This case involved a FOIA lawsuit by plaintiffs Susan B. Long and David Burnham against the DOJ seeking records from the Civil Division's CASES database, including fields for vaccine type and date of administration in vaccