was promoted to grants director. Most of which was sedentary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0569n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004 decision of the Social Security Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/981500P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was promoted to customer service coordinator and transferred with the Sales Customer Service Department to Ohio. Considering the division was short staffed. After stating that Mole was being demoted to customer service coordinator. The extent to which her illness has contributed to her poor performance is not easily gauged. The timing of this review is such that Kathy has just returned to work from her illness. I will gladly review her again in six to nine months. Noting that she continued to have problems with lack of motivation. Meyer added a handwritten comment at the end of this document: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1710p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the Social Security Act was amended to eliminate benefits for disability caused by alcohol and drug addiction. The district court decided that the distinction was based on whether the disability existed on the effective date of the amendment. That the test is whether the claims had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zimmerman</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. These are cross appeals in a Title VII religious discrimination case. The sum of which was reduced to the statutory cap of $300. Johnson was repeatedly harassed over the course of his nine year employment in Spencer Press's janitorial department by his supervisor. Arguing that the evidence did not show that the harassment was because of Johnson's religion and did not show that it was severe and pervasive. We reject these contentions and affirm. </P> <P> Johnson cross appeals the district court's holding that he was not entitled to any back pay or front pay after he was fired from his next job. He also argues that the district court erred in rejecting the contention that he was unable to get a subsequent job because he was psychologically disabled. That Spencer Press is responsible for this disability because it stems from the harassment he endured while he was an employee there. </P> <P> We affirm the limitation on Johnson's front pay and back pay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1837.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Is a small not LYNCH. Where Ann Marie Guglielmi was employed as a Team Leader. Amego learned that other staff felt Guglielmi was not performing her job adequately and was putting patients at risk. That there was no other job reasonably available to her. Her employment was thus terminated. Holding that the EEOC had not made out a prima facie case that Guglielmi was an otherwise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-6265.opa.html">BLACK DIAMOND COAL MINING CO. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMP. PROGRAMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Black Diamond Coal Mining Co. v. The sole issue on appeal is whether Herman Marcum's total pulmonary disability was due to pneumoconiosis. The Office of Workers Compensation Programs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CBF901D1E1EB5EC88256E1500816E5A/$file/0215637.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294(1) (2000). The policy defined total disability as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM1NjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3564-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A position to which he was promoted in 1991. Graves was diagnosed with a bone spur on the heel of his left foot. A painful condition which required surgery and treatment.1 Because paper inspectors at Finch Pruyn are on their feet for much of their shifts. Graves missed three months of work while on 1 Graves ultimately was diagnosed with an accessory ossicle. Graves was again assigned to light duty. Informing him that no more light duty work was available. The six months of paid disability leave to which Graves was entitled under company policy ran out in December 2000. Or (3) have a doctor state that Graves is totally disabled and take disability retirement with the concomitant disability pension benefits of approximately $269. Graves performed no 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 favorable to Graves and asking whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether Finch Pruyn is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff's burden </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7168.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel was Donald E. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. No other aspect of the court's decision is on appeal. A VA regional office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/031209P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The central issue on appeal is how Social Security regulations dealing with alcohol abuse should be applied. The Commissioner argues that any error was harmless. Brueggemann's claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That a vocational expert (VE) subsequently determined that no jobs are available to a person with that limitation. The ALJ ruled that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032569P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Her case was removed to the district court1 on the ground that her claims were completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032356np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Since we write only for the parties who are aware of the circumstances underlying this suit. We will not set forth the factual or procedural background except insofar as may be helpful to our discussion. Prudential claims that Collins had not mastered the financial transactions component of her job by the time of her first 90 day interview although she was able to perform assigned non financial tasks adequately. Collins was still unable to perform the financial aspects of her job satisfactorily. The Pennsylvania State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB1C246E174F2D0E88256AA80080CABE/$file/9915857.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for McClatchy on the ground that Thornton presented no genuine issue of material fact showing that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DC8B190EFF3ECCC688256E5A00707C52/$file/9915857.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for McClatchy on the ground that Thornton presented no genuine issue of material fact showing that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012633P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus the IRS was never obligated to provide it. I. Ballard was employed by the IRS from 1967 until his retirement on January 1. The parties agree that at all relevant times Ballard was disabled for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. The MAP program is designed to plan different assignments for participating employees to improve their chances for promotion. These assignments will require additional travel. I do not believe it is in my best interests to continue to pursue a higher level position. I believe it is to [sic] appropriate for me to take [my doctor's] recommendations into account if I am to have any future. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-6265.opa.html">BLACK DIAMOND COAL MINING CO. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMP. PROGRAMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Black Diamond Coal Mining Co. v. The sole issue on appeal is whether Herman Marcum's total pulmonary disability was due to pneumoconiosis. The Office of Workers Compensation Programs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/003441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the district court identified the correct standard for reviewing the Plan's decision a deferential </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0819n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Determining that Greathouse and Stewart were both to blame for the problem. Greathouse was the only person who applied for the job. Perdue was more qualified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7357.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/056030P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bankruptcy Judge. 1 The United States Department of Education (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BE85A29D92B9F038825706E004F24F0/$file/0355601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Abatie was employed by the Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-1191.htm">96-1191 -- STANLEY V. U.S. -- 04/09/1998<BR></A><BR> 31 30 608<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-6035.htm">03-6035 -- MASON V. AVAYA COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 01/13/2004<BR></A><BR> The district court granted Avaya's motion for summary judgment holding Mason was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA because (1) Mason's physical attendance in the workplace was an essential function of her job. (2) Mason's request for an at home accommodation was unreasonable. <u>See</u> 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200004/99-5125a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Philip B. Honberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Stano was on the brief for amici curiae the Health Insurance Association of America. Because the employer adopted the plan prior to the ADA's enactment and because circuit prece dent holds that such plans are protected by the statute's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514005.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A benefit that was made available to him as an employee. The MARC Plan is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0518n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams's medical opinion was sufficiently reasoned to support an award of benefits under the Act and (2) Wright was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. I. BACKGROUND Wright is a 77 year old former mine worker who worked in the mines for 19 years during the period from 1950 until 1986. It is not necessary to a determination of the issues before us on appeal to recount it in detail. Suffice it to say that Wright's attempts to obtain benefits have included numerous hearings before two different ALJs and numerous appeals to and remands from the Board. The last opinion from the ALJ was on remand from the Board with instructions to reconsider </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-3150.html">BRENDA S. LICAUSI, V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. Hughes</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Alisa Redd</u>. Sustaining the ruling of the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM ) that she was not entitled to reinstatement of her disability retirement annuity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We affirm.</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. Licausi was employed as an administrative assistant with the Internal Revenue Service.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In 1976. Licausi that because she had earned more than 80 percent of the current rate of pay of the position from which she had retired she was considered restored to earning capacity and was no longer entitled to continue receiving disability benefits.<span sty </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972309.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Douglas England appeals the Benefits Review Board's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982046.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are as follows. Miller was hired by Bon Secours in 1988 and. Was working 40 hours per week as a Utilization Review Assistant (URA) in Bon Secours' Home Health/Hospice division (Home Health/Hospice). Miller was diagnosed with Graves' disease. One of the most significant effects of her condition is that she cannot control her eye muscles or move her eyes back and forth without pain. Submitted a report identifying numerous areas in which improvement was needed in order to comply with accreditation standards. One deficiency noted in the report was the disorganized state of Home Health/Hospice's personnel records. Bon Secours announced that it was filling two vacant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7079.html">BOYER GERALD V. WEST TOGO D. JR.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Daniel D. With her on the brief were David W. Of counsel on the brief were Donald E. The RO determined that Boyer had not established that any hearing loss in his right ear existed at the time he was discharged. After considering Boyer's testimony that he was exposed to high noise levels in both ears during his military service. Because the right ear loss was less than total. Boyer was not entitled to a compensable rating for his left ear loss. </P> <P> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a1012n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Applied and was declared ineligible for a disability pension under Emerson's ERISA governed retirement plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3204.html">CARL R. BENAVIDEZ V. DEPT OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF7FD1681864E887882572970081DBBE/$file/0535209.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is undisputed that Gambini had a history of health problems that predated her employment at DaVita. Gambini eventually met with a mental health provider at the community health clinic and was told that her symptoms were consistent with bipolar disorder. Gambini informed her supervisor Robin Warren ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6CDF476BD005FA4E88256C0500810B5D/$file/0170354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ALJ then merged the claims against the two employers and found that SSA was liable under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1051p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues presented are whether workers' compensation benefits for specific loss of use of a particular body part constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-15180.opn.html">HALLUM V. PROVIDENT LIFE (5/2/2002, NO. 01-15180)<BR></A><BR> Hallum ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2239.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cook</U> was on brief. Peirce</U> was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/992362P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. 2. that he is no longer entitled to Social Security benefits based on disability because alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of his disability. The ALJ found that Mittelstedt is unable to do his past work. The ALJ found that Mittelstedt retained transferable skills from his past work and that he was. In spite of the fact that alcoholism was found to be a severe impairment. The ALJ wrote: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5149a.html">KIDWELL BILLY RAY V. DEPT ARMY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021486P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was hit over the head with a tire iron. After Fastner's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. The ALJ found that Fastner was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and thus was not entitled to benefits. We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0230p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eric Jones was discharged from his post as a torn mail handler with the United States Postal Service (USPS). An arbitrator subsequently determined that Jones's dismissal was disproportionately harsh. Holding that Jones was unable to meet his burden of demonstrating that the USPS's articulated reason for his termination namely. Potter Page 2 its zero tolerance policy regarding violence in the workplace was a pretext designed to mask discrimination. When he was hired as a mail handler. Three of which have been allowed. Was allowed. Was denied additional compensation because those injuries were unrelated to his 1993 on the job accident. He reaggravated his preexisting injuries a little more than a year later while at work and was again placed on limited duty status as a torn mail handler. He was assigned to a different limited duty position in early 2001. Which was considered internally as having a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-15180.opn.html">HALLUM V. PROVIDENT LIFE (5/2/2002, NO. 01-15180)<BR></A><BR> Hallum ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5125a.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARAMARK CORPORATION, INC.<BR></A><BR> With her </p> <p>on the briefs was Philip B. Honberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The </p> <p>National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.</p> <p>Ronald S. Stano was on the brief for amici curiae the </p> <p>Health Insurance Association of America. Because the employer adopted the </p> <p>plan prior to the ADA's enactment and because circuit prece </p> <p>dent holds that such plans are protected by the statute's ". The </p> <p>plan limits disability payments to twenty four months if the </p> <p>disability is caused by a mental condition but continues </p> <p>payments until at least age sixty five if the disability is </p> <p>physical. The two cases were </p> <p>consolidated. Was therefore unprotected by Title I of the </p> <p>ADA. It is not regulated by Title III.</p> <p>EEOC and Fennell appeal. Even if those benefits had </p> <p>been earned when she was a ". Our review is de novo. Cir. 2000).</p> <p>II</p> <p>Our sister circuits are divided on both issues that formed </p> <p>the basis of the district court's grant of summary judgment </p> <p>for Aramark and Aetna. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2299.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent Director. Hanson & DeTroy was on brief for respondent Bath Iron Works Corporation. Compensation was denied on the ground that Bath had voluntarily paid in full for Neely's temporary disability and for all outstanding medical expenses. The pertinent facts are undisputed. Neely incurred some medical expenses and was out of work for about two weeks in October 1992. There have been no further periods of disability due to the injury. The compensation regime is one of continuing protection: subject to statute of limitations provisions. Bath also filed a notice that it was controverting Neely's right to compensation under that statute. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062760P.pdf">N:\DOCS\MELISSA\06-2760.CHRISTENSEN V. TITAN.FINAL OPINION2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Christensen was 58 1/2 years old and went on short term disability leave to have knee replacement surgery. Considered Christensen his most qualified and experienced supervisor and told Christensen that he would have his job when he returned from the disability leave. While Christensen was still on disability leave. All Quintak employees who wanted to work at Titan were required to submit applications. Warren told Christensen that while everyone was required to fill out an application. Christensen was on his list of people who were needed to run the operation. Christensen submitted an application while he was still on disability leave and kept in contact with Warren. Warren assured Christensen that he would have his job as third shift supervisor whenever the doctor allowed him to return to work. Who told Christensen that he was not conducting any more interviews and that Christensen needed to have Warren schedule him for an interview with Luthin. Luthin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2002/995556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process because his request for a predeprivation hearing was ignored. Section 2C:43 3.1 expressly requires a New Jersey Superior Court to order the Department of Corrections to collect a VCCB fine from the personal account of an inmate if the assessment was not paid at the time of sentencing.1 1. 000.00 for each such crime for which he was convicted which resulted in the injury or death of another person. . . . When a defendant who is sentenced to incarceration in a State correctional facility has not. Paid an assessment for the crime for which he is being sentenced or an assessment imposed for a previous crime. Higgins was transferred from the Monmouth County Correctional Center Facility to the ADTC. He was advised that he would receive a check for benefits due from January 1. Higgins was notified during mail call by an ADTC employee that the check had arrived. He was not handed the check nor did he authorize any prison employee to deposit it in his inmate account. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001170.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CITY OF RICHMOND Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Claiming that he was disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that he was denied reemployment with the City because of his disability. At trial the City maintained that Foore was not disabled because his visual impairment did not substantially limit any major life activity. We hold that Foore does not have a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Foore began his service with the City as a police cadet in 1964 and was reclassified as a police officer in 1967. From 1976 to 1978 Foore was an acting sergeant. He was promoted to sergeant in 1978. We note that the district court did not have the benefit of two recent (and pertinent) Supreme Court decisions. While he was serving as a police officer. It is uncorrectable. Although he has monocular vision and does not have any depth perception. His peripheral vision is normal. He does not have to wear prescription eyeglasses. After he was removed from the police force. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-7195.html">MILEY V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Michael J. He was involved in a motorcycle accident in which he suffered multiple injuries.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Those injuries were later determined to be service connected.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>As of March 1973. Miley was receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for residuals of those injuries.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>He was rated 70 percent disabled at that time.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></h3> <h3 style='text align:justify. A Veterans Administration regional office ( RO ) granted him a temporary 100 percent disability rating based on his hospitalization but denied his claim for a TDIU rating.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>His service connected disability rating was continued at 70 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></h3> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-7049.html">COLLARO V. WEST<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1300.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC were on brief for appellant A.E. Whitney and Roach & Wise were on brief for appellee Quint. Either functioned haphazardly or in some instances were inoperable. The work area was unheated and open to the outdoors both in winter and summer. CTS is a condition in which the median nerves and nerve tendons which pass through the carpal tunnel ÄÄ a narrow. CTS is caused by repetitive. Sigsbee confirmed that Quint did indeed have work related CTS. Fearing that Quint would spoil Staley's spotless workplace safety record were she to file a workers' compensation claim. Sigsbee characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-9576.wpd.html">WYOMING FUEL CO. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMP. PROGRAMS<BR></A><BR> Was denied benefits because he failed to demonstrate any of the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to benefits. The ALJ also concluded that Brandolino was entitled to benefits from Wyoming Fuel because he had demonstrated that he had pneumoconiosis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7014CDA3658E413C882571E60083CBFD/$file/0455472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We thus have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). I. Factual Background Ali Bassiri was a permanent employee of Xerox Corporation from 1997 to 2002. Bassiri was eligible for short term disability benefits. He was enrolled in the Xerox LTD Plan and a Prudential Disability Income Plan. Payments lasted only as long as the recipient was a full time permanent employee of Xerox. Bassiri had an excellent work record and was promoted to a management position in 2000. He was diagnosed with severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Alleged that either: (a) the Xerox LTD plan was an ERISA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961641.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Giattina1 appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision that his disability insurance benefits are subject to the offset provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 404.408 (1996)2 based on his receipt of a federal pension. Giattina has continued to prosecute this appeal and will be referred to as Appellant. 2 The offset provision codified at 42 U.S.C. § 424a (1994) is implemented by 20 C.F.R. § 404.408 (1996). A disability insurance benefit to which an individual is entitled under section 223 of the Act for a month . . . is reduced . . . if: ... (2) The individual first became entitled to disability insurance benefits after August 1981 based on a disability that began after February 1981 and (i) The individual entitled to the disability insurance benefit is also. Giattina was stricken with retinitis pigmentosa in 1965 and was statutorily blinded by the disease. Although he was entitled to disability insurance benefits for nearly two years. