Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Taxpayers, who incurred tax liability as a result of a failed business, had transferred real estate to a trust for the benefit of family members. The IRS determined that, with accrued interest, their indebtedness exceeds $400,000 and, in 2004, gave notice of intent to levy, 26 U.S.C. 6330(a). The taxpayers did not dispute the amount, but requested a pre-attachment CDP hearing and offered to settle their debt for $10,000. They denied that they had any ownership interest in the property and asserted that, with their assets and income, they could never come close to satisfying their total tax liability. After gathering information and hearing arguments, the IRS rejected the offer in compromise, finding that the taxpayers were the real owners. The Tax Court reviewed the determination de novo, found that the taxpayers were not the owners of the real estate, directed the IRS to accept the offer in compromise, and ordered the IRS to pay attorneys' fees. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Tax Court employed an improper standard of review with respect to the IRS's subsidiary determinations. Under a more deferential standard, consistent with the nature and purpose of the CDP process, the IRS acted reasonably. View "Dalton v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv." on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for the Puerto Rico Ports Authority. In 2006, Bonilla, PRPA's executive director, named the plaintiff to a trust position within the PRPA. At the time, the Popular Democratic Party held power in Puerto Rico. In 2008, plaintiff voluntarily resigned this post in order to accept a career position at the Marín International Airport in Carolina. Within months, he transferred to another career position as a security supervisor at Aguadilla airport. The PDP lost the general election in 2008, and its rival, the New Progressive Party, assumed office. In early 2009, plaintiff began experiencing workplace harassment, including banishment from the Aguadilla airport, transfer to the Mercedita airport in Ponce (far from his home), removal of his sidearm, a series of negative performance evaluations, and threats of suspension and termination. No legitimate reason supported any of these actions. The district court dismissed his claim of political discrimination. The First Circuit reversed. View "Grajales v. PR Ports Auth.l" on Justia Law

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7, denies federal economic and other benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts and to surviving spouses from those couples, by defining "marriage" as "only a legal union between one man and one woman." "Spouse" refers "only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." DOMA absolves states from recognizing same-sex marriages solemnized in other states; prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, affecting tax burdens; prevents a surviving same-sex spouse from collecting Social Security survivor benefits; leaves federal employees unable to share health insurance and other benefits with same-sex spouses. DOMA may result in loss of federal funding of programs such as Medicaid and veterans cemeteries if states recognize same-sex marriages in determining income or allowing burials. The district court declared Section 3 unconstitutional. The First Circuit affirmed, but stayed injunctive relief, anticipating certiorari review. The court applied "a closer than usual review" based on discrepant impact among married couples and on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage and tested the rationales for DOMA, considering Supreme Court precedent limiting which rationales can be counted and the force of certain rationales. View "Commonwealth v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51, against two railroad defendants, a former employee, alleged cumulative, or wear-out, injuries to the neck, knees, left elbow and thumb, and accidental injury to the left forearm while driving a spike. The district court entered judgment for defendants. The First Circuit affirmed. The aggravation claims were untimely, and no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that plaintiff became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury only after mid-September of 2004. The court rejected claims based in negligence, alleging inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform plaintiff’s jobs and upheld admission of evidence of malingering. View "Crowther v. CSX Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

A doctor filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, against Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital and doctors, claiming violation of the Act by including false statements in a grant application, concerning neurodegenerative illness associated with aging, submitted to the National Institute on Aging in the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and that defendants, knowing of the falsity, failed to take corrective action. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The First Circuit vacated. The district court abused its discretion by excluding or failing to consider certain expert testimony and erred by failing to consider statements of the parties and experts as required by the summary judgment standard. The dispute was not about which scientific protocol produces results that fall within an acceptable range of "accuracy" or whether re-measurements, the basis for preliminary scientific conclusions, were "accurate" insofar as they fall within a range of results accepted by qualified experts, but whether there was intentional falsification. View "Jones v. Brigham & Women's Hospital" on Justia Law

