Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and her husband filed a products liability suit against Ethicon after she experienced complications from the implantation of a transvaginal mesh medical device. On appeal, Ethicon challenges the denial of its post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not commit reversible error where plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's general verdict for plaintiffs on their design defect, failure to warn, and loss of consortium claims. In this case, the district court did not err by excluding evidence of the FDA's section 510(k) evaluation process; excluding the FDA Advisory Committee evidence; and excluding evidence of the Prolene suture's regulatory history. View "Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. 3-401 et seq.; and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. 3-501 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to Commercial because Commercial did not jointly employ plaintiffs where J.I. and Commercial entered into a traditionally recognized legitimate contractor-subcontractor relationship and did not intend to avoid compliance with the FLSA or Maryland law. The court concluded, however, that the legitimacy of a business relationship between putative joint employers and the putative joint employers’ good faith are not dispositive of whether entities constitute joint employers for purposes of the FLSA. The court held that joint employment exists when (1) two or more persons or entities share, agree to allocate responsibility for, or otherwise codetermine—formally or informally, directly or indirectly—the essential terms and conditions of a worker’s employment and (2) the two entities’ combined influence over the essential terms and conditions of the worker’s employment render the worker an employee as opposed to an independent contractor. Applying this test to this case, the court concluded that Commercial jointly employed plaintiffs for purposes of the FLSA and the analogous Maryland law. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two groups of satellite television technicians, filed suit alleging that defendants, through a web of agreements with various affiliated and unaffiliated service providers, are jointly and severally liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The district court dismissed the pleadings because plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that DIRECTV and DirectSat jointly employed plaintiffs. The court concluded that the district court relied on out-of-circuit authority that the court has since rejected as unduly restrictive in light of the broad reach of the FLSA. The court concluded that, under the appropriate legal standards, plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to make out a plausible claim that defendants jointly employed them as DIRECTV technicians; defendants may be held jointly and severally liable in the event that plaintiffs performed uncompensated overtime work for defendants during plaintiffs’ respective periods of employment; and the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' FLSA and Maryland state-law claims against defendants because they have sufficiently pleaded that DIRECTV jointly employed them as satellite technicians, and that they are owed some amount of unpaid compensation. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of structuring cash transactions to evade reporting requirements and agreed to forfeit significant assets. The court concluded that the district court did not err in calculating defendant's sentencing range by applying a two level enhancement for his leadership role under USSG 3B1.1(c), and a two-level enhancement for his abuse of a position of trust under USSG 3B1.3. The court also concluded that the district court fully informed defendant of the terms of the plea agreement and its provision for waiver of any challenge to his agreement to forfeit assets. In any event, defendant failed to establish that his substantial rights were affected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Agyekum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against HealthPort in state court seeking damages and injunctive relief, asserting several statutory consumer protection claims and common law claims. Specifically, plaintiff challenges HealthPort’s collection of $23 in sales tax on the sale of medical records. HealthPort removed the case to federal court. The court concluded that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, and the related principle of federal-state comity operate to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of dismissal and remanded to the district court with instructions to return the action to state court. View "Gwozdz v. Healthport Technologies, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Belarus, seeks review of the BIA's final order of removal based on petitioner's Virginia involuntary manslaughter offense, which the agency deemed a categorical crime involving moral turpitude. The court explained that an involuntary manslaughter conviction can be secured in Virginia without proving a conscious disregard of risks attendant to the offender’s conduct; such a conviction can be predicated on proof that the offender failed to appreciate or be aware of the risks emanating from his conduct. Therefore, the court concluded that Virginia’s involuntary manslaughter offense is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and vacated, remanding for further proceedings. View "Sotnikau v. Lynch" on Justia Law

B&P appealed the confirmation of four labor arbitration awards. The Union cross-appealed for attorneys' fees. The court affirmed the confirmation of the arbitration award, based in large part upon the limited scope of its review of a labor-arbitration decision pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court explained that, by balancing competing provisions in the CBA and coming to a conclusion, the arbitrator cleared the very low bar needed to insulate the award from a charge that he failed to construe the CBA. In this case, the court found B&P’s arguments on this point amount to an impermissible attack on the correctness of the arbitrator’s decision. The court also concluded that the arbitrator was within his authority to find the grievance timely under the continuing violation doctrine. Furthermore, the district court did not err in confirming the Hours Reduction Award; did not err in confirming the Drivers’ Pay Award, did not err in confirming the Vacation Pay Award; and did not err in confirming the Monies Owed Award. Finally, the court held that the Union waived its claim for attorneys’ fees by not complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees International Union" on Justia Law

Metro Machine and Signal Mutual seek review of the Benefits Review Board's order affirming the ALJ's grant of a claim for medical benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 907. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s order awarding Claimant medical benefits for his work-related COPD. The only error the ALJ committed was in failing to apply the “naturally or unavoidably results” standard to the fracture claim. Because remand for application of that standard would be a futile exercise, given that there was no issue presented regarding avoidability, the court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Board's decision. View "Metro Machine Corp. v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former chairman and CEO of Massey, appealed his conviction for violating federal mine safety laws and regulations. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a tragic mine accident that caused the death of 29 miners. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the superseding indictment; the district court did not reversibly err in denying defendant an opportunity to engage in recross-examination of a Massey employee; the district court properly instructed the jury that it could conclude that defendant “willfully” violated federal mine safety laws if it found that defendant acted or failed to act with reckless disregard as to whether the action or omission would lead to a violation of mine safety laws; the first, second, and third jury instructions reflect the “bad purpose” mens rea discussed in Bryan v. United States because they required that the jury conclude that defendant took actions that he knew would lead to violations of safety laws or failed to take actions that he knew were necessary to comply with federal mine safety laws; and the district court did not reversibly err in providing the two-inference instruction. The court noted that, although it disapproved of the two-inference instruction, the district court's use of that instruction in this case does not amount to reversible error. The court directed the district courts not to use the two-inference instruction going forward. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Blankenship" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenges the denial of her application for social security disability benefits. Before the court is an issue of first impression regarding whether an ALJ's failure to follow the special technique required by 20 C.F.R. 404.1520a when evaluating a claimant’s mental impairment requires remand or may constitute harmless error. The court held that such an error does not automatically require remand, but that the error was not harmless on these facts. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying benefits and remanded with instructions to the ALJ for appropriate review of plaintiff's mental impairment. View "Patterson v. Commissioner of SSA" on Justia Law