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By failing to develop a transition plan for 1 These ind ividuals are Cora L ee B oswo rth. Which was denied. The court also concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because such damages are not available under Title II absent proof of intentional discrimination. Arguing that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs have a private cause of action under Title II to challenge violations of § 35.151. Be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-7116.htm">97-7116 -- WILES V. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA INC. -- 04/21/1999<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-7116a.htm">97-7116A -- WILES V. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA INC. -- 04/21/1999<BR></A><BR> Please note the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2360_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Repa alleged that Roadway improperly required her to use sick and vacation leave while she was using FMLA leave and receiving disability benefits. No. 06 2360 Roadway is a commercial trucking company that is a member of a multi employer bargaining unit. Which is party to a collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The WHF is a TaftHartley trust fund established to provide. This benefit is available to an employee who is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/062522P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the duties of this job are not explained in detail. It is described in the administrative record as heavy work. Claiming that her multiple sclerosis was now permanently disabling. Which is expressly authorized </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034870np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm its judgment. Ketzner was working as an internist for HIP Health Plan of New Jersey. She was feeling tense in dealing with patients and had been threatened by some of them. Her concentration was poor. She was losing weight. The essence of her initial claim in this litigation was that she had not received the full benefits entitled to her for this disability under a disability income insurance policy she had purchased from Hancock that was administered by Provident. 1 Problems with Ketzner's claim on the policy developed from the very beginning: she alleged that she gave Appellees notice of her disability claim as early as December 1997. This miscommunication was. We note that these incidents are well documented by the parties and the District Court in the record. We will make only sparing and necessary reference to them here. The noncancellable policy was to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031425.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCoy is a former coal miner and employee of Lewis Coal adjudged to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. The BRB directed that Lewis Coal reimburse McCoy for approximately $1800 in medical expenses that it concluded were related to his disability. The petition for review is denied. I. The essential facts underlying McCoy's medical benefits claim are as follows. The SSA concluded McCoy was totally disabled and awarded disability payments under Part B. McCoy presented evidence that the medical treatments for which he sought compensation under Part C were related to the disabling conditions on which his Part B award was based. Lewis Coal presented medical evidence from several sources suggesting that McCoy no longer suffered from a Part B disability and that the pulmonary conditions for which he sought compensation were attributable to cigarette smoking rather than disabling pneumoconiosis. Applying this court's presumption in Doris Coal that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031281.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> THE MACSTEEL SERVICE CENTER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Donald Lucy was denied disability benefits under his employer's disability plan. I. Lucy contends that he is eligible for disability benefits because of his heart condition. Lucy was released from the hospital the next day. His records indicate that the procedure was a success. There were no complications. Zughaib's discharge instructions say only that Lucy is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0618n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Tammy Lawson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that UNUM's long term disability plan was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411245.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. determined that Citibank's denial of Slomcenski's claim for continued LTD benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. The district court's disposition of Slomcenski's ADA claim is also AFFIRMED. I. BACKGROUND Slomcenski was hired as an information technology specialist in Citibank's human resources department in November 1997. She was required to develop. Slomcenski was covered by Citibank's Long Term Disability Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/042850P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question in this case is whether Steven Nuzum. Which is his dominant hand. The doctor issued permanent medical restrictions: Nuzum was limited to lifting ten pounds constantly. I don't think the past couple years I've been as effective as a coach because I've been unable to have any handson and demonstrate certain abilities of things that the kids need to know. Hugging my wife is different. So there's things that have changed. The doctor who conducted an independent medical examination of Nuzum recounted that Nuzum's sleep was disturbed by rolling onto his elbow while asleep. Nuzum and Ozark agree that the order picker job required Nuzum to lift up to sixty pounds and was therefore not within his now restricted capabilities. Because Nuzum was not expected to improve. Ozark was no longer willing to allow Nuzum to do the modified jobs it had offered him while he was convalescing. He was not able to find another job at Ozark within two weeks. Alleging that he was disabled and that Ozark had failed to accommodate his disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7152.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Because we conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not final for purposes of our review. BACKGROUND Disability compensation for veterans is typically of two different types one for service connection where the injury or disease first manifested itself during service and another for in service aggravation when a preexisting injury or disease is aggravated by service. If the disability was not noted upon entry into service. Supports a finding that the disability was service connected. (2) that the disability was not aggravated due to service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111 (2000). Either that (1) there was no increase in disability during service. Or (2) any increase in disability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021590.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the administrative law judge's rulings were supported by substantial evidence. She developed problems with her left hand and was treated by Dr. She was given temporary light duty work restrictions and subsequently returned to her duties aboard ships. She was assigned to work in a building doing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982230P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Although there are two defendants. Cannice cross appeals from the trial court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to Norwest on the discrimination claim and on the extent of the damages to which he was entitled. We hold that there was insufficient evidence to submit either of Mr. Costs are moot. As it is sometimes called. We have not yet had occasion to consider whether harassment on account of a disability is actionable under the ADA. It is not necessary for us to reach that question here. As the plain language of the statute would require if such harassment were actionable. He was not promoted 2 to the position of group leader. Although several Norwest employees testified that he was better qualified than the person who was given this position. His lunch breaks and bathroom breaks were more closely monitored than those of other employees. His desk was moved closer to that of a supervisor. Both of which occurrences were distressing to him in his depressed state. Cannice was asked to remove medication from his desk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/023273P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Russell argues that there are genuine issues of material fact on each of her claims and that TG Missouri is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. Jurisdiction was proper in the District Court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The following summary of background facts is based upon the District Court's order. TG Missouri is a manufacturer of plastic automotive parts. Russell was employed by TG Missouri on a full time basis from January 3. Her symptoms are triggered by. Russell was working twelve hour shifts. Moran's office to find out whether Russell was only limited to eight hours per day or whether she was also limited to forty hours per week. Blaylock was told by someone in the office (other than Dr. Russell was seen today for a regular visit. She is having trouble with increased symptoms. She reports that she must work very long 12 hour days which is having an adverse effect on her mental status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/982894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was 19 years old when he graduated. The Dean was greeted by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/973963P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Donald Conley was injured in an automobile accident while working for Pitney Bowes. He received short term disability benefits for a time after the accident and was then placed on long term disability status. An employee needs to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971402.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the parties are subject to the jurisdiction of the Longshore Act. Gilchrist was in the employ of Employer. Which is self insured. That written notice of the injury was given within thirty (30) days. That Gilchrist was temporarily and totally disabled from May 7. That Gilchrist was previously awarded compensation for a 10% permanent disability for loss of use of his right hand and 10% permanent disability for loss of use of his left hand. Petitioner is a 38 year old former employee of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock. He sustained a work related injury to both hands in February 1984 and was treated by Dr. Gilchrist was unable to continue working as a shipfitter. Gilchrist was out of work from October 7. There was no longer any work available to him within his restrictions at the Shipyard and Gilchrist began to work with a vocational rehabilitation counselor from the Shipyard. He was employed at Lowe's. A formal hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Malamphy in Newport News Virginia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7137.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. That he is therefore disabled under the Rehabilitation Act. He claims that the VA failed to accommodate his disability and that he was constructively discharged when he chose to pursue retirement benefits rather than accept a demotion to a lower paid position. He was an Education Case Manager (ECM). His job was to communicate with veterans about their education benefits via telephone. ECMs were required to be available to answer telephone calls from veterans for a large portion of their work days. As of March 2003 the minimum time they were to be available was six hours per day. That he was having seizure like activity. Corley's medical file: The above referenced individual has developed a seizure disorder which is presently[] controlled [with] medication. Although the need to train new employees was temporary. Corley would again be able to perform his regular duties once the temporary assignment was completed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054743p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge The issue before us is whether the District Court properly applied the McDonnell Douglas paradigm in granting summary judgment for the defendant/appellee United States Postal Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1430.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Miranda & Pinto were on brief for appellees. That the court below incorrectly ruled that the incontestability clause in the SMA disability income insurance policy issued to V lez is ambiguous. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The relevant facts are recited in the light most favorable to SMA. V lez was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis around 1983. There is no evidence that Ortiz overheard or participated in the conversation. Nor that Ortiz was aware V lez had multiple sclerosis.1 Shortly thereafter. Who was neither an SMA employee nor authorized to sell its insurance. There was no discus sion of V lez's condition at their meeting and Montes was not 1There is evidence that Ortiz learned that V lez was experi encing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/991924P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cravens argues that summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to (1) whether Cravens was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962835P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His overall vision is corrected to 20/20. Though he actually is seeing out of only one eye. Doane was asked to undergo an eye examination. After which he was advised that his career was over. Doane was given a choice between resigning with a small pension or applying for a 911 communications job. Each was denied on account of his blindness in one eye. Applicants must also possess normal color perception and have no evidence of irreversible disease which will affect the person's sight. The city asserted that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/021854u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (ALL FICTITIOUS NAMES WHO ARE PLAN SPONSORS and/OR ADMINISTRATORS OR OTHER FIDUCIARIES. I. Facts and Procedural Background The factual allegations underlying this case are well known to the parties. They are not detailed here. 1 initiated the action which is the subject of these cross appeals by filing a pro se Complaint against the Plan's Board of Trustees in District Court. Defendant New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund (which was named in plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. Are employee welfare benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA. He was injured during the course of his employment as a construction laborer with Enviro Tech. The Plan's Administrator to request information on how to apply for disability retirement benefits under the Plan and was advised that he had to be out of work for at least six months in order to be eligible to apply for disability benefits under the Plan. Who were then members of the Plan's Board of Trustees. Social Security awarded plaintiff monthly The Notice of Award explained that the first disability benefits beginning in July of 1995. month of benefits was July 1995 because plaintiff had to be disabled for 5 full consecutive calendar months before becoming entitled to benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6022.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Grogan had only a small window of time during which he was insured under the Social Security system. Grogan does not challenge that this is the appropriate window. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. 1291. Because the agency was required to consider evidence of Grogan's disabilities if they manifested themselves inside his insurance window. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Background The procedural history of this case is unusual. That claim was denied. His claim was denied by the agency initially. Because the agency contended both that Grogan's income was too high and that he had withdrawn his application. The case was remanded to an ALJ for specific determination whether Grogan had been disabled during the critical period from March 1. Grogan was represented by counsel. A vocational expert was available had the ALJ decided that his opinion had been necessary. Grogan had alleged that he was disabled due to a spinal condition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2267.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Undisputed Facts The relevant facts are as follows. Claimant is a former accountant for the U.S. Earning wages that were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/568FCC50E02BB2DC88256DE8006F809F/$file/0056988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reaffirming our earlier treatment of the appropriate standard of review in ERISA cases where benefits are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. 067. (2) The rate under paragraph (1) shall be increased by $228 in the case of the death of a veteran who at the time of death was This matter has twice been before this court. Provide in receipt of or was entitled to receive (or but for the receipt of retired pay or retirement pay was entitled to receive) compensation for a service connected disability that was rated totally disabling for a continuous period of at least eight years immediately preceding death. Only periods in which the veteran was married to the surviving spouse shall be considered. 38 U.S.C. § 1311 (2006). In relevant part: (a) The Secretary shall pay benefits under this chapter to the surviving spouse and to the children of a deceased veteran described in subsection (b) of this section in the same manner as if the veteran's death were service connected. (b) A deceased veteran referred to in subsection (a) of this section is a veteran who dies. Who was in receipt of or entitled to receive (or but for the receipt of retired or retirement pay was entitled to receive) compensation at the time of death for a service connected disability rated totally disabling if (1) the disability was continuously rated totally disabling for a period of 10 or more years immediately preceding death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4NzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3879-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-8084.htm">99-8084 -- MCKENZIE V. DOVALA -- 03/13/2001<BR></A><BR> After being told that her leave pay was exhausted. McKenzie was released by her supervising physician. McKenzie immediately sought re employment at the Sheriff's Office and was assured that her application would be considered if openings became available. McKenzie's application for employment was rejected at all the agencies to which she applied throughout Wyoming and Nevada. Dovala told McKenzie that he was unwilling to consider her application and admitted that the Office was reluctant to hire her because of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/022679u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Benefits to which he 2 was entitled under the Fund's pension plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011418.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Carson was diagnosed with severe fibromyalgia by Dr. Fibromyalgia is a complex. The American College of Rheumatology specifies that fibromyalgia's diagnosis is characterized by widespread. No cure is available. The disease can be permanent and its causes are unknown. After Carson was placed on disability by her primary care physician. Who was not a rheumatologist. A client must have 11 out of 18 `tender points' in the body. CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO. that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-8024.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was tried before a jury. Alleging she was refused employment as a police officer because of her disability. Sheriff Dovala was succeeded by defendant Sheriff Mark Benton. The issues considered by the jury were whether McKenzie was qualified for a position within the Natrona County Sheriff's Office. They found that McKenzie was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992795P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 This is an employment discrimination case. The F&I department was responsible for selling car buyers additional services such as financing. Dave Sinclair Jr. was contacted by General Motors Holding Division. Which advised him that his F&I department was underperforming. To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). A September 8 MAP </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981132.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7094.html">CHRISTINE HIX V. HERSHEL W. GOBER<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>David Barrans</u>. The appeals were consolidated for briefing and argument.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4NzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3879-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/033852P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A perfusionist is a surgical room technologist who operates the heart lung machine during cardiopulmonary bypass. Torres was examined by an audiologist at Mountain Plains Audiology Associates. He was very concerned about the loss and the difficulty it caused in communicating. It would be typical for him to experience difficulty with speech discrimination ability in situations where background noise is present. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2066_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Accident benefits are generally more desirable than sickness benefits. The benefits continued until 2000 when the plan determined that Dougherty was no longer disabled. Sponsored what is currently known as the Ameritech Sickness and Accident Disability Benefits Plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/012824u.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was covered by both an individual policy for management employees and a group policy as an employee benefit plan. I. Russell alleged in his complaint that he was employed by CPI in March 1990 as a Vice President and within the next two years became a participant in the Company's Individual Limited Plan and in its Group Limited Plan. He further alleged that the defendant Company is a fiduciary of both plans with discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits. He represented that about 5 to 10 hours per week were allocated to financial analysis. Which was defined as involving sitting. Both policies essentially provide that an eligible employee is entitled to disability payments if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60934.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Semon diagnosed Bolden with a bulging or herniated disc for which he was treated conservatively. An attorney informed Bolden that he did not have to prove a specific date and time of injury to receive benefits under the Act. He alleges that he had not filed for benefits from Ingalls for his back injury earlier because he was unable to pinpoint a specific incident that led to disability. That no such date was required. Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by employer Ingalls Shipbuilding. I. The facts are undisputed. Bolden is a fiftyfive year old electrician who worked for Ingalls intermittently for nineteen years beginning in the fall of 1969. He was employed continuously from 1987 until May 1995. All of these injuries were minor. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Bolden was diagnosed with arterial insufficiency and underwent several procedures to correct this vascular condition. He also was found to suffer from peripheral neuropathy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-7095a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Speights was on the brief. Because we hold that restitution was an available remedy for the company under ERISA and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the award. The job was stressful. Which was succeeded as the company responsible for administering the plan by Fortis in 1991. A person is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4317_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging the defendants violated their fiduciary duties by misstating the amount of benefits to which he was entitled under the Plan. Brosted was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He nonetheless was able to continue working at Dreisilker as a purchasing manager until late 1999. When he was hospitalized for complications related to multiple sclerosis. The Unum policy provided that a person is disabled when Unum determines that the employee is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A402C54E1B3A822C882571A20074560D/$file/0436087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for the appellant and was on the briefs. Argued the cause for the appellee and was on the brief. Jr. was also on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked to review a summary judgment dismissal of a claim by an epileptic heavy equipment operator for a county road department under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He controls the condition with medication but still endures the occasional seizure which is usually preceded by a physical manifestation called an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/98-6147.opn.html">SLAMEN V. PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO. (2/1/1999, NO. 98-6147)<BR></A><BR> <U>et seq.</U> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1310p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That it should have dismissed his VEVRA claim for money damages for lack of jurisdiction. We will affirm in part. I. Antol is employed by the Defense Logistics Agency as a Budget Assistant. He is also a veteran of the United States Army. There were two positions available in this job classification. Who each hold a college degree but are not disabled veterans. Antol was informed on November 18. Claiming that he was not selected for the promotion based on his disability. Antol contends that the Agency discriminated against him because he is disabled and violated VEVRA when. He also contends generally that the Agency did not select him for the position because he is disabled. Because the two successful candidates were female. We view the evidence de novo and in the light most favorable to the non moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and. Whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/042409P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Linda Pralutsky was a full time </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/98-6147.opn.html">SLAMEN V. PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO. (2/1/1999, NO. 98-6147)<BR></A><BR> <U>et seq.</U> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0465n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because MetLife reasonably interpreted the plan and reasonably determined that Hansen was not disabled under the plan's terms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991495.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is Ernest Scott's second appeal to this court from a decision by the Benefits Review Board (the Board) upholding an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision to deny him benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. We remanded the case for a determination of whether Scott is totally disabled. Of whether his disability was caused at least in part by pneumoconiosis. The ALJ found the medical evidence did not indicate that Scott was totally disabled or that any disability was caused in part by pneumoconiosis. We find that the ALJ committed error in failing to consider a reasoned medical opinion indicating that Scott is totally disabled and in erroneously relying on the opinions of two doctors who did not diagnose Scott with pneumoconiosis. Scott still had to prove that he was totally disabled and that his disability was due to pneumoconiosis. The ALJ found that Scott did not establish that he was totally disabled from pneumoconiosis because he could not show that his disability was due solely to pneumoconiosis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051565P.pdf">N:\DOCS\CATHY\05-1565,1566 CHRONISTER V. UNUM OPN CIRC 3.20.WPD<BR></A><BR> Chronister was injured in a car accident in 1995. Baptist Health's plan was insured by a group insurance policy from Unum. Unum determined that Chronister was entitled to long term disability benefits effective October 16. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 21 Chronister's disability benefits on the basis of a policy provision that limited benefits to twenty four months if the disability was primarily based on self reported symptoms (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0533n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was last employed there on April 18. When she was 57 years old. Her most recent title was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0223n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a case under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2246.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blea's disabilities was ambiguous. That the ALJ should have addressed lay witness testimony in his written decision. Blea's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul28/03-60934.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Semon diagnosed Bolden with a bulging or herniated disc for which he was treated conservatively. An attorney informed Bolden that he did not have to prove a specific date and time of injury to receive benefits under the Act. He alleges that he had not filed for benefits from Ingalls for his back injury earlier because he was unable to pinpoint a specific incident that led to disability. That no such date was required. Circuit Judge.* This is an appeal by employer Ingalls Shipbuilding. I. The facts are undisputed. Bolden is a fiftyfive year old electrician who worked for Ingalls intermittently for nineteen years beginning in the fall of 1969. He was employed continuously from 1987 until May 1995. All of these injuries were minor. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Bolden was diagnosed with arterial insufficiency and underwent several procedures to correct this vascular condition. He also was found to suffer from peripheral neuropathy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1696.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellant. A claim was submitted on LaSorsa's behalf for benefits under the Portsmouth School District's group long term disability insurance plan. LaSorsa sought a declaration that she was entitled to coverage in Superior Court in New Hampshire. Her action for a declaratory judgment was removed to the District Court for the District of New Hampshire on diversity grounds. LaSorsa's Employment with the Portsmouth School Department The following facts are based on the affidavits and deposition testimony submitted by the parties in their 2 summary judgment motions. The parties agree that the material facts of this case are undisputed. LaSorsa was named to a position as a first grade teacher and her salary was set at $18. The letter also told her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991371P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that the case is to be remanded for a new trial on the jury instruction issue. CSTs are responsible for the maintenance of both underground and suspended telephone cables. SWB then administered a manual dexterity test and a physical performance test (PPT) to those applicants who were successful on the written exam.2 The PPT had four subdivisions. 2) the arm We have. We have concluded. In view of the fact that the case is to be remanded for a new trial. He was especially concerned about the leg lift. Because Belk's legs are weakened from polio. He is unable to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/012772P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Coker was an insurance agent for Allstate for thirty years. Coker was a participant in the company's employee welfare benefit plan. The Allstate plan was established and is administered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2734.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was unsuccessful in his efforts to obtain benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. Much of his time was spent above ground working as a welder at strip or surface mines. He was exposed to substantial amounts of coal dust. He was rejected three times. The ALJ had to decide which of the eight medical opinions before him were persuasive. Skillrud and Selby concluded that Shores did not have an impairment related to coal dust exposure. Found that Shores was suffering from pneumoconiosis. Cohen's opinion was the bestreasoned of the three that were worthy of consideration. Was a standard component of a medical diagnosis. Was merely one of several ways to establish eligibility for benefits under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0396C407D8D2893B88256C4E005828BF/$file/0057099.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F50E0EF54EE664988256CC5005B2985/$file/0057099.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. An opinion will be filed replacing it. Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-8045.htm">02-8045 -- REINER V. U.S. LIFE INSURANCE CO. IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK -- 07/22/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Reiner also alleges that USLIC denied his claim for benefits in bad faith and that he is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. <p> USLIC moved for summary judgment on Reiner's claims. It contended that Reiner had not been eligible to participate in the group insurance policy because he was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0390n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was an eligible employee under KPMG's employee long term disability policy provided by Prudential. Noland was hospitalized for pneumonia and was unable to work for several months. The APS indicated that the usual duration of the condition was one month. Noland was also awarded Social Security disability benefits on May 31. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32B500380DFB146A88256BEB007D17FB/$file/0115091ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seek prospective injunctive relief against various state officials who have a role in the parole process. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1248_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When he was 39 years old. Were liquidated in bankruptcy proceedings in 2004 and that Zeigler's surety. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/97-8538.man.html">L.C. V. OLMSTEAD (4/8/1998, NO. 97-8538)<BR></A><BR> A psychiatric hospital where persons with mental disabilities are cared for in a segregated environment. The State's principal argument is that the district court's application of § 12132 and its accompanying regulations is contrary to the ADA's requirement that a plaintiff prove that he or she faced discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/97-8538.man.html">L.C. V. OLMSTEAD (4/8/1998, NO. 97-8538)<BR></A><BR> A psychiatric hospital where persons with mental disabilities are cared for in a segregated environment. The State's principal argument is that the district court's application of § 12132 and its accompanying regulations is contrary to the ADA's requirement that a plaintiff prove that he or she faced discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-5168.htm">00-5168 -- COOPER V. CENTERAL & SOUTHWET SERVICES -- 11/28/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2277.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for plaintiff. Was on brief for defendants. Boardman is a former participant in the Plan. The district court found that the decision to terminate benefits was not arbitrary and capricious and entered summary judgment for the defendants. Boardman was covered by Digital's Long Term Disability insurance plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0183n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When he was 25 years old. Which eliminated disability benefits where drug addiction or alcoholism was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7155.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. He was involved in a car accident resulting in a cerebral concussion and a dislocated shoulder and fractured clavicle. There is no contention here that this May 1969 claim included a claim for psychiatric disability. The VA was required to construe this pro se claim sympathetically to include a claim for psychiatric disability as well as a claim for physical disability resulting from the head injury. Deferred a rating as to memory loss and depression (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0304n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Buchanan began working as a computer programmer for Progressive Casualty Insurance Company in September 1996 and was a participant under Progressive's Managed Disability Benefits Plan. Which was administered by Aetna. A participant was eligible to receive disability benefits after a period of 24 months only if he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/457E979B78FE762688256C7500830703/$file/0056988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was not diagnosed until 1995. Doctors determined that the cause was lumbar spinal stenosis.1 His doctors agree that his Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the lumbar or cervical spinal canal that causes compression of nerve roots and resulting back pain. 1 6 JEBIAN v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY stenosis is congenital rather than the result of injury. Jebian was diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disc disease. Jebian was a participant in an employee benefit plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-9288.man.html">SEACO V. RICHARDSON (3/11/1998, NO. 96-9288)<BR></A><BR> The ALJ granted Richardson's request for temporary total disability compensation during the disputed time periods and denied the petitioners' request for a credit for the container royalty and holiday/vacation payments made to Richardson during the period of his disability.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061996P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. A participating employee may receive disability benefits if he is unable to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeFreitas and Saab Law Firm were on brief for appellant. This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts over claims for benefits under an employee benefits plan that is subject to regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ordinarily the appropriate judgment for a district court to order is one or the other of two kinds. If the district court determines that the out of court decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The appropriate form of order is one remanding to the out of court decisionmaker for further proceedings to decide whether the claim or claims have merit. The usual form of order is a final judgment affirming the decisions of the out of court decisionmaker. Appellees assert that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9D55B94C25D33958825721E00814B2B/$file/0415690.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 11744. Lounsburry's application for benefits was denied initially and on reconsideration. These impairments were not disabling because they did not preclude Lounsburry from performing a single occupation that existed in significant numbers in the economy. Directs as a matter of law a determination that Lounsburry is disabled. When she was sixty two years of age. She was employed as a certified nurse's assistant from October 1985 to May 1999 and was employed as a certified home health aide from June 1998 to November 1999. Lounsburry's application for social security disability insurance was denied initially and on reconsideration. Medicalvocational testimony revealed Lounsburry to have the residual functional capacity to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4090.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lanny Bart Jarvis was terminated from his position at the United States Postal Service because of concerns about the danger he posed to coworkers. Jarvis was not a qualified individual under the Rehabilitation Act because he posed a direct threat that could not be reasonably accommodated and (2) he had failed to produce evidence that the Postal Service's reasons for firing him were pretextual. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We affirm except for some components of his retaliation claims that were not addressed below. Jarvis is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. In 1988 he began working for the Postal Service after a medical examination determined that he was fit for duty despite several war injuries. Was tested. The first incident occurred in late 2002 or early 2003 while he was waiting to punch in for work at 9:30 a.m. He was daydreaming near the time clock when he heard footsteps approaching. The second incident occurred in early 2003 while he was buffing the floor. In May 2003 he was vacuuming her office before her expected arrival at 6:00 a.m. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9E691FD6FA6861E882571EE0077A5CD/$file/0415690.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lounsburry's application for benefits was denied initially and on reconsideration. These impairments were not disabling because they did not preclude Lounsburry from performing a single occupation that existed in significant numbers in the economy. Directs as a matter of law a determination that Lounsburry is disabled. When she was sixty two years of age. She was employed as a certified nurse's assistant from October 1985 to May 1999 and was employed as a certified home health aide from June 1998 to November 1999. Lounsburry's application for social security disability insurance was denied initially and on reconsideration. Medicalvocational testimony revealed Lounsburry to have the residual functional capacity to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0309n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Seiser was employed as a nurse by Borgess Medical Center until 1995. Seiser was covered by a long term disability policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/021535P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This is the second appeal in this case. We held that the action was not time barred. The facts are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will nevertheless restate the facts relevant to this appeal. The trustees concluded that Cavegn had failed to establish that he was totally and completely disabled within the meaning of the Plan. The evidence presented to the trustees in support of Cavegn's applications for benefits indicated that Cavegn's treating physicians and a consulting physician were all of the opinion that he was not disabled at that time but capable of light duty work with certain lifting and moving restrictions. Although he was released for light duty The Honorable James M. Cavegn did not return to work because nothing suitable was available for him at the University of Minnesota. He was not able to return to work. Which is not determinative. He sought a determination that he was disabled as of the date of his original 3 injury on October 28. The district court concluded that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0829n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Joseph Breitfelder was a detective with the Regional Enforcement Narcotics Unit of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-1466.htm">01-1466 -- RAY V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 12/20/2002<BR></A><BR> The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted judgment in favor of Ray on the ground that UNUM's decision to deny her claim for benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A992BA0479C86D9388256C0C005836A8/$file/0115091.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: In the slip op. at page 3871. Seek prospective injunctive relief against various state officials who have a role in the parole process. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC3637825E47A2E788256DCE00642AA3/$file/0216856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Leong is a Burmese immigrant of Chinese ancestry who came to the United States in 1982. He was reprimanded and suspended various times for cursing at supervisors. Because Leong was no longer employed with the Postal Service. He was not able to meet with the counselor in person. The amended complaint alleged that Leong is disabled because he suffers from depression and language and speech processing difficulties. Leong was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder in June 2002. A. REHABILITATION ACT CLAIM Standard of Review The district court's determination that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies is reviewed de novo. The court's decision whether to apply equitable tolling or equitable estoppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. B. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies The district court properly held that Leong was required to exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC before LEONG v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-7007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Robert V. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. Stoll ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972346.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O'CONNOR & Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Feder was totally disabled as defined by the Capital Plan and began making monthly disability payments to Dr. Feder was covered by the Capital Plan. The Capital Plan's terms stated that a physician was eligible for benefits if he became totally disabled and unable to perform the required duties of his occupation. B. the employee is under the regular care of a doctor. This provision is mentioned only in passing. Feder was totally disabled as defined by the Capital Plan. A specialty that he and his physicians believed was more compatible with his psychiatric condition. Which was dated August 24. Which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-9288.man.html">SEACO V. RICHARDSON (3/11/1998, NO. 96-9288)<BR></A><BR> The ALJ granted Richardson's request for temporary total disability compensation during the disputed time periods and denied the petitioners' request for a credit for the container royalty and holiday/vacation payments made to Richardson during the period of his disability.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972620.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which awards benefits to persons who are totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis and to certain survivors of persons whose death was caused by pneumoconiosis. 30 U.S.C. §§ 901. Found that the evidence of record was sufficient to establish pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment and a totally disabling respiratory impairment. Benefits were denied based on the ALJ's findings that Bryant was unable to prove that pneumoconiosis caused or contributed to his totally disabling respiratory impairment. 1 Mr. Who both opined that the miner's respiratory problems were solely attributable to his history of smoking two packs of cigarettes daily for forty to forty five years. Because the doctor's report reflects that he was aware the miner smoked. It could be inferred that he was aware of the miner's complete smoking history. The standard of review is whether the ALJ's factual findings were based upon substantial evidence in the record. The Court must affirm the Board's decision if it properly decided that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence 3 and is in accordance with the law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001591.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because Riley made out a prima facie case of disability and Newport News's evidence of a performance based reason for her discharge is nonresponsive to its burden of showing suitable alternative employment. Her first assignment was in the Newport News pipefitters' department. Riley was working in the copper shop. She was sent to welding school. Because Riley was still in her probationary period. All of her grades through April 1996 were passing. Riley was then transferred to the U.S.S. A post probationary apprentice who receives a failing monthly grade on job performance is placed on shop probation for a four month period beginning on the second month following the failing grade. The apprentice is advised of the failing grade and is counseled. 3 she initialed the failing grade and that this was her second failing grade during her employment with Newport News. Asked her if there was anything he needed to know regarding her performance. She said there was no problem. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001591.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IT IS ORDERED that the motion to publish is granted. Section 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0046p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a factual </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001514.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was enrolled in SAIC's Long Term Disability Policy (the SAIC Plan) that is funded. Was also involved in a car accident in 1996 that exacerbated her back problems. The district court granted MetLife's motion Spinal stenosis is defined as the narrowing of the vertebral canal. Could reasonably have concluded that plaintiff was not disabled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044674p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. 2 I. Turner was diagnosed with medical problems. Work on lines 8 and 9 was considered easier than work on line 7. Hershey was mis identified in the caption in the District Court as Hershey Chocolate USA. The correct legal entity is now The Hershey Company. 3 1 Before Turner's 1999 return to work. That she was in pain and could not work. Then later allowed her to transfer to line 9 which Turner believed was easier when another inspector went on medical leave. Although Hershey plant management was especially concerned about line 7 because it was the most demanding line. Allen issued her a new form that was more restrictive than the form he issued in April 1999. It was feasible to exempt her from the rotation system. Turner stated that she was unable to return to work from and after July 12. Was unable to work in any position in the Reading plant. Turner wrote that it was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/003195.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue raised by this appeal is whether Centre County violated the appellants' civil rights by excluding them from participation in the County's foster care program because their son has HIV and AIDS. Names have been changed to preserve confidentiality. 3 Foster Child Program. County officials responded by adopting a policy providing that foster families whose members have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515383.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is the proper reach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3172.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. In light of the fact that there is an insufficient basis upon which to determine whether the Board committed procedural error. Rapp is warranted. Rapp was previously employed as a GS 12 Computer Specialist with the Department of the Navy. Rapp developed severe mental health problems and was unable to meet the requirements of her position. Rapp was subject to annual medical evaluations to certify that she was still mentally disabled. Rapp that the latest medical report that she submitted was not adequate to complete her annual medical review. Rapp's depression was controllable with medication and that he saw </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/973851P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On his claim that he was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Is infected with the Hepatitis C virus.2 In March of 1995. Downs was hired as a home health aide supervisor by Hawkeye Health Services. His employment was terminated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1FB3A0798C5F718488256A2900575A67/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0725n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Gerton was not disabled. Even if Gerton were disabled. The Operator Center was divided into two departments: Directory Assistance ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-11187.opn.html">LEVINSON V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. (3/30/2001, NO. 00-11187)<BR></A><BR> We consider three issues: (1) whether the district court erred in determining that Reliance's disposition of Levinson's claim was arbitrary and capricious. (2) whether the district court erred in failing to remand the case to Reliance after concluding that its claim decision was arbitrary and capricious. Filed a claim for benefits with Reliance under his law firm's group long term disability policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011709n.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior District Judge: This is a petition for review of an order and opinion of the Benefits Review Board (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1852B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-1027.htm">03-1027 -- MORAGA V. ASHCROFT -- 08/25/2004<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4C55ED2F6EDDFFB88256AA300831C54/$file/9935787.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vertigan contends that there was no substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Administrative Law Judge's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6940A26D721F988882571EE00790CCF/$file/0435891.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BARNHART COUNSEL Plaintiff appellant was represented by Rebecca M. Defendant appellee was represented by Robert McCallum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. So he must establish that he was disabled and unable to work from the alleged onset date. Greger was 49 years old. Greger testified that he worked as a truck driver until 1993 and was self employed after that. VA compensation and pension exam report recognized that Greger was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0994n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As Liberty's decision to deny benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious. A participant is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <U>Melba Rivera Camacho</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Bockius LLP</U> were on brief. Race or gender) is usually not at issue. The law of disability discrimination often presents a threshold question of whether a plaintiff is in fact disabled. This question frequently arises when the plaintiff is suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1585p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether the denial of a claim for benefits under a Long Term Disability Plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003746P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An SAT is a student assistance team. An MDT is responsible for determining if a child has a verified disability under the regulations and for developing and implementing an individual education plan to ensure that child receives an appropriate education. She was not verified as having a disability sufficient to qualify her for the provision of special education services under Nebraska's regulations. Another MDT report concluded that Sadonya was disabled by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971850.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Ervin wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We agree with Betts that if double time on exams is a reasonable accommodation. Betts is able to meet the essential eligibility requirements set forth by the University for admission to the University of Virginia School of Medicine (the School of Medicine) through its now defunct Medical Academic Advancement Post Baccalaureate (MAAP) program and. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061414P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-22\06-1414.CHALFANT V. TITAN.FINAL.OPN.RWG.WPD<BR></A><BR> All Quintak employees who wanted to work at Titan were required to apply for a position with Titan and have a qualifying physical. Jerry Williams was Chalfant's direct supervisor. Martin Craig Warren was Williams's supervisor. Chalfant was 56 1/2 years old and had been working for Quintak for five years. He believed that this position would have the same duties and responsibilities with Titan as it did with Quintak. Chalfant stated on a Voluntary Applicant Identification Survey that he was physically handicapped. Was conducted by Dr. Sciorrota also wrote on the exam record that Chalfant would need to have a functional capacity examination if he was required to do heavy lifting. Williams told Chalfant that he was included in a list of Quintak employees to be retained by Titan. His wages were half of what he earned at Quintak. Titan said that Chalfant had a conditional offer of employment before the physical examination that was withdrawn after he failed the physical. Titan claimed that Chalfant was not hired as a second shift supervisor because the entire second shift was going to be eliminated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001721.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that the BRB's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ initially assigned to the case concluded that Smith was entitled to benefits. The BRB vacated the ALJ's conclusion that Smith was totally disabled and remanded the case to permit the ALJ to reweigh the medical evidence. The matter was assigned to a second ALJ. The second ALJ concluded that Smith was not disabled. The second ALJ again concluded that Smith was not disabled. The case was assigned to a third ALJ. This ALJ concluded that Smith was not disabled. It was assigned to an ALJ. In considering whether the evidence supported a finding that Smith was totally disabled. He determined that this evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate total disability. Nor was there any evidence that Smith suffered from cor pulmonale with right sided congestive heart failure. Waugh conducted a cardiac catherization on Smith and determined that his recurrent chest pain was not of cardiac origin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-8005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted Buckardt's motion for summary judgment because it determined that Albertson's denial of benefits was (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Albertson's argues there was substantial evidence to support its denial of benefits and that the district court. Which was administered by Albertson's through its Benefits Department. An employee is permitted to receive long term disability benefits if the employee is totally disabled. That if benefits have been paid pursuant to Section 3.01 for 24 months of any continuous period of Total Disability. Total Disability shall mean the complete inability of the Employee to perform any and every duty of any gainful occupation for which he or she is reasonably fitted by training. Albertson's determined that Buckardt was totally disabled based upon her inability to perform her regular occupation of pharmacy manager. Buckardt was required to demonstrate that she met the more stringent requirement of total disability required under the Plan if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4227.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment to the defendant. A temporary position (rather than a regular part of the hospital's table of organization) requiring less strength than the regular 2 No. 01 4227 nursing job the plaintiff had had when she was injured. A year and a half later she was removed from the light duty job for reasons unrelated to her injury. Shortly before that a physician had opined that the injury was permanent and had restricted her (in the words of her opening brief in this court) to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-9251.man.html">KATZ V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF GROUP INS., ALLTEL (12/8/1999, NO. 98-9251)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an appeal from the grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0054n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although Kennedy argues that the district court should have used a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review because UNUM suffered from a conflict of interest. The precedent in this circuit is clear that a conflict is taken into account only as a factor in the court's ordinary No. 04 4392 Kennedy v. Its judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. 2 Case No. 04 4392 Kennedy v. The starting point for the analysis of an ERISA claim is the appropriate standard of review. The Supreme Court held </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962653.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. All appeals to the BRB relating to claims under the Act were deemed to have been affirmed if the case had been pending before the BRB for one year by September 12. (2) that was manifest to the employer. (3) that the ultimate permanent partial disability materially and substantially exceeded the disability which would have resulted in the absence of the pre existing disability. Was exposed to airborne asbestos dust and fibers throughout the course of his employment with Newport News from 1950 until 1978. Parkman was diagnosed with work related asbestosis. The parties stipulated that Parkman suffered a twenty five percent impairment and was entitled to compensation. Those benefits are not in dispute. His condition was diagnosed as pneumothorax. A chest x ray taken of Parkman in 1987 was interpreted as showing pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema. Emphysema and that these pre existing conditions were permanent and serious. AMA rating and disability are not caused by his asbestosis alone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-5032.htm">01-5032 -- GARRISON V. BAKER HUGHES OIL FIELD OPERATIONS INC. -- 04/19/2002<BR></A><BR> Arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We look at those in terms of where we are placing people for possible future injuries.... <p> ... <p> Well. The positions that we were looking at you for are those positions that would put you in a position to likely be injured again and we don't do that. <p> Mr. Garrison sued Centrilift in federal district court alleging he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5278b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Solomons argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974323P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was injured while being transported after his arrest by Kansas City police officers. Gorman protested that he was entitled to go there. Gorman was evicted from the bar. His negligence claims were dismissed by the district court and he has not discussed them in his briefing or argument on appeal. They are therefore considered abandoned. 740 41 (8th Cir. 1985). 2 1 In response to the call officer Neil Becker arrived with a patrol wagon that was not equipped with a wheelchair lift or wheelchair restraints. Gorman told the police that the van was not properly equipped for him to ride in it. That due to his use of a urine bag it would be necessary for him to go to the bathroom before he was transported. Because of his paraplegia Gorman was not independently able to maintain himself upright on the bench. James Ralls were added when they replaced Paul. As was Floyd Bartch when he succeeded Bishop as chief of police. As well as former police chief Bishop.3 The only claims which remained after the first order were therefore the statutory claims against the remaining defendants in their official capacities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971687.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (2) that the workplace was not intolerably hostile and abusive. (3) that there were no issues of material fact as to the misconduct for which he was terminated. (4) that the reason for the termination was not pretextual and was not premised on his disability. (5) that individual employees are not liable for violations of the ADA. We agree that there are no genuine issues of material fact and affirm the judgment of the district court. Shiflett was employed at Fanuc as a printer and. When Shiflett's performance review included the statement that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5278a.html">NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION V. DEPT OF MINING<BR></A><BR> Solomons argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-7019.html">DONOVAN V. WEST<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54C11124341CED6588256EEB00572949/$file/0315155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved and it is clear from the record that Benecke is entitled to benefits. Fibromyalgia's cause is unknown. There is no cure. It is poorly understood within much of the medical community. The disease is diagnosed entirely on the basis of patients' reports of pain and other symptoms. To date there are no laboratory tests to confirm the diagnosis. The sole issue in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion by remanding for further proceedings rather than for an award of benefits. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. B. Standard of Review The decision to remand to the SSA for further proceedings instead of for an immediate award of benefits is reviewed for abuse of discretion. C. Evidence of Disability We recount the evidence in the administrative record in some detail because it is central to our conclusion that Benecke clearly is entitled to an immediate award of benefits. Her doctors have prescribed a variety of anti inflammatory medications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2251_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a somewhat unusual Social Security appeal. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is thus the appellant before us. She argues that the district court erred in its conclusion that the ALJ's decision rejecting Taylor's application was not supported by substantial evidence. I Taylor (who has since passed away and is now represented by Kathleen Briscoe. He was awarded benefits effective the date of his application. The date he was last employed. Taylor's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Because Taylor was already receiving SSI benefits and his insured status for Title II disability benefits expired on March 31. The ALJ acknowledged that the only issue to be resolved was when Taylor became disabled the so called onset date. An individual must establish that the disability arose while he or she was insured for benefits. His impairments were so severe that he was only able to walk approximately one half block before his legs would cramp. He was able to walk only ten or twelve steps without having to sit down. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3790011C905DAAB88825712B00047719/$file/0416087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a Title VII Civil Rights case.1 It requires us to decide whether AT&T. Discriminates in violation of Title VII against women who took pregnancy related leaves before 1979. 1979 was the year when the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). An AT&T employee on pregnancy leave was not awarded service credit for the entire period of her 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Are not limited to. Complain that the company's failure to give employees full service credit for their pre PDA leaves affects their eligibility for and computation of retirement benefits and is therefore a present violation of the PDA. Elizabeth Snyder were long time employees of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph (PT&T). A Bell System operating company that was transferred to AT&T when the former Bell system was broken up in 1984. The NCS date consists of an employee's original hire date and adjustments for periods during which no service credit is accrued. Periods of leave or other breaks in service that are not credited result in a later NCS date than the employee's original hire date. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0608n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a staff sergeant in the United States Marine Corps ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-1313.htm">98-1313 -- TOWNSEND V. DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL -- 11/15/1999<BR></A><BR> He was promoted to vice president of the firm in 1989. Townsend was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Whether an agreement was reached between the parties. Is controverted. <p> Mr. Townsend testified that his primary intent in going on disability was to maintain his benefits until he died or turned 65. Townsend testified that his understanding of the plan was that it would enable him to: (1) go on short term disability for 90 days. The content of the call is disputed. With Townsend testifying that an agreement was reached with respect to all aspects of his plan. Others testifying that duration was not specifically discussed. <p> The next day. Cavanagh responded by memo that he was in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/012886P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pollock was an account collector for Citibank Credit Services and a participant in the Plan. The employee will be deemed disabled if she cannot perform the job she previously held (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043025np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists to be resolved at trial. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An insured seeking to recover disability benefits under an insurance policy bears the burden to prove that he was disabled within the meaning of the policy while coverage was in effect. Stockton was the original plaintiff. Died after summary judgment was entered. Appellant was thereafter substituted as plaintiff. 2 1 the policy are clear. That such person is not engaged in any occupation or profession for renumeration or profit. Stockton] is temporarily incapacitated from full time employment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021712.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. After the first lawsuit was dismissed. The Honor Committee members are entitled to absolute immunity. All five members of the Committee are immune from all claims for damages arising out of the Honor Committee proceeding. 2. All defendants in their individual capacities are not subject to suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. 3. All defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to claims for damages arising under the First Amendment. On appeal we are faced with the following issues: 1. whether GMU and Merten and Mulherin. Are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for damages under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Because these rulings are jurisdictional. The court ruled that GMU is immune from suit and Merten and Mulherin. Are immune from suit for damages under Title II of the ADA. We affirm the district court's judgment that GMU is immune from suit and Merten and Mulherin. Are immune from suit for damages under Title II of the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-9251.man.html">KATZ V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF GROUP INS., ALLTEL (12/8/1999, NO. 98-9251)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an appeal from the grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A44BAFB1546008588256E5A00707ADD/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/033989P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Timothy Miller and Daniel Miller are brothers who operated an architectural and construction company (Miller Architects & Builders. Timothy was hospitalized at the request of his psychiatrist. Timothy was discharged on June 2. 1998 (the day he was hospitalized). Wherein Daniel was the owner and Timothy was the insured. The Buyout Expense Reimbursement Policy stated: The Insured is totally disabled when unable to perform the principal duties of the regular occupation. The Insured is totally disabled when unable to perform the principal duties of the regular occupation. . . . The Insured is not totally disabled. Northwestern did find that Timothy was partially disabled and paid him $15. Since the court found Timothy was able to perform at least one of his principal duties. It held that there was no genuine issue as to whether Timothy was totally disabled within the meaning of either contract. The district court emphasized that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1121p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree and will affirm. The relevant facts are those alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff was hired as a charge nurse at the Polk Center in Venango County. She was admitted to a hospital on the following day and underwent surgery on December 31. Polk Center denied her request because she was still a probationary employee and. Was not eligible for extended sick leave. Because she was unable to attend to her duties. That she was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011709.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior District Judge: This is a petition for review of an order and opinion of the Benefits Review Board (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5278a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Laura Metcoff Klaus. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Grant Crandall and Judith Rivlin. The case will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to re mand the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background The BLBA is a federally administered law providing bene fits to coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoco niosis. Coal mine operators are responsible for paying benefits to miners whose death or total disability due to black lung disease arose out of employment in the mines. 30 U.S.C. s 932. It is caused by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-5278b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Laura Metcoff Klaus. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Grant Crandall and Judith Rivlin. The case will be remanded to the District Court with instructions to re mand the case to the Department of Labor for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background The BLBA is a federally administered law providing bene fits to coal miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoco niosis. Coal mine operators are responsible for paying benefits to miners whose death or total disability due to black lung disease arose out of employment in the mines. 30 U.S.C. s 932. It is caused by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971075.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was terminated on April 9. She was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-11187.opn.html">LEVINSON V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. (3/30/2001, NO. 00-11187)<BR></A><BR> We consider three issues: (1) whether the district court erred in determining that Reliance's disposition of Levinson's claim was arbitrary and capricious. (2) whether the district court erred in failing to remand the case to Reliance after concluding that its claim decision was arbitrary and capricious. Filed a claim for benefits with Reliance under his law firm's group long term disability policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/194CF1FDFA83CF1488256E5A00707C41/$file/9935787.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vertigan contends that there was no substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Administrative Law Judge's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7089.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Kathryn A. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. MacPhee was hospitalized in a VA medical center due to excessive drinking and anxiety. The psychologist opined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1910.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Baco</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971511.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which Judge Luttig joined. Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although he was disabled and unable properly to perform his job at the Department. I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of a motion for summary judgment. Checking shelf life dates and damaged packages to ensure that the items were fit for use. Corrigan was placed on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7239.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. I The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. Creekmore is a Persian Gulf veteran who was in active service from June 1989 until his separation from active service in September 1990. He was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 30 years of incarceration. Creekmore underwent a series of medical evaluations in which he was diagnosed with a number of mental disorders. The RO's decision was affirmed by the Board on April 28. Snyder was substituted as Mr. It is understood that this Contingent fee is to be paid by the VA directly to the Attorney from any past due benefits awarded on the basis of the Client's claim. Creekmore's claim for service connection should have 2006 7239 2 been approved at a disability rating of 70 percent effective July 25. Creekmore that the VA was withholding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7330.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Bryant G. Of counsel on the brief were David R. Because the Veterans Court did not err in its determination that a veteran's willful misconduct will prevent a finding of service connection and that DIC is only available where there is a service connected death or compensable disability. Myore is the widow of a Marine who died while on active duty. Myore died from a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head while he was playing Russian roulette. DIC is a monthly payment made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962612.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse and remand because we conclude that (1) the Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFEC17EC549D71DC88256B2900629026/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9334DEB6F3900ED988256E5A00707C36/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/792C8DE1170AE3A388256C2900562028/$file/0035912.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual history Bird was a student of the College when an automobile accident left her confined to a wheelchair. Was accepted in. The program was field based and required participants to spend much of their time exploring the Australian continent. Bird was informed that she could not participate in several activities due to her disability. Bird was otherwise assured that the program would be able to accommodate her disability. Darrow explained that Global and Meyers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7458546F1523D0AB88256AA20001EBFC/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/677DAD9054A7918088256A920075D3DE/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-11766.man.html">HAMILTON V. ALLEN-BRADLEY CO. (7/10/2000, NO. 99-11766)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-2249.htm">97-2249 -- MCGUINNESS V. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE -- 11/04/1998<BR></A><BR> (2) whether he is entitled to a reasonable accommodation for such disability. (4) whether he was employed by the medical school. More than fifteen percent of his first year grades were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-2249a.htm">97-2249A -- MCGUINNESS V. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE -- 11/04/1998<BR></A><BR> The published opinion is attached to this order. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. (2) whether he is entitled to a reasonable accommodation for such disability. (4) whether he was employed by the medical school. More than fifteen percent of his first year grades were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1916_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was involved in an automobile accident while he was delivering boxes of tobacco to one of Lorillard's customers. Are disputed. Sperandeo also was treated by a neurologist. He was examined by several other neurological specialists. Sperandeo was covered by Lorillard's Group Disability Income Insurance Policy. Which is underwritten and administered by CNA. Disability or Disabled means that You [the Lorillard employee to whom the Certificate was issued] satisfy the Occupation Qualifier or the Earnings Qualifier as defined below. Injury or Sickness causes physical or mental impairment to such a degree of severity that You are: 1) continuously unable to perform the Material and Substantial Duties of Your Regular Occupation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F53F340593FE73888256E5A00707D9D/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0026n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These terms are defined in the policies as follows: Total Disability. The only difference between the 1985 and 1986 policies is that the second includes an endorsement modifying the definition of residual disability by changing the ratio of hours workable while still disabled from 3/4 to 4/5. Speight was a senior partner at a law firm that he cofounded. He was a successful trial litigator. It was the largest jury verdict in Nashville's history. Both of whom were selected and paid for by Mass Mutual. While he still believed he was eligible for total disability benefits. The medical evaluations performed by the doctors suggested he was eligible for residual disability benefits. It held that plaintiff was no longer disabled as of 1999 and that. The court further held that defendant was not liable under either Tennessee statute. He argues that the district court's determination that he was no longer disabled in 1999 is clearly erroneous and that the district court relied on unintroduced deposition testimony to reach that conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2209.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Hawkes & Mehnert was on brief for appellant. P.A. was on brief for appellee. Before us is Jacques' appeal of the decision and judgment below. BACKGROUND Jacques argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict and that the district court therefore should have granted his motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. Reversal of the denial of the motion is warranted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0062p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0062p.06 employees will have a unique advantage: the self employed individual can pursue a parade of state law claims that are withheld from his employees by preemption. We reverse the judgment of the district court regarding Agrawal's state law claims under the business expense policy because this policy is not part of an ERISA plan and. The claims are not preempted. Agrawal does not have standing to bring an ERISA action. Co. 11 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3050.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were David M. Because we hold that the USPS breached the settlement agreement by not providing needed documents in a timely fashion and that the breach was material. Lary was frequently late for his job as a Tour 2 Window Technician at the Benson United States Postal Station in Omaha. Lary was removed from his position effective March 8. The USPS also agreed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982071P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and ordered vacated. Is now substituted and ordered filed in place of the original opinion. The petition for rehearing is denied as moot without prejudice to the rights of the parties to file a petition for rehearing as to the amended opinion. Fjellestad urges that the district court erred in holding (1) that she was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. (2) that even if she was disabled. She was not a qualified individual because she failed to articulate a reasonable accommodation that would make her qualified for the job. A Pizza Hut unit manager is expected to work fifty hours per week. May work fewer hours if they are able to accomplish their duties in less time. Fjellestad had received district and national recognition for her managerial skills and was considered a capable and successful employee until she was seriously injured in an automobile accident on December 14. She was hospitalized for nearly a month after the accident and suffered a lacerated liver. Her doctors said she was able to work thirty five to forty hours per week. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2256.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fired and brings suit against the company under both ERISA and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Larimer was hired in August of 2000. Who was also an employee of IBM. They were hospitalized for almost two months at a total expense of almost $200. There is some probability (how great a one is unknown) that they will develop serious physical or mental handicaps as they grow older. Larimer was fired in August of 2001. His principal claim is that IBM violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. By firing him because his daughters are disabled. Are they? Is whether a possible. Suggests (in dictum the question before the Court was whether a person who has to wear glasses is disabled because without them he couldn't see) that the answer is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991938.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> M.J.) affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's conclusion that Morales is not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and IV of the Social Security Act. Because the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. His application was initially denied on September 12. A supplemental administrative hearing was held on April 9. Finding that Morales was not disabled because he could perform his past relevant work at all times after his alleged disability onset date. Was adopted. Morales was born on December 1. When Morales was twenty six years old. He was diagnosed with a Dependent Personality Disorder2 and polysubstance dependence. Indicate that Morales is depressed. There is evidence in the record of Morales's drug and alcohol dependence. Morales was incarcerated from 1989 to 1990 after a conviction for threatening a police officer. He was examined by a slew of psychologists and psychiatrists. He was first referred to Luis Bird. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-13917.man.html">CHANDA V. ENGELHARD/ICC (12/4/2000, NO. 99-13917)<BR></A><BR> The trial court found that he failed to establish that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1161.htm">99-1161 -- BOGGS V. RIO GRANDE INDUSTRIES INC. -- 06/27/2000<BR></A><BR> The Southern Pacific Railroad. <p> Boggs claims he was wrongfully denied benefits from Rio Grande's long term disability plan. His claim is pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012401.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brickhouse declined the offer because he was participating in a vocational rehabilitation program administered by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-11766.man.html">HAMILTON V. ALLEN-BRADLEY CO. (7/10/2000, NO. 99-11766)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055422np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Anthony Gambino was denied short term disability benefits by his insurance provider. The judgment of the District Court will be reversed in part and vacated in part. Was employed as a sales manager at IKON Office Solutions. Which were in effect in March 2001. His claim was denied. As was his appeal. Which was self funded by IKON. Liberty's decisions regarding claims brought under the STD plan were conclusive and binding. IKON was the sponsor. Liberty was responsible for processing LTD claims. Benefits were paid by IKON. A claimant was required to make the same showing to establish disability. Received proof that a covered person was disabled due to injury or sickness and required the regular attendance of a physician. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2052.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. was on brief. P.C. were on brief. This is a case under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011946.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Asserting that the award of summary judgment was inappropriate. Her claim was approved by Black & Decker's Plan Administrator. Bethea because the Plan Administrator determined that she was no longer disabled under the terms of the Plan. B. The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Plan further provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/972110P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 1 defeat summary judgment when an ADA claimant has represented to the Social Security Administration that she is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1303.htm">00-1303 -- COLORADO CROSS DISABILITY COALITION V. WILLIAMS -- 08/29/2001<BR></A><BR> Williams is a Denver attorney who. Is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a power wheel chair for mobility. The door to the store is recessed from the storefront and adds another barrier to wheelchair access of one to three inches. <p> In 1996. Concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish that removal of architectural barriers at the four locations was readily achievable. Including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/987472.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by defendant Kmart from a judgment entered on a $650. Was excessive. Who was proffered by Elcock. We conclude that there should have been a Daubert hearing prior to the receipt of Copemann's testimony. That because there was no such hearing. We conclude that his opinion should have been excluded because his economic model relied on assumptions wholly without foundation in the record. Kmart also submits that both the economic and non economic portions of the jury award were excessive and thus should be remitted. Because we find that the jury's tainted economic damage award was not clearly distinct and separate from the non economic portion of its damage verdict. Were caused by her slip and fall. As we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support such a finding. Elcock told Kmart representatives that she had injured her back and right leg and was in excruciating pain. That her injury was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053100np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition for review. An abbreviated recitation of the relevant facts and procedural history will suffice. Maintaining that his disability was caused by the exacerbation of his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1237.htm">01-1237 -- HALL V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/20/2002<BR></A><BR> UNUM's principal argument is that the district court improperly considered evidence outside of the administrative record relied upon by UNUM when it terminated Hall's benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/953768P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An employee medical benefits plan regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). is self funded in that benefits are paid from IMMC's general assets. such. The Plan is not subject to state laws that regulate insurance. or female infertility problems. Krauel was diagnosed with endometriosis2 in 1992. endometriosis. Under Krauel's of treatments the Plan's exclusion treatment infertility Endometriosis is a condition in which the lining of the uterus grows aberrantly in various locations outside the uterus including the fallopian tubes and ovaries. GIFT is a procedure in which the ova are removed and mixed with sperm in a petri dish. The ova and sperm are then placed in the fallopian tube for natural fertilization. Concluding that: (1) Krauel is not an individual with a disability under the ADA because procreation and caring for others are not major life activities. (2) the Plan's infertility treatment exclusion is not a disability based distinction. (3) the Plan is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of the ADA within the meaning of § 501(c)(3) of the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTYzODItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6382-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The employer plan providing LTD benefits to Benesowitz is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/994139P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walke was granted long term disability benefits in September 1994 under the hospital's Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002772P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). I. Vicki Banks was born on July 30. She has been blind in her left eye since she was involved in an auto accident as a baby. Which was successfully treated. She was enrolled in special education classes throughout her schooling. She was laid off from that job on April 30. Banks told one psychologist that she was laid off because of her drug use. The opioid dependance is now in remission. Which was diagnosed as mild carpel tunnel syndrome (CTS) on October 8. To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 3 any activity because of that diagnosis. It is unclear from the record how long Banks took Propranolol for her headaches. She was apparently taking it in January 1997. She listed it as a medication she was currently taking when she completed her application for hearing dated June 13. Which sometimes alleviated her pain.4 Banks sought psychiatric treatment for depression between January and April 1997 and was placed on antidepressants in February 1997. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/061210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-13917.man.html">CHANDA V. ENGELHARD/ICC (12/4/2000, NO. 99-13917)<BR></A><BR> The trial court found that he failed to establish that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052482P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was responsible for making all managerial decisions for the corporate advertising department. Sitting by designation. 3 1 dysplasia (FMD)2 symptoms and that he was attempting to bring her blood pressure under control and deal with her fatigue. Which was unchanged. FMD is a disease of the blood vessels that causes stenoses and aneurysms. Its cause is unknown. Shrinkage of the kidney is also often present in FMD patients. Hypertension is a condition in which there is a rise in systemic blood pressure as a result of stenosis of one or more arteries or their branches. A patient may have high blood pressure and FMD. Even if the high blood pressure is not caused by FMD. An angioplasty is the preferred and usual treatment for FMD patients. She is not a candidate for further angioplasty. Bolton was covered under an employer sponsored long term disability plan issued by Liberty. The plan provides that a claimant is eligible for long term disability benefits if she proves that she is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/043386P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that the action was collaterally estopped. Seeking recovery for the workers' compensation benefits that were paid and payable (i.e. Determined the amount of subrogation damages to which Conwed was entitled: the lesser of (1) the amount of benefits actually paid and payable through workers' compensation. The amount of workers' compensation benefits paid and payable was less than the tort damages attributable to Union Carbide. The tort damages attributable to Union Carbide were less than the benefits paid. The remaining 118 asbestosis claims were stayed pending the appeal. Conwed argues that the court instead should have applied the allocation of fault only to the common law damages determined by the jury. Arguing that the second jury trial was barred by collateral estoppel. Because the issue of whether Union Carbide's warnings regarding its asbestos were adequate already had been conclusively established in the first trial concerning mesothelioma. If the action was not barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1190.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kline</SPAN> with whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031358.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and we have jurisdiction over Newell's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision and instruct the district court to remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. That she is (1) at least 50 but less than 60 years old. Who was 56 years old at the time of her hearing before the ALJ. Is the widow of wage earner Robert S. Her attorney indicated that her disability is based solely on her liver disease. Newell appealed and a hearing was held on February 9. B. Factual Background Newell was born on August 1. So that her disability had to have commenced by that date for her to be eligible 1. Newell was selfemployed doing part time consulting and craftwork. She worked occasionally with a friend who was a carpenter. Could not afford medical care at that time because she was uninsured. Most of the evidence in her record is comprised of doctors' reports dated post August 31. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031358u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and we have jurisdiction over Newell's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision and instruct the district court to remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 I. That she is (1) at least 50 but less than 60 years old. Who was 56 years old at the time of her hearing before the ALJ. Is the widow of wage earner Robert S. Her attorney indicated that her disability is based solely on her liver disease. Newell appealed and a hearing was held on February 9. B. Factual Background Newell was born on August 1. So that her disability had to have commenced by that date for her to be eligible for benefits. Newell was self employed doing part time consulting and craftwork. She worked occasionally with a friend who was a carpenter. Could not afford medical care at that time because she was uninsured. Most of the evidence in her record is comprised of doctors' reports dated post August 31. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042267np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts of this case. Our summary of the facts will be brief. Johnson was employed in the coal mining industry from October 1978 to June 1992. Johnson stopped working for BethEnergy and was unilaterally placed on Pennsylvania workers' compensation benefits by BethEnergy effective June 22. Were more credible than those of Dr. Judge Kenny held that Johnson was entitled to compensation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court concluded that Buskirk could not recover under his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1444.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gray</SPAN> were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3736FCC72A9DD1C188256E5A00707C00/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001376P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGarrah was entitled to benefits for the first twelve months if he was prevented by accidental bodily injury </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052408np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She alleged that UNUM's termination of her long term disability benefits under a UNUM group disability policy (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043504np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The date Kelley was last insured for disability benefits. The ALJ concluded that Kelley was not under a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023804P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Liljedahl was diagnosed with lung cancer. The cancer surgery was curative. Liljedahl was on paid medical leave from December 1996 to March 1997. I have recommended she return to work half time on March 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011065.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of which UNUM coincidentally was also the administrator. The scope of the release language was not sufficiently broad to cover Barron's claim. I Nancy Barron was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/983610.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coal miners 4 who are now disabled. The main issue in this appeal is whether these miners are eligible to receive health benefits under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit (Coal) Act of 1992. The chief issue before us was addressed in recent decisions of the Fourth and District of Columbia Circuits. The 1947 NBCWA was modified in 1950. Both the 1947 and the 1950 NBCWA's were financed by a per ton levy on coal produced by signatory operators that is. Were subject to the 5 NBCWA. The benefits were subject to cancellation or change depending on the discretionary judgment of the NBCWA's trustees. While the UMWA 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-7058.htm">03-7058 -- ZEVELY V. BARNHART -- 04/02/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Quay V. After his application for disability benefits was denied initially and on reconsideration. A de novo hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). (2) that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that he was under a disability on or before that date. Although they were considered by the Appeals Council. They were not contained in the administrative record that the Commissioner submitted to the district court. We were unable to conduct the required de . Novo review and determine whether the Appeals Council erred in concluding that the records were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1622p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act involving the failure of a plan administrator to notify a plan participant of the irrevocability of his retirement benefit election and joint annuitant designation. There are two principal issues on appeal. Whether the failure to explain the irrevocability of the benefit election was a breach of the administrator's fiduciary duty. We will affirm in part. Flying Tiger was the plan administrator until 1989. Thereafter Federal Express was the plan administrator. The plans are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1614p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have held it is the burden of the disabled employee who seeks reassignment to identify a position appropriate for reassignment. We will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. I. Michael Mengine was employed by the United States Postal Service as a letter carrier. This was approved for a period of 30 days. Mengine was not assigned to a specific light duty job. Mengine then took advanced sick leave when no further light duty assignments were offered to him. Mengine wrote to Postmaster William Dunn that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2029p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mondzelewski argues that the District Court erred in holding that he is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA because he is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working. Which was handed down after the District Court ruled in this case. Mondzelewski contends that the District Court 2 erred in rejecting his retaliation claim on the ground that he is not disabled. The relevant facts are as follows. He injured his back lifting boxes of meat and was treated by Dr. Mondzelewski was again released to work with the same lifting restrictions. Workers were generally given schedules that allowed them free time in either the mornings or the afternoons. Workers generally were not required to work in the evening on weekends on a regular basis. These shifts were considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1468.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacKenzie contends she was subjected to a hostile work environment and constructively discharged from her employment. Was 64 years old.(1) She began work with the City at the Denver Health and Hospital Authority in March 1986. MacKenzie was expected to answer telephones in a professional and courteous manner. 1997. (2) The ID Clinic provides heath care to patients who are HIV positive or suffer from AIDS. <hr> the clinic with respect. Her evaluations suggested MacKenzie's declining performance was tied to an apparent increase in rudeness toward staff and patients. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-8915.man.html">DOE V. DEKALB COUNTY SCH. DIST. (7/17/1998, NO. 97-8915)<BR></A><BR> Who is infected with HIV. Because it fears that Doe might have blood to blood contact with one of his sometimes violent students. The District has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/024330u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the following reasons we will affirm. The NEBF Plan of Benefits was amended in 1988 to provide that a participant would become vested in the Fund after accruing five service credits. Casey received a letter acknowledging that he was 100% vested in the Fund. For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to state that a participant earns a service credit for each 1000 hours of employment performed. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary. The District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of NEBF was proper only if it appears </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/05-5033a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Donald R. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Woodruff was injured in a fall at work. The claims asserted in that complaint are not before us in this case. While Woodruff was away. Eoyang told him he could resume his supervisory duties only when he was able to return to work on a regular basis. Eoyang responded: While you have gradually increased your hours to 80 hours a pay period. You have yet to be able to resume a regular schedule such that I can rely on your availability as a supervisor. .... . . . Full time schedule and are able to work a regular eight or nine hour schedule. Without the breaks you now have. I will reconsider my decision at that time. He was able to return to full time work by April. Eoyang agreed to these accommodations with the following proviso: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/149A9B529B5319598825714C00552F1C/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Equitable Tolling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-7082a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were David W. With him on the briefs were Robert J. Claiming she was the victim of discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Smith was diagnosed with a bacterial infection. She informed her supervisors at the DMH of her disabilities and was given a handicapped parking space and permitted to change her work schedule to start at 10:00 a.m. rather than 8:15 a.m. This requirement was always part of her job description. Smith claims her disability prevents her Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 1 3 from making </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-8299.man.html">PARAMORE V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Paramore v. The district court determined that the Administrative Committee's decision to deny long term disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious and granted summary judgment in favor of Delta. We conclude that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1032.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellees.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-8915.man.html">DOE V. DEKALB COUNTY SCH. DIST. (7/17/1998, NO. 97-8915)<BR></A><BR> Who is infected with HIV. Because it fears that Doe might have blood to blood contact with one of his sometimes violent students. The District has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1399.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bacon was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Some of the actions of which she now complains were in fact taken at her request. Conceding that our review is for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 02 3623 v. > . None of which was for diabetes. He did not mention that his absence was in any way related to his diabetic condition. This suspension triggered plaintiff's termination because it was his third attendance related suspension within five years. Plaintiff was terminated. Mentioned that his March 31st absence was due to his diabetes. Stating that the absence was due to an extended episode of diabetes related hypoglycemia. Plaintiff further testified that he was. Tha t this apparent misrepresentation by plaintiff was not a factor in its decision to terminate plaintiff. It is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendant improperly terminated plaintiff under the A DA or the FM LA in the first instance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C9836A2990DAC6B882570E600034071/$file/0435445.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's finding that Webb's impairments were not medically severe. He suffered several broken ribs and internal injuries and was hospitalized for a week. He collapsed at his job as a retail manager and was taken to the emergency room. Where he was found to have elevated blood pressure. Its results were normal. He began to have acute back pain that his doctor traced to the ATV accident and a workplace injury in 1982 or 1983. Their side effects were often intolerable. Although there are gaps in Webb's treatment history. He also began to have knee pain. Webb's back problems appear to have been constant. Is prior to 1997. BARNHART have jurisdiction to hear Webb's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We uphold the Commissioner's decision denying benefits if the Commissioner applied the proper legal standard and there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200011187.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider three issues: (1) whether the district court erred in determining that Reliance's disposition of Levinson's claim was arbitrary and capricious. (2) whether the district court erred in failing to remand the case to Reliance after concluding that its claim decision was arbitrary and capricious. Filed a claim for benefits with Reliance under his law firm's group long term disability policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021479P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fenney was involved in a tragic accident. On call engineers are guaranteed at least an eighthour rest period. Dakota's contract with its union requires that Dakota notify the oncall engineers at least one and one half hours before they are to arrive at work. Several of Dakota's employees received a call that was earlier than the minimum one and one half hours required.1 Employees who needed this advance or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2950_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After her employment was terminated on August 9. Burks is of African American and Hispanic descent. Burks ultimately was hired and appointed to the position of program manager in November 2001. She was required to complete a probationary period of six months before assuming permanent employee status. Traska was a Unit Supervisor in the Bureau of Transit and was Ms. Forlenza was a Planning and Analysis Administrator at WDOT and was Ms. Soon after she was hired. Her disability information already should have been on file. She was invited to the WDOT chair lab to select a chair that would accommodate her disability. Plans for the raised work station were not approved until May 2002. The work station was not completed prior to Ms. Burks believes that the untimeliness of these accommodations is evidence of disability discrimination. 1 In her appellate brief. Traska was not a supervisor during the time that Ms. Burks was employed at WDOT. Traska was her immediate supervisor. To the extent that it is material. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-6038.wpd.html">GAYLOR V. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Gaylor maintains first that her policy with Defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Hancock) is not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She argues that even if her claim is governed by ERISA. The bases relied upon by Hancock were insufficient to deny her claim. Life and accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) policies are mandatory. Is optional. Was finally referred to Dr. Gaylor was not in need of orthopedic surgery. Gaylor was still his patient and that he would see her in further follow ups. She was unable to work as of October 13. Who informed her that there was nothing more he could do for her and suggested that she return to her primary care physicians for long term treatment. Non surgical condition required follow up and care and medications that are best handled by primary care physicians who would continue to see patients on a regular basis. She was rejected. Because she was financially unable to pay the doctor's bill. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0228p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Defendant named in Smith's complaint is William J. Smith was transferred to Elizabethtown. Tour I is the night shift at the post office when all mail must be off loaded from the trucks. She argues that male supervisors' work schedules were never changed without their prior consent. Who was a male. Conklin altered Smith's staff assignments because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1063.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. We affirm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4061.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Grosvenor was an employee of Qwest Corporation as a Team Leader in the Wholesale Provisioning Department. Grosvenor was a participant in the Plan. Qwest was the sponsor of the Plan. She was not a corporate officer. Her performance evaluations were not tied to denial of claims. He concluded that he was no longer able to continue until his symptoms could be brought under control. Participants are eligible for STD benefits if they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041132P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taylor was born in the United Kingdom in 1974 and remains a British citizen. She was adopted by citizens of the United States an American serviceman and his wife in the United Kingdom in 1984. The petition was approved in September 1984. Taylor was thus classified as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1956.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Concluded that appellee Raymond Vlass was no longer eligible for long term disability benefits as of September . 1996 because he was no longer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041685U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether the district court erred in finding that Rachael Lundquist was not disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and granting Rice Memorial Hospital's (RMH) summary judgment motion on that basis. I. Procedural and Factual Context Rachael Lundquist was employed by RMH as a nurse during three distinct time periods. She was first hired in 1968. She was diagnosed with degenerative changes at several levels of her neck and a herniated disc. Lundquist filed a grievance which resulted in an arbitration order that Lundquist should be allowed to return to work if she was willing to perform the essential requirements of her job. While Lundquist was on leave the first time. He later stated that if lifting is an essential duty of a job. RMH reasoned that her physical restrictions were permanent and that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job. 3 In April 1998. It was allegedly related to a different time period than Lundquist I. Since Lundquist II involved a claim arising from a termination of Lundquist that occurred after the first suit was filed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0395p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 404 05 n. 6 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that an individual supervisor may not be held personally liable under Title VII and noting that the Title VII and ADA liability schemes are similar in this regard). 1 Plaintiff Sullivan failed to make out a prima facie case of being regarded as disabled and did not rebut Defendants' legitimate. Rather than show that the Defendants' stated reasons for seeking his discharge were a pretext for discrimination. Without a showing that those other reasons were discriminatory. The judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants is AFFIRMED. 14 Sullivan v. It is not at all clear what the supposed protected activity was. If it was refusing to submit to the mental and physical exams. Then the retaliation argument is logically incoherent. Obviously the Defendants could not have been retaliating for Sullivan's not doing something that they had not yet asked him to do. If the supposed protected activity was something else. Sullivan has not shown how any of his other behavior was a protected means of opposing an act or practice made illegal by the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2280.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Antonetti & Cordova were on brief. I. The following facts are undisputed. Was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0540n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pasco believes her alleged disability is a result of a horrific. Was kidnapped. She underwent surgery and was hospitalized for twelve days. When she was released. Noted that Pasco was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/92E3B0FFFD2E6ECA88256BC0007C238D/$file/0055333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Principal based its denial on its contention that Amadeo's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F22CAD3F1D7BF5AE882572B800548695/$file/0457007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hoods offer two grounds under which Anna should be categorized as a child with a disability per 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3) and is therefore entitled to special education. Which the Hoods commenced during Anna's fifth grade 2001 2002 school year following the school district's determination that Anna was ineligible for special education. We find that the district court's acceptance of the hearing officer's determination that Anna was not legally entitled to receive publically funded special education was not in clear error. Anna Hood was 10 years old and. Was performing at grade level appropriate/ average or above average levels in the public school classroom.1 While Anna's second. Anna's scores on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) have placed her above the fiftieth percentile with near uniformity. Anna's scores were average or better. One (writing sample) was in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/949B3155AF8EDC7988256B4B0008A499/$file/9935711.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 98 03073 JAR OPINION Jo Anne Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Thomas' applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-5053.htm">97-5053 -- YEAGER V. PURINA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN -- 12/09/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff brought this action against the long term disability plan of his former employer. Plaintiff was employed by a subsidiary of Ralston Purina Company. Plaintiff's application for long term disability benefits was denied because the employer determined plaintiff was not eligible for such benefits under the terms of the plan. Finding that plaintiff was not eligible for benefits under the terms of the plan. <p> We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo and apply the same standard as the district court. <u>See</u> <u>Thomas v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-3032.wpd.html">ARAMBURU V. BOEING CO.<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. (4) discriminatory discharge on the basis of his carpal tunnel syndrome.(2) Boeing and Whitesell contend that Aramburu was discharged for failure to maintain proper attendance. Larry Whitesell was Aramburu's supervisor. Aramburu's employment relationship was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and the International Association of (1) Aramburu complains that the district court did not clearly identify the undisputed facts upon which it relied and did not specify which portions of his proffered evidence it was rejecting in considering the summary judgment motion. Many of those objections are not supported by materials which the court may consider or are otherwise inappropriate. The court will make no attempt to specifically explain its resolution of the parties' numerous disputes regarding the uncontroverted facts. It is the task of the district court to determine if the party bearing the burden of proof on an issue at trial has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as identified by the substantive law to warrant sending the issue to the factfinder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0132p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thomas Wenner was the Chief Operating Officer of Orchid Manufacturing Group ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/04/96-6038.htm">96-6038 -- GAYLOR V. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 04/29/1997<BR></A><BR> Gaylor maintains first that her policy with Defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Hancock) is not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She argues that even if her claim is governed by ERISA. The bases relied upon by Hancock were insufficient to deny her claim. Life and accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) policies are mandatory. Is optional. Was finally referred to Dr. Gaylor was not in need of orthopedic surgery. Gaylor was still his patient and that he would see her in further follow ups. <p> In the meantime. She was unable to work as of October 13. Who informed her that there was nothing more he could do for her and suggested that she return to her primary care physicians for long term treatment. Non surgical condition required follow up and care and medications that are best handled by primary care physicians who would continue to see patients on a regular basis. She was rejected. Because she was financially unable to pay the doctor's bill. Claiming that (1) she was not under the regular care of a physician. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7015.html">GLOVER FRANK A V. WEST TOGO D JR.<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel on the Brief were <U>Richard J. Frank Glover appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision that the Regional Office's (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/023902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there were genuine issues of material fact to preclude summary judgment. I. Burchett is presently on long term disability leave from Target. From 1973 until she was laid off in November 1995. Which is responsible for getting consumer products to its retail stores around the United States. Distribution employees communicate with the trucking and transportation carriers used by Target to ensure that merchandise is delivered. Burchett was given responsibility for maintaining electronic transfer documents. Who was a supervisor of Transportation Services. Her performance was rated as excellent on her reviews. Or that it was affecting her work. Melhus perceived that Burchett's performance was declining. Burchett was late in finishing tasks. Nonexecutive positions without mentioning that she was suffering from depression or that she wanted to transfer because of it. Burchett responded that she was having trouble doing her job because she was ill. This was the first time Burchett had mentioned an illness to either Marvin or Melhus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arnold LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellee.</P> <P> </P> <P><CENTER> </CENTER> </P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022533u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Hartford's denial of LTD benefits was arbitrary and capricious under ERISA. Donald Lemaire was employed at the Meadows Psychiatric Center as a substance abuse counselor. Lemaire was diagnosed with Hepatitis C sometime during the 1980's. After interferon therapy was discontinued. The other concluded that there was no medical documentation to support a finding of total physical disability. Noted that there was a consensus among his treating physicians that Lemaire was depressed. Stating that Lemaire's primary diagnoses were major depression. Mooney's report and concluded that there was insufficient </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/03-7015.htm">03-7015 -- THREET V. BARNHART -- 12/31/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-8299.man.html">PARAMORE V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Paramore v. The district court determined that the Administrative Committee's decision to deny long term disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious and granted summary judgment in favor of Delta. We conclude that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/001606P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Termination was pursuant to a FedEx policy. Suit was filed in early 1998. The case was initially scheduled for trial in November. Was granted in January. He further ruled there was no adequate showing that FedEx perceived that Ms. Mellon was suffering from a substantially limiting disability. That the showing of gender discrimination and retaliation was insufficient to survive the motion. Mellon contends there were no meaningful efforts to accommodate her condition and that the termination should be considered retaliatory. She contends that proof of disability and perception of disability was sufficiently established by the materials presented. Issues of wrongful discharge and failure to accommodate are deficient here as a matter of federal law unless there is a submissible claim of disability. We cannot evaluate the personnel practices of FedEx (and a jury likewise has no such authority) unless a federal question is adequately presented under the ADA. Is the second point presented. Whether there is a submissible issue of disability or perceived disability under the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002106.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is before the Court on the Paul Revere Insurance Company's challenge to the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Dr. M.D. was a beneficiary of an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA and which was provided through an insurance policy. The policy was purchased and paid for by his employer. Band certified: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-6984.man.html">WHATLEY V. CNA INS. COMPANIES (9/20/1999, NO. 97-6984)<BR></A><BR> Inc. was terminated before Whatley met the requirements for benefits under his disability plan.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB9A17EA3604ADBC882571C30049A8D9/$file/0455747.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Marc Silver claims that he is disabled due to the deteriorating condition of his heart. He is entitled to benefits under an insurance policy issued by the UNUM Life Insurance Company of America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyMzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3230-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. was employed as a New York City sanitation worker. The district court granted defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint because it concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Capobianco was disabled or that defendants regarded him as being disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Capobianco Is Hired By DOS Capobianco was employed by DOS from December 7. He was hired only after many years of trying to obtain employment with DOS. He was not called by DOS to be a sanitation worker until 1995. He was given an eye He examination and DOS advised him in August 1995 that it had determined that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002478.