Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued defendants, employees of the State of Washington's State Operated Living Alternative (SOLA) program, on behalf of herself and her daughter's estate under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants deprived her daughter of her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to safe physical conditions while in involuntary state custody. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court held that defendants had no constitutionally required duty of care towards plaintiff's daughter because there was no special relationship between her daughter and the state and there was no state-created danger. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401-34. Plaintiff claimed he was disabled by thoracic spine and lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, a muscle disorder, a pain disorder with agoraphobia, and a personality disorder. The court held that because plaintiff's physician's psychiatric evaluation and medical source statement were not considered by the Appeals Council or the ALJ, the court remanded to the ALJ for further consideration. The court also noted that the ALJ's previous five-step sequential analysis also contained several errors.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision affirming the Social Security Administration's (SSA) denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that because the SSA took nearly two years to investigate whether to reopen a favorable determination on one of plaintiff's applications, much longer than the presumptive time of six months, and because the record did not show that the investigation was diligently pursued, the court reversed.

Plaintiff, a minor with dyslexia, by and through her mother and Guardian Ad Litem, appealed from the district court's order affirming the Administrative Hearing Officer's conclusion that the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) properly found plaintiff ineligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court held that the DOE procedurally violated the IDEA by applying regulations that required exclusive reliance on the "severe discrepancy model" at plaintiff's final eligibility meeting. This violation deprived plaintiff of a significant educational opportunity because it resulted in an erroneous eligibility determination. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order affirming the Hearing Officer's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs, a class of economically vulnerable Arizonians who receive public health care benefits through the state's Medicaid agency, sued the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the Director of Arizona's medicaid agency (director)(collectively, defendants), alleging that the heightened mandatory co-payments violated Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396a, cost sharing restrictions, that the waiver exceeded the Secretary's authority, and that the notices they received about the change in their health coverage was statutorily and constitutionally inadequate. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Medicaid cost sharing restrictions did not apply to plaintiffs and that Arizona's cost sharing did not violate the human participants statute. The court reversed the district court insofar as it determined that the Secretary's approval of Arizona's cost sharing satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 1315. The court remanded this claim with directions to vacate the Secretary's decision and remanded to the Secretary for further consideration. Finally, the court remanded plaintiffs' notice claims for further consideration in light of intervening events.

The court agreed to rehear this case en banc to clarify under what circumstances the exhaustion requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(l), barred non-IDEA federal or state law claims. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her son, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff did not initially seek relief in a due process hearing and therefore, failed to comply with one of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement of the IDEA. The court held that the IDEA's exhaustion requirement was not jurisdictional and that plaintiff's non-IDEA federal and state-law claims were not subject to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment.

The parents of E.M., a bilingual student, brought an action to challenge the Pajaro Valley Unified School District's (District) determination that E.M. did not qualify for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The Special Education Division of the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the District's assessment and the district court affirmed the OAH's decision. The court disagreed with the district court's assessment only to the extent that it found one claim not addressed and one report not measured for its relevance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in part and reversed in part. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether the report was relevant to the determination of whether the district met its obligations to E.M. under the IDEA and whether an auditory processing disorder could qualify as an other health impairment, and if so, whether the district met its obligations to assess E.M. and identify him as a child with an other health impairment.

Plaintiff, the mother of a developmentally disabled high school student, alleged that the several sexual encounters her daughter had with another developmentally disabled student in a school bathroom were the result of the school's failure to properly supervise her daughter. At issue was whether plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her daughter, had a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the daughter's special education teacher. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights claim at summary judgment where the special-relationship exception and the state-created danger exception did not apply in this case. The court held that whatever liability the special education teacher faced, that liability must come from state tort law, not the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Plaintiffs, married couples who worked as house parents to children who were "severely emotionally disturbed" in defendants' homes, sued defendants for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. 203(r)(2)(A). The children attended local public schools and participated in other activities away from the homes. Although, the children participated in group therapy conducted by clinicians in the homes, they received most of their medical and psychological treatment outside the homes. Plaintiffs were not licensed medical or social service professionals. Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's conclusion that defendants' homes were covered by the FLSA and were subject to its overtime provisions. The court held that defendants' homes were not covered by the FLSA because they were not an "institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, mentally ill or defective who resided on the premises of such institution." Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellant, a medicare provider, appealed its notice of program reimbursement for the fiscal year ending in 2001 to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ("Board"), which dismissed the appeal because appellant missed its deadline to file a preliminary position paper. After the Board denied appellant's motion for reinstatement of its appeal, appellant filed the current action and subsequently appealed from the district court's order granting summary judgment for appellee. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the Board's Instructions requiring dismissal of claims due to failure to timely submit preliminary position papers did not violate the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395, and the Board's dismissal of appellant's claim was neither arbitrary or capricious.