Former Massachusetts state senator Wilkerson, pleaded guilty to attempted extortion (18 U.S.C. 1951) based on her acceptance of money in exchange for favorable influence in her official capacity on issuance of a liquor license and sale and development of publicly-owned land. The district court received a lengthy presentence report, conducted a thorough hearing, and stated reasons for imposing a sentence of 42 months, near the middle of the guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed. The court’s statement that "tax violation by a public official is not a personal matter" is most plausibly interpreted as a segue to make a "larger point" about the public implications of an over-engaged official's failure to attend to her own legal responsibilities. Its statement that Wilkerson "was simply inattentive and inattentive in a way that permitted her to have access to money that she should not have had" was fair comment on the implications of non-compliance with campaign-finance requirements. Its statement that Wilkerson's engagement as a college "consultant" was one of "a series of very embarrassing things" she did in response to her financial troubles was specific to the circumstances of the arrangement. The district court's skeptical appraisal of the arrangement was reasonable. View "United States v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

More than 7,000 named plaintiffs brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680, asserting injuries because of the U.S. Navy's alleged negligence in emitting pollutants during military exercises (which ended in 2003) at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. The district court dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed. The limited abrogation of sovereign immunity in the FTCA does not extend to these claims because of the discretionary function exception, which precludes FTCA actions against government conduct which is both within the discretion of the relevant government party and susceptible to policy-related judgments. The court rejected arguments that the Navy acted beyond its discretion because it allegedly violated mandatory directives concerning water pollution issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1389; violated a pair of permits that purportedly forbid firing depleted uranium bullets on Vieques; violated unidentified internal regulations, policies, directives, and orders; and failed to comply with a purported duty to warn.

The Massachusetts Delivery Association claimed that a state law is preempted as to motor carriers under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 1569, which expressly preempts state attempts to regulate "a price, route, or service of any motor carrier," The challenged state law, part of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, sect. 148B(a)(2), which requires that an individual performing a service for another be classified as an employee unless "the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer." The MDA also claimed that the state statute imposes an undue burden which violates the Commerce Clause. The district court found that Younger abstention was appropriate because, while the Association is not itself a party to relevant state litigation, three of its members are defendants in state civil proceedings brought not by the Attorney General (defendant in this case) but by private parties. The First Circuit remanded for the court to exercise jurisdiction, concluding that any decision will not interfere with pending state cases.

In the early 1980s, two women were murdered, apparently for domestic reasons. Their bodies were found in 2000 and Flemmi, a member of a Boston gang, confessed. The families filed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2401(b), 2671, 2675, alleging that the government was negligent in using and protecting Flemmi and his criminal associate, Bulger, as informants. The court awarded damages and sanctions against the government for misconduct. The First Circuit affirmed the finding of liability and award of damages, upholding a finding of causation under the Massachusetts' Wrongful Death Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, sect. 2. The court remanded with respect to sanctions.

In the 1970s, the decedent worked as a bookmaker in Boston and was involved with Bulger's Winter Hill gang. In 1979, decedent was charged with murder. While out on bail, he offered to cooperate with police in the investigation of an drug conspiracy involving Bulger. His attorney met with Boston Police and FBI agent Connolly to discuss this offer. Unbeknownst to decedent and his attorney, Bulger was a top echelon FBI informant and Connolly was his primary handler. Connolly and others were protecting Bulger from prosecution so that he could continue supplying information. Roughly three weeks later, decedent was murdered. Several years later, after a series of investigations disclosed leaks to Bulger, his estate filed a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2401(b), 2671, 2675. The court awarded $1.15 million. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the administrative claim was filed after the statute of limitations had run and that there was insufficient admissible proof that the leak occurred and that Bulger killed decedent; and that the estate failed to meet its burden for liability based on conscious pain and suffering. Whatever they suspected, the family did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claim until 1999.