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SMITH Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who is sixty seven years old. 1 it could have aggravated the condition substantially. Reversible airway obstruction is unrelated to coal dust exposure. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053075np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denied him long term disability based on a finding that he was not prevented from engaging in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-5110.wpd.html">HAWKINS V. CHATER<BR></A><BR> The functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. We continue to refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision. Claimant Melzenia Hawkins appeals from a district court order affirming the Secretary's decision to deny her application for social security disability benefits.(1) We review the Secretary's decision on the entire record </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003838P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Terry Clapp was a bill collector for Citibank and a participant in its employee benefits plan. The plan defines disability as a mental or physical condition which the Claims Administrator/Fiduciary determines: (i) prevents the Participant from performing each and every material duty pertaining to his or her regular occupation (and after 24 consecutive months of such condition prevents the participant from engaging in each and every occupation or employment for wage or profit for which Employee is reasonably qualified by reason of education. Plaintiff was initially certified for disability on November 10. The orthopedic work up was negative. Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work on December 12. She attempted to return to work but was unable to do so. 2 On February 4. Which was done. Collagen is a tough. Meyers told Aetna that plaintiff was not a candidate for a heart transplant and could never work again. Feder that plaintiff was doing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0069p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moorer was the only administrator in the Baptist system who had responsibilities for two hospitals. His job duties were divided among several people. She asked Moorer for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53B3B9F1E7BB0254882571FF0055A713/$file/0455747.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 at slip op. 8907 is amended as follows: The final paragraph of the Standard of Review Section at slip op. 8918 19 is deleted and replaced by the following: We note that scrutiny is especially warranted when. We have previously SILVER v. District courts have a responsibility under the ERISA framework to undertake an independent and thorough inspection of an administrator's decision. Wariness of a district court's verbatim adoption of a plan administrator's proposed findings is especially warranted in the ERISA context because of the complex and sometimes conflicting roles of plan administrators. Circuit Judge: Marc Silver claims that he is disabled due to the deteriorating condition of his heart. He is entitled to benefits under an insurance policy issued by the UNUM Life Insurance Company of America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971693P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronnie Layes (Layes) initiated this Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action alleging that he was wrongfully denied long term disability benefits Ronnie Layes. He was referred to Dr. Long concluded that Layes suffered from chronic foot and leg pain caused by a developmental misalignment of the lower extremities.3 This condition was aggravated by the prolonged periods of walking and standing that were a part of Layes' job. Long's precise diagnosis was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1289.htm">00-1289 -- SIPMA V. MASSACHUSETTS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. -- 07/17/2001<BR></A><BR> Background</strong></center> <p> The facts in this case are uncontested. Byron were covered by the disability and life insurance policies. Sipma was injured and claimed disability benefits. Sipma's state law claims are preempted. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4104.htm">96-4104 -- WOODMAN V. RUNYON -- 12/24/1997<BR></A><BR> At issue in this appeal is Ms. Woodman's allegation that she is a qualified individual with a disability. Where she was responsible for separating incoming and outgoing mail. Her injury was subsequently diagnosed by her treating physician as thoracic outlet syndrome and Ms. Distribution clerks are governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the USPS and the American Postal Workers Union. Section 546 provides: <p> To the extent that there is adequate work available within the employee's work limitation tolerances. In the work facility to which the employee is regularly assigned. That work constitutes the limited duty to which the employee is assigned. <p> Aplt. Assignments to such preferred duty positions without competitive bidding would violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement unless adequate work is not available within the assignee's craft. Woodman was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist and arm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011544.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the record is unclear on whether the Appeals Council recognized the additional evidence to be from Thomas's treating physician. That her disabling illnesses were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep22/04-30229.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Was a participating employer. Chauvin was provided a booklet describing plan benefits available to him. Chauvin's policy's definition of total disability required that Chauvin be unable to perform each of the material duties of any gainful occupation for which he is reasonably fitted by training. It was determined that Therefore. On 17 December his benefits were being Chauvin could perform a number of jobs. 1999. The notification letter explained why benefits were identified seven occupations UNUM concluded being terminated. He could submit a written request to UNUM's appeal department to have the decision reviewed. The benefits termination was upheld. Was therefore not entitled to benefits. No authority need be cited for our reviewing de novo a summary judgment and for its being proper if there are no material fact issues and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993108.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed as a package car driver. Jones's position as a package car driver required that he perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B06D66ECFDD6901E88256E5A00707D03/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-8691.opa.html">HOLBROOK V. CITY OF ALPHARETTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Holbrook v. We must decide the following issues of first impression in our circuit: (1) to what extent is evidence of past accommodation of a disabled employee determinative of an employer's ability to accommodate that employee in the future. (2) are claims brought pursuant to Title II of the ADA involving events that occurred prior to the effective date of Title I actionable under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Was employed as a detective by the City of Alpharetta Police Department at the time the events giving rise to this action occurred. Although Holbrook was unable to work for approximately ten months following the accident. Holbrook was unable to drive a car and was assigned detective work that primarily could be handled within the office. The Chief of Police of the Alpharetta Police Department was Larry Abernathy. Holbrook no longer maintained </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/642CA4C9374634B2882571F7004E0B11/$file/0435988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Appellant's unopposed request for publication is granted. Is recalled and the memorandum disposition filed on June 29. Is withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under § 158(d). Mason was 33 years old. Mason is well educated. At issue in this proceeding is approximately $100. Mason's mother testified that he was diagnosed with the learning disability in the third grade. Mason was accepted at Gonzaga University Law School. Was laid off in January 2002. The bankruptcy court found that Mason is currently earning between $1. Mason has testified that he does not expect his law degree will improve his chances of securing employment. The majority of which were for student loan debts. STANDARD OF REVIEW </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1468p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that Olson did not demonstrate that he was disabled or had a record of impairment under the ADA. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Olson was hospitalized for four months for depression. GE told Olson that he was being laid off along with hundreds of others as part of a general reduction in force necessitated by adverse business conditions. Olson was formally laid off. A former co worker told Olson that the position of Quality Assurance Specialist was opening at GE's East Windsor. The person hired as QA Specialist would report to Sansoni who was still the Manager of Parts Engineering. Olson was interested and telephoned Sansoni. The application was forwarded to Amy Levinson Close. Olson was one of four applicants. GE contends that because Sansoni already knew Olson and was familiar with his work. That Sansoni was referring to Olson's 1991 hospitalization for depression. Sansoni discussed the medication Olson was taking. That the doctors had informed him that the most likely diagnosis was simply a sleep disorder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0219p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three time periods are relevant to the determination of benefits under this plan. First is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4297.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael Wyatt contends that the favorable decision in his disability benefits case was improperly reopened. Because the ALJ's decision to reopen the case is unsupported. A hearing was held at Wyatt's request in July 1993. This time holding that Wyatt was not disabled and denying him benefits. That decision was later vacated and remanded by the Appeals Council. Because Wyatt argues only that his case was improperly reopened. Our review is limited: we need not decide the propriety of the ALJ's final disability determination. Only whether the earlier decision to reopen Wyatt's case was proper. 356 58 (7th Cir. 1992) (where ALJ's stated basis for reopening black lung benefits case was unfounded. Decision could not be affirmed even though evidence ALJ cited might have justified reopening on another ground). It states only that the case is being reopened </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/733B21FA0EEF5EE788256AE20059A0F9/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/031294P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company was liable to Julie Parke under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. For prejudgment interest during the period in which Parke's benefits were wrongfully delayed. 2) the First Reliance's obligation to pay benefits is not at issue and has not been disputed since early in the litigation. 2002 judgment was entered. Because we have already denied Parke's motion to dismiss the appeal on this ground. We will simply point out that jurisdiction is proper when an appeal is filed within 30 days after a final decision is rendered by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2003) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0452E7A0BAF1DA2D88256AA7007D2E20/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60975.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Fourchon Welding and LWCC contend that there is no substantial evidence to support: (1) the administrative law judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-8691.opa.html">HOLBROOK V. CITY OF ALPHARETTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Holbrook v. We must decide the following issues of first impression in our circuit: (1) to what extent is evidence of past accommodation of a disabled employee determinative of an employer's ability to accommodate that employee in the future. (2) are claims brought pursuant to Title II of the ADA involving events that occurred prior to the effective date of Title I actionable under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Was employed as a detective by the City of Alpharetta Police Department at the time the events giving rise to this action occurred. Although Holbrook was unable to work for approximately ten months following the accident. Holbrook was unable to drive a car and was assigned detective work that primarily could be handled within the office. The Chief of Police of the Alpharetta Police Department was Larry Abernathy. Holbrook no longer maintained </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/001294P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was promoted to the position of marketing services coordinator. Heaser suspected that her health problems were connected to air quality at the Lyndale facility and alerted Toro's management officials to her concerns. Heaser informed her supervisor that she was having trouble remaining at work for entire days because of illness. Her supervisor inquired of the human resources department whether working at home would be an option for Heaser and was told that although Toro did not have a work at home policy. She could leave the Lyndale facility when she was too sick to remain at work. Although no performance deficiencies were noted during that time period. Heaser admitted that she was not fully performing her job. After receiving notice that her short term disability benefits were being terminated. Heaser also stated that she was concerned about handling the carbonless paper used for orders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2055.htm">03-2055 -- SIPP V. UNUM PROVIDENT CORP. -- 08/20/2004<BR></A><BR> Sipp's application for benefits was initially approved. UNUM informed him that his benefits would be terminated because he was no longer considered disabled. His last position was that of Senior Pastor in a New Jersey congregation and Chaplain for the Union County Sheriff's Office. This type of policy is known as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8FFBDB35A8652739882572D8004C2569/$file/0457007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hoods offer two grounds under which Anna should be categorized as a child with a disability per 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3) and is therefore entitled to special education. Which the Hoods commenced during Anna's fifth grade 2001 2002 school year following the school district's determination that Anna was ineligible for special education. We find that the district court's acceptance of the hearing officer's determination that Anna was not legally entitled to receive publically funded special education was not in clear error. Anna Hood was 10 years old and. Was performing at grade level appropriate/ average or above average levels in the public school classroom.1 While Anna's second. Anna's scores on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) have placed her above the fiftieth percentile with near uniformity. Anna's scores were average or better. One (writing sample) was in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-5312a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0084n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1193.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Counter that the Plan in which Nickerson Malpher was enrolled only entitled her to a death benefit upon becoming permanently disabled. Summary judgment is affirmed. <P> Market Forge Co. hired Nickerson Malpher on November 27. That if an insured </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5126.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Ainsworth became dizzy after arriving at North Intermediate High School for a substitute assignment and was helped to the nurse's office. Told her that he might not be able to teach that day because his epilepsy medication was too high and causing him dizziness. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Metevelis is the School District's Director of Human Resources and is <hr> responsible for ultimate employment decisions. The reply email was sent on November 16. Price's reply is the same as the date and time of Ms. It was impossible for Ms. That it was Ms. Ainsworth was still teaching as a substitute. Because the notification was not completed until December 14. Ainsworth was able to work two additional assignments on December 12 and 13. Ainsworth should never have subbed for the School District after November 16. Price why he was not receiving assignments. She reportedly told him it was because teachers were requesting other persons as preferred substitutes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B044FB2CD2BDDB388256D81005C215F/$file/0171505.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ALJ found that Metropolitan was the employer liable for compensation benefits to claimant William Price ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2696.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was employed as a case worker at the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Claiming that he was discriminated against because of his disabilities and his sex. Because the Seventh Circuit ruled that the ADA was not a valid abrogation of the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. Which is what we must consider since he was the successful party below. Is taken primarily from his own testimony and exhibits at trial. Who was 52 at the time of trial. Was the youngest of eight children. When the Vietnam war was heating up. His first duty tour was in Holland where he met his wife. They have been married for over 30 years. In 1990 he was hired as a case worker in the Marshall. When Susan Yargus was hired as administrator for the Marshall office. Shick's disabilities were multiple. He was also tall and overweight and preferred a particular chair. The medical situation that appeared to generate the most conflict at the office was the intestinal disease that caused internal bleeding and required frequent trips to 4 No. 00 2696 the bathroom. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-2076.htm">98-2076 -- EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION V. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. -- 06/17/1999<BR></A><BR> We hold that such evidence is not necessary. That the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-6984.man.html">WHATLEY V. CNA INS. COMPANIES (9/20/1999, NO. 97-6984)<BR></A><BR> Inc. was terminated before Whatley met the requirements for benefits under his disability plan.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0060p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a disability discrimination case brought under Michigan law. The question we are asked to decide is whether. The fact that the plaintiff had signed a social security disability application in which he swore that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20524.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Richard Guidry ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-7073a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kniaz were on brief for the appellant. We conclude that Duncan failed to establish he was dis abled and thus protected under the ADA and. He testified that 30 pounds was the heaviest lifting required and his testimony was corroborated by that of a co worker. Duncan was transferred involuntarily to the Elevator/Escalator branch (ELES) into a position requiring heavy lifting. Some of the injuries required a number of weeks away from work or on light duty but in each instance Duncan was able to return to work without restriction. Weston told Duncan that no light duty position was available in ELES and Duncan was placed on leave without pay. Apparently Duncan's first application was not forwarded to the decisionmaker. The second was. Beuttner declined to interview Duncan for the second position after learning that Duncan was in the process of being terminated. Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/04/04-30229.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Was a participating employer. Chauvin was provided a booklet describing plan benefits available to him. Chauvin's policy's definition of total disability required that Chauvin be unable to perform each of the material duties of any gainful occupation for which he is reasonably fitted by training. It was determined that Therefore. On 17 December his benefits were being Chauvin could perform a number of jobs. 1999. The notification letter explained why benefits were identified seven occupations UNUM concluded being terminated. He could submit a written request to UNUM's appeal department to have the decision reviewed. The benefits termination was upheld. Was therefore not entitled to benefits. No authority need be cited for our reviewing de novo a summary judgment and for its being proper if there are no material fact issues and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1748.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGuirl & Bicki were on brief. Brown & Joy were on brief. Tardie alleges that she was discharged from her position as Director of Human Resources at RHRI due to her disability and while she was on medical leave. Tardie was selected by her supervisor. One of Tardie's tasks in setting up the department was drafting the job description of the Director of Human Resources at RHRI. One of the listed requirements was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Az</U> were on brief. Lez</U> was on brief. We affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-3291.htm">97-3291 -- BUTLER V. CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE KANSAS -- 04/06/1999<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant City of Prairie Village. All of the individual defendants were employed by. Was the Mayor. Vernon was the City Administrator. Defendant Carol Pendelton was a member of the city council and chair of the Policy and Services Committee. Robnett was the director of the Public Works Department. <p> During his employment with the City. Plaintiff's employment was terminated on January 27. Salary range of the new position were similar to those of Plaintiff's former position. <p> In this appeal. Plaintiff claims that the district court should not have entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on his claims that he was terminated in violation of the First Amendment. He argues that summary judgment was improper on his ADA claim of discrimination because he has raised genuine issues of material fact. Two incidents occurred which Plaintiff claims are relevant to this dispute. Plaintiff's testimony was not favorable to the City and. I understand that is the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C3769C26C92A54882570E4005571E5/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7066.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Michelle D.D. On the ground that his condition was such that he was unable to achieve employment. Bowyer was not represented by counsel. VA Form 2 22a was duly filed. Carpenter's efforts on remand were successful. He argued that 1979 should be the effective date because there was clear and unmistakable error ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-7115a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Cheryl C. Inasmuch as the only question before this court is whether. There was no legal error and ample evidence on which the jury could reasonably find discrimination. At the time he was hired in 1989 by WMATA as a special police officer. Told him that WMATA's tight financial situation made that impossible and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/447EE9A0AF42375988256E5A00707C4F/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982374.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A. Rhoads was hired as a financial analyst in September 1987 by Standard Federal Savings Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1852.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FA0AA4309CEFC9EE88256D1900524674/$file/0135689.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Participation by states in the Medicaid program is optional. An exception to this rule is the Medicaid waiver program. Under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to waive certain Medicaid requirements for innovative or experimental state health care programs. The state is only obligated to establish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50656.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Arrington was employed by SW Bell from 1974 to 1998. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Arrington was diagnosed with diabetes in 1986. Admits that he and the company were aware of this diagnosis. Arrington was discharged and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972107.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> From which review is also sought. Ling is unrepresented by counsel. The latter was determined to be the operator responsible for any benefit award.2 The claim was heard before an Administrative Law Judge. (3) he was no longer able to perform his previous work. (4) his disability was due. Ling was admitted to the hospital for three days. He was treated with steroids. Ling's condition was likely caused by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966215.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that Buckley's causes of action were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2190.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Terry was moved to a new position. On arrival was sent to the hospital by Bayer's nurse. Terry was cared for by both his primary care physician. Ousler's treatment plan was originally conservative. He was promoted in 1988 to a position maintaining desk top computers. Terry was now required to move containers of computer boards around the workplace. A second arthroscopic surgery was soon performed. Torn cartilage and bone chips were removed from his knee. Terry is in almost constant pain. Is unable to stand. The Summary Plan Description ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1963.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellant. P.C. was on brief for appellee. The relief sought by the terms of the complaint was a temporary injunction (1) permitting him to return to work with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3105_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have been Whirlpool employees since 2000 and 1969. Requests are granted based on seniority. Was granted his requested vacation time only for the week of June 30. For which Whirlpool employees are eligible after ninety days of employment. A doctor must certify that the employee is disabled and unable to work. If the employee is granted both disability and FMLA leave. The dates Crouch requested for disability leave correspond to the dates for which he was denied. Antey was granted. After he was denied vacation for the weeks of July 8 and July 15. He requested and was granted disability leave from June 27 until July 21. After he was denied vacation for the week of July 7. Heard could not have received the green form before June 30. Manager Debby Castrale testified that it was Whirlpool's general practice to grant leave based on a doctor's note certifying that the disability rendered the employee unable to work. Crouch was out of work from June 25 to July 15. Crouch's supervisor noticed that the dates of his disability leave in 2003 were the same dates for which he had sought vacation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313526.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After finding that Jones was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis or black lung disease1 that developed as a result of his work in the coal mines of Alabama. Steel says that the ALJ used the wrong legal standard in evaluating whether there was a material change in Jones's condition. We are persuaded by neither argument and. Essential background and developed facts are straightforward. The Secretary of Labor's black lung benefits program allows coal The BLBA provides </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063482np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's order. Because Barclay's doctor was unwilling to certify him to operate a train while taking the medication. 1 he was placed on medical restriction from December 1997 until 1999. Barclay was given a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063457np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree and will affirm. I. Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the factual and legal background to this case. We will dispense with a lengthy recitation of the facts. Such local rules are permissible so long as district courts do not use them to bypass the merits analysis required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. We will not disturb its decision to adopt Portage's statement of facts. The Collective Bargaining Agreement that Benko 2 was subject to at the time of his retirement did not include an early retirement incentive. He returned to the same position and schedule as before the sabbatical he was the head of the Science Department and worked one half day teaching science to elementary students and one half day teaching high school students. The claim was dually filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1651.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> was on brief. Barlow</U> were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/95-4388.opa.html">FABRIC V. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fabric v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is a removed diversity case brought by Dr. The new policy stated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/96-6215.opa.html">BUCKLEY V. METROPOLITAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buckley v. Claiming that Buckley's causes of action were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEwMDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1006-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To transport Walter Green ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/992679P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At the time she was hired. C. Penney that she was epileptic. Otting was eligible for J. Otting was hospitalized for approximately two weeks while the doctors When she was seventeen years old. Otting was hit on the right hand side of her skull by a line drive softball. Focal or localization related epilepsy is a form of epilepsy that produces seizures from a specific area of the brain. Otting was on disability leave from November 17. Otting's duties as a sales associate in every department in which she had worked were essentially identical. Otting was required to climb a ladder to retrieve stocked shoes. Although her seizures were not entirely under control. As the ladder climbing requirement was unique to the Shoe Department. Morris again stated that Otting could not return to work while she was under a restriction. Otting was terminated on September 20. She was further advised that she could apply for Social Security disability benefits. C. Penney contends that the district court erred in denying its motion for JAML on the issue of liability because Otting is not disabled as defined by the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxMTUtY3ZfZGlzLnBkZg==/03-6115-cv_dis.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that this ultimatum creates the live possibility that Butts will be awarded disability benefits absent any finding that he is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043563np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Hunter was a manager of station operations for FedEx and a participant in FedEx's LTD Plan. Hunter's application for Social Security disability benefits was approved. 1997.2 FedEx's LTD plan provided that FedEx was the administrator of the Plan. Was performed pursuant to a contract by Kemper Insurance. Once benefits were awarded. An employee was obligated to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shiro & Shiro Law Offices were on brief. P.A. were on brief. Retaliatory discharge (relating to his frequent complaints about activities in the factory that he thought were unsafe or illegal). Higgins's remaining arguments are mostly (but not entirely) unavailing. Nothing was done to ameliorate the situation. Was one of his foremost tormentors. Harassment was not the appellant's only bugaboo. He allegedly asked his superiors to accommodate his impaired hearing by (1) having a fan installed near his work station (as did other workers) because steam induced perspiration was ruining his hearing aid. It will not reverse such an order on the basis of arguments that were not made in the trial court. 31 (1st Cir. 1992) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1991.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2385.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellees.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1966.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finberg</U> and <U>The Bennett Law Firm</U> were on brief. Were on brief for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Manuella Reed was fired by LePage Bakeries for insubordination and threatening her supervisor. Reed says her conduct should be forgiven because she is mentally ill. She sues on the claim that her termination resulted from LePage's failure to reasonably accommodate her disability and hence was discriminatory. Find that Reed neither adequately requested nor was prevented from exercising the accommodation she now claims. Reed was hired by LePage Bakeries. She was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She is prone to lose her temper and become verbally abusive.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar97/96-5111.wpd.html">MORGAN V. HILTI, INC.<BR></A><BR> That is. She further claimed that the termination was in retaliation for filing a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Had failed to carry the two pronged burden of showing (1) that Hilti's proffered reasons for terminating her were false. (2) that Hilti's real reasons were unlawful. This standard is contrary to our prior case law. The plaintiff's burden is only to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the proffered reasons were unworthy of belief. BACKGROUND Morgan was employed by Hilti from July 2. When she was discharged from her position as a fax/mail clerk. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. participation in counseling and group therapy sessions. After hearing from a co worker that the supervisor was documenting her absenteeism. Or was absent on at least thirty working days (exclusive of disability leave and scheduled vacation time). Warned that her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0862n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clonch was born on October 31. He was employed as a coal miner for thirtytwo years. Clonch were married on August 2. Clonch is now deceased. Clonch's first claim was filed on August 7. His second claim was filed on July 12. Both of these claims were denied. Which was initially filed on January 25. Clonch's third claim was entered by Administrative Law Judge Donald W. He had failed to establish that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/042575P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding Wenzel did not show he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051393P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows.2 Baucom. Is an assistant manager at a convenience store owned by Holiday. The district manager allegedly told the store manager Baucom's age and health were a hindrance. Baucom alleges his hours again were reduced throughout 2003 to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951280P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Donaho contends that the denial of benefits is unreasonable and not supported by substantial evidence. Was an abuse of discretion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jane Donaho was hired as a full time employee of FMC Corporation in 1990. Donaho's position at FMC was demanding. Employees are entitled to LTD benefits if they are totally disabled. Providing that they have satisfied a six month qualifying period. An employee is considered totally disabled when she is To be eligible for short term benefits. An employee must have an illness so severe that she is unable to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/001865.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Functions of the court have been merged by steps into a unified state court system. We hold that suit is not barred. Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment by the District Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Was stopped by officers of the Princeton Police Department. The 3 bench warrant was issued in 1990 because Chisolm failed to attend an intoxicated driver resource program. The program was required as part of his sentence following a 1987 guilty plea to driving under the influence. He was taken to the Mercer County Detention Center (MCDC) to await extradition to Bucks County. He was admitted to MCDC at 3:40 p.m on Saturday afternoon. Was a maximum security. It housed detainees who were awaiting extradition to other states or were awaiting trial on indictable charges. They were generally processed within a few hours. Newly arrived detainees were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/953186P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that Andler's two brief periods of employment in a twentyfour year period of disabling mental illness were unsuccessful work attempts. I. BACKGROUND Andler is forty nine years old. He has a high school education and He is a Vietnam veteran previous work experience as a carpenter's helper. So the issue is whether he was disabled before that After his application Andler was denied and a both initially was held and before on an reconsideration. Andler testified that he He stated that for several years he His mother and sister both has not been able to work since 1972. spent most of his time in a root cellar. animal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30439.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. was entitled to additional disability benefits under Xerox's long term disability plan. BACKGROUND Horton was a Xerox employee. The long term disability plan in issue (the plan) is an employee benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 * HI serves as the Medical Case Manager under the plan and in this capacity serves as the plan administrator who determines whether employees are entitled to disability benefits. There is no dispute that Xerox pays long term disability benefits from its own assets. HI determined that Horton was not entitled to further disability benefits. DISCUSSION Where the plan administrator is vested with discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits. Its denial of benefits is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The administrator's factual determinations relating to plan benefits are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard as well. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/991503.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was thereby precluded from owning or possessingfirearms under 18 U. S 922(g)(1) because he was a convicted 2 felon. We will therefore reverse the district court's order based upon our decision in Rice v. I. Palma was formerly a marketing director for various casinos in Atlantic City. While employed in that capacity he gave favorable treatment to various entities that were then doing business with the casinos in return for payoffs that totaled more than $100. It is undisputed that Palma successfully completed all terms and conditions of his sentence. That he was granted early discharge from his probation. It is also undisputed that Palma has not had any adverse contact with law enforcement since successfully completing his sentence. Palma was employed by Palma/Lazar Associates as a real estate appraiser. Persons convicted of crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of one year are prohibited from possessing. The Gun Control Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to lift the firearms disability imposed under S 922(g)(1) if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-3085.htm">01-3085 -- WAGNER-HARDING V. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES INC. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN -- 12/10/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Willie L. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956312.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Sue Pritchard was hired as an electrical engineer by SCSI in 1986. Working mostly on nuclear facilities. * We affirm as to the Title VII In July 1990 she was Honorable John R. This depression was exacerbated by the stress involved with her work on nuclear projects. requested and received a transfer to the Quality She Assurance Department. Pritchard was placed on paid disability leave through November of 1992. She was placed on medication. The therefore her symptoms. company contends that all its engineers must have the flexibility to perform nuclear related work. That it would have been her responsibility to apply for any non engineering job. That she was told she would be considered for non engineering jobs.1 She was terminated on June 18. We recognize that this is a controversy that will have to be resolved by the factfinder. 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings. Affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that this suit under ERISA was barred under New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine because Fornarotto's previously filed tort action was sufficiently related to the instant action to trigger application of that doctrine. For the reasons that follow we will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Fornarotto was employed by the New Jersey American Water Company (a subsidiary of American Waterworks Company. Fornarotto was eligible to participate in the company's pension plan which provided different levels of benefits to eligible employees. The employee becomes disabled and is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-3287.htm">99-3287 -- RODRIGUEZ V. IBP INC. -- 03/14/2001<BR></A><BR> Rodriguez failed to comply with the district court order and was subsequently found in contempt and sanctioned for his noncompliance. IBP's appeal is <strong>dismissed </strong>as moot. <p> <strong>II. He was injured at work when a co worker struck his elbow with a heavy bucket. IBP allowed Rodriguez to call in daily to inform the company whether he was going to work on each particular day. IBP claimed Rodriguez was terminated for violating its no call/no show policy. IBP also argued that Rodriguez was physically unable to perform his regular duty position on the day of his termination. Which was granted by the district court. The case was remanded and set for trial. IBP learned for the first time that Rodriguez was receiving Social Security disability benefits. The only material Rodriguez ever turned over to IBP was a record of payment. <p> IBP subsequently filed a motion <em>in limine</em>. Rodriguez's counsel indicated that his client's Social Security benefits entitlement date was November 1992. It argued there was insufficient evidence to prove Rodriguez was able to return to the whizard knife position on the date of his discharge or anytime after. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5116.html">DEBORAH KATZ PUESCHEL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/986089.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Todish's principal argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment because she presented sufficient facts from which a reasonable fact finder could infer that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-1422.htm">99-1422 -- RICE V. APFEL -- 11/14/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff seeks review of the district court's order upholding the Commissioner's determination to deny him social security disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993027.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ADA's employment provisions specifically limit its protections to those individuals who can establish that they are indeed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/995827.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Burnett maintains her back and knee injuries have rendered her totally unable to work since May 18. A. Medical History Burnett was first seen for her knee injury in January. Burnett was seen by Dr. Mittman concluded Burnett did not have a significant problem with her knee and that she could return to work. He was not authorized to deal with Burnett's back problems. 3 In April 1992. Concluded it was probably a benign bone tumor. He concluded Burnett was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1923p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because: (1) the matter is not ripe for judicial review. (3) plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Basing its holding on the conclusion that plaintiffs' claims were not ripe and. The court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiffs' complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Contending that the district court erred in holding that their claims were not ripe. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. We affirm on the ground that the dispute is not justiciable because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a controversy ripe for resolution by the federal courts. An impairment rating evaluation is performed by a licensed physician chosen by the parties or appointed by the Department of Labor and Industry (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-2126.htm">99-2126 -- MONTOYA V. STATE OF NEW MEXICO -- 02/23/2000<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3133.html">FRANK MARINO V. OPM<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-7028a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief were Charles F.B. A class of former D.C. government employees whose disability compensation benefits have been terminated. District employees who are injured in the performance of their duties are entitled to monetary compensation. The CMPA was amended subsequent to the district court's grant of summary judgment. 3 employee's disability is partial or total. Is further based on a statutory schedule. After an employee is determined to be disabled. Which of course is the governing statutory standard. To a benefits termination decision and also that the District's termination procedures were inadequate in their explanations of termination decisions and beneficiaries' appellate rights. The court went on to observe that the program's formal pre termination procedures were less elaborate than those sanctioned in Mathews. Beneficiaries were given thirty days of continued benefits after receiving an initial termination notice. The district court expressed concern that the District's pretermination procedure was not set forth in any formal general regulation or handbook. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031181.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FairThe court has revised the caption of this appeal in order to protect the identity of the minor student on whose behalf the underlying action was filed. 1 2 AW v. Including its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031223.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that the decision of the Trustees was supported by substantial evidence. McCoy was hit in the head by a falling rock while working and was treated in the emergency room for a sprained neck. He was advised to miss three days of work. A follow up appointment was scheduled. His attending physician completed a report for the workers' compensation commission in which McCoy's diagnosis was listed as cervical muscle spasms. McCoy continued working in the mines until he was laid off in 1994. It appears that McCoy's direct employer was the Clinchfield Coal Company. Attorney's Dictionary of Medicine Word Finder s 42).) 3 Degenerative disc disease is not a medical term of art. It is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6109.htm">98-6109 -- SCHURR V. OKLAHOMA DISABILITY LAW CENTER INC. -- 06/08/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Thomas R. His claims were brought pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act. The issue presented for this appeal is whether the district court properly instructed the jury on the various claims. Whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/01-5307a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031637.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted summary judgment because it found that Rohan was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F2EFC35C3CDFF70882571CA007F9587/$file/0355601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Will Ongman. Which was both the administrator and the funding source of the plan. We have returned to first principles. As we will explain below. This case requires us to consider how a court is to review an ERISA plan administrator's decision when the procedure that produced the decision did not follow all statutory requirements. For the reasons that we will develop. The administrator is not. Only life insurance is at issue in this appeal. The life insurance policy under the plan was originally issued by Home Life Financial Assurance Company. Alta is the successor in interest to Home Life's rights and responsibilities. The insured may request what is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0141n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is no dispute that his last job driving trucks and equipment required some heavy work. Two medical opinions were obtained in connection with that claim. That Spivey did not have pneumoconiosis and that. He retained the ability to perform his previous coal mining work.1 The claim was denied in October 1991. This is the claim before us now. The Department of Labor (DOL) concluded after administrative proceedings that Spivey was entitled to benefits. Which was conducted in July 1999. Benefits were awarded by the ALJ after the hearing and then twice more on successive remands for further findings and reweighing of the evidence following petitioner's Dr. (5) that his disability was due at least in part to his pneumoconiosis.2 The ALJ's third decision awarding benefits. Was affirmed by the BRB on February 26. Only a few of which were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/47E1F6A5C0BEA66288256C94005C979F/$file/0135580.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Beezer *Jo Anne Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor as Commissioner of the Social