Daniel Anthony Manion

The case involves T.S., a minor with autism enrolled in his parent's self-funded employer health plan sponsored by Heart of CarDon, LLC, a healthcare provider that receives Medicare and Medicaid funds. T.S. sued under section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, alleging that the plan's exclusion of coverage for autism treatment constituted disability discrimination. The district court denied CarDon's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that T.S. fell outside the statute's zone of interests because he was not an intended beneficiary of the federal funding received by CarDon. On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that section 1557's text and purpose, incorporating enforcement mechanisms from the Rehabilitation Act, protect plaintiffs like T.S. and that any narrower intended-beneficiary limitation from prior precedent had been abrogated by the Civil Rights Restoration Act's expansion of covered programs and activities.

healthcarecivil rights

The case involved claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the estate of Roger Gonzalez, a pretrial detainee with serious medical conditions including obesity, hepatitis C, renal failure, and heart failure, who was held in McHenry County jail, experienced multiple medical incidents and hospitalizations, and later died in state prison custody. The plaintiff alleged that the jail maintained an unwritten policy of accepting all pretrial detainees regardless of its ability to meet their medical needs and that the sheriffs knew of but ignored these conditions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the county and the current and former sheriffs. The court reasoned that the complaint did not plausibly allege objectively unreasonable conduct in response to the detainee's needs, that sheriffs have no authority to release court-committed detainees on their own initiative, and that there was no personal involvement by the former sheriff or underlying constitutional violation to support Monell liability.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Marvin Thomas, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail who was assaulted by another inmate in 2016 and later sued Sheriff Thomas Dart, Cook County, and various jail personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes, alleging failure to protect him from harm. Years into the litigation, after multiple amendments and discovery, Thomas moved to file a third amended complaint adding two new defendants—the intake clerks who screened him—and new claims that they deliberately altered forms to conceal his reported PTSD, which allegedly contributed to his placement in a unit where he was assaulted. The district court denied the motion to amend, and Thomas appealed, also claiming judicial bias based on adverse rulings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the proposed amendment was futile because the allegations did not plausibly show the clerks knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of assault to Thomas, and that the district court's rulings provided no reasonable basis to infer bias under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Michael Sarno, a federal inmate serving a 25-year sentence for racketeering conspiracy and operating an illegal gambling business moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing severe physical disabilities including osteoarthritis that left him unable to walk or care for himself. The district court assumed his medical condition presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for release but denied the motion after determining that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the seriousness of the offense, respect for the law, criminal history, and danger to the public, weighed strongly against it. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding that the district court properly weighed the factors, addressed the evidence, and that any errors regarding certain government assertions were harmless because they would not have changed the outcome. The court noted that even one valid reason under § 3553(a) suffices to deny relief.

criminal lawprocedure

AFM Mattress Company sued its insurer Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company for a declaratory judgment of coverage under a commercial policy for business income losses, extra expenses, and civil authority losses after government orders closed its stores due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy's Virus Exclusion—which states the insurer will not pay for loss or damage caused by any virus capable of inducing illness—unambiguously applies because the coronavirus directly caused the government orders that led to the losses. The exclusion explicitly extends to all coverage forms, including those for business income, extra expense, and civil authority actions, and the policy defines covered causes of loss to exclude virus-related damage.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Legend’s Creek Homeowners Association and its insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America, over coverage for hail and wind damage to condominium buildings that occurred in May 2016. Legend’s Creek filed suit in July 2018 alleging breach of contract and bad faith after Travelers denied a request to replace all sides of the buildings rather than just the damaged north-facing sides. The district court granted summary judgment to Travelers and invalidated an appraisal award, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the policy’s two-year contractual deadline for bringing any legal action was enforceable under Indiana law, that Legend’s Creek’s suit and motion to compel appraisal fell outside that window, and that no exceptions such as ambiguity, inducement, or equitable tolling applied because the insured could have complied with policy terms within the period and the insurer did not engage in conduct that prevented timely filing.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved childcare centers in Illinois and Michigan that sued their insurer, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, after it denied claims for business income losses and expenses due to COVID-19 pandemic-related closures and reduced operations ordered by state governors. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the insurance policies required "direct physical loss of or damage to" property for coverage under the Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority provisions, which the centers did not plausibly allege. Additionally, the Communicable Disease provision did not apply because the executive orders were general measures not caused by an outbreak at the insured premises, and the Sue and Labor provision imposed duties rather than providing independent coverage.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved Olawole Oluwajana, a Nigerian national and lawful permanent resident, who was ordered removed from the United States after an immigration judge found his Illinois convictions for criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse constituted aggravated felonies under federal immigration law. Oluwajana appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but his attorney faced repeated delays in receiving the immigration file from the government and missed the briefing deadline after one extension was granted and a second denied; the Board rejected the late-filed brief in a footnote and affirmed the removal order without addressing the claims of error. The Seventh Circuit granted Oluwajana's petition for review, vacated the Board's order, and remanded the case, holding that the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the brief under the undisputed facts that the government provided the file only one week before the extended deadline and counsel submitted the brief just 12 days late. The court reasoned that the Board's own rules allow for acceptance of late briefs when circumstances warrant it and that the delay stemmed primarily from the government's tardiness rather than any fault of the petitioner. On remand, the Board must consider the arguments in the brief regarding due process violations and whether the convictions qualify as aggravated felonies.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

William Mikaitis, a licensed doctor, was convicted after a jury trial on multiple counts including conspiracy and distribution of controlled substances for his role at a weight-loss clinic that distributed large quantities of diet pills. The district court issued a deliberate-avoidance jury instruction allowing the jury to find the required knowledge if Mikaitis had deliberately avoided confirming illegal activity at the clinic. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and 30-month sentence, concluding that the evidence supported the instruction because Mikaitis had taken steps that could support an inference of suspicion, such as reviewing only a limited number of patient charts while receiving cash payments and authorizing bulk drug orders.

criminal law

The case involved Melvin Bell's conviction for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for participating in a scheme that fraudulently promised homeowners assistance with mortgage payments and foreclosures through a fictitious trust called Washington National Trust, collecting nearly $260,000 in fees without providing any services. The district court sentenced Bell to 150 months' imprisonment after a jury found him guilty on three counts. On appeal, Bell argued insufficient evidence and constructive amendment of the indictment, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the evidence showed Bell controlled the scheme and could foresee the use of mails, and that he waived his jury instruction challenge by approving them.

criminal law

The case involved Olawole Oluwajana, a lawful permanent resident from Nigeria, who was ordered removed from the United States after being convicted of criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse, which the immigration judge deemed aggravated felonies. Oluwajana appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but his attorney faced delays in obtaining the immigration file from the government, leading to a late-filed brief that the Board rejected in a footnote before upholding the removal order without addressing the appeal's merits. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the brief, given the undisputed facts that the government provided the file late and counsel filed promptly thereafter, and therefore vacated the Board's order and remanded for further proceedings.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

Benjamin Kramer, convicted of drug smuggling and related offenses in the 1980s, received a $60 million forfeiture judgment in the Southern District of Illinois under the Controlled Substances Act. Years later, he sought an accounting of all amounts collected by the government to satisfy that judgment, including property forfeited under a 2003 settlement with third parties tied to his money-laundering activities, and argued that the court should also credit amounts from a separate Florida RICO judgment. The district court granted a limited accounting covering only collections in the Southern District of Illinois. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, ruling that the district court acted within its discretion as an equitable matter by narrowing the scope of the accounting and that Kramer had no valid basis to challenge the 2003 settlement's application to his judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

Two Illinois businesses, a jewelry retailer and a restaurant, sued their insurer after it denied claims for lost income and expenses stemming from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, including state stay-at-home orders that limited operations. The policies contained express exclusions barring coverage for losses caused by any virus capable of inducing illness. The district court dismissed the complaint in full under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the virus exclusions plainly applied to the claimed losses and that the businesses had not identified any contractual obligation or other legal ground requiring the mutual insurer to issue premium rebates.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves Jesse Ballard, who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received multiple sentences for the offense due to successive appeals. The district court imposed a third sentence of 92 months, exceeding the guidelines range of 33 to 41 months, after previously sentencing him to 232 months and then 108 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding it was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court reasoned that Ballard's extensive violent criminal history, ongoing recidivism even into his fifties, and the need for deterrence and public protection justified the upward variance, while his proposed mitigating factors like age and personal circumstances did not outweigh these considerations.

criminal law

Dr. Chad Mathis, an orthopedic surgeon, sued insurance broker Lee Moore and Source Brokerage for negligently procuring a MetLife disability policy that did not provide the occupational coverage he expected, and sued MetLife for breach of contract by failing to pay full benefits after he became disabled in 2017. The district court dismissed the negligent-procurement claims with prejudice and granted summary judgment to MetLife on most of the contract claim, after which the parties settled the remaining narrow portion. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Indiana's choice-of-law rules required application of Alabama law to the negligence claim and that the breach-of-contract claim was ripe because it alleged a completed breach rather than a hypothetical future event. The court rejected the argument that failure to prove the claim elements deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Bryant Love pleaded guilty to multiple drug counts and a felon-in-possession count under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The government sought to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act’s 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior convictions: a 1994 Illinois armed robbery, a 2009 federal crack cocaine distribution, and a 2015 Indiana Class D battery resulting in bodily injury. The district court held that only the first two qualified as ACCA predicates and sentenced Love to 96 months, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, ruling that the battery conviction also qualifies because Indiana law requires force capable of causing bodily injury, making it a violent felony under the ACCA. Both parties agreed the 2009 drug conviction counts, and the court found no error in treating the armed robbery as a predicate. The case was remanded for resentencing under the ACCA.

criminal lawguns

In United States v. Jeremy Schenck, the defendant was charged with producing child pornography after police searched his home and found explicit images of his young child. Schenck moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish probable cause because it lacked details on how the affiant knew certain facts and did not sufficiently show that the images depicted a child or were sexually explicit. The district court denied the motion, Schenck pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial. The court reasoned that when read as a whole and with common sense, the affidavit provided a substantial basis for the issuing judge to find a reasonable probability that evidence of child pornography would be found. The appeals court applied a deferential standard to the warrant and upheld the finding of probable cause under both state and federal definitions of sexually explicit conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

Jeremy Schenck was charged with producing child pornography after police seized his devices pursuant to a search warrant and found explicit images of his young child. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish probable cause because it did not adequately identify the sources of key information or show that the images depicted a child or were sexually explicit. The district court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation that the affidavit, read as a whole with common sense, showed a reasonable probability that evidence of child pornography would be found. Schenck pleaded guilty to one count while reserving his right to appeal, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression, emphasizing deference to the issuing judge and the sufficiency of the affidavit's details from multiple witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jacob Wessel, who faced a federal charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm after an alleged confrontation with police officers in 2016. Due to Wessel's documented history of mental health issues, the defense made multiple requests for competency evaluations, resulting in three separate hearings before the district court. The court found Wessel competent to stand trial based on expert reports indicating he could understand the proceedings and assist in his defense, despite some delusional symptoms; he was convicted by a jury after an outburst led to his removal from the courtroom and received a 100-month sentence. On appeal, Wessel challenged the competency finding, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the district judge made no clear error in weighing the evaluations and evidence of malingering.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an insurance company's federal lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify a horse farm and its employee in a state-court negligence suit, where the plaintiff was injured by a golf cart driven off the insured premises during an event. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the policy's language on supplemental coverage for motorized vehicles used to service the insured premises was ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer, creating a duty to defend. The court dismissed the duty-to-indemnify claim without prejudice as premature under Illinois law, since it would require adjudicating facts from the underlying tort action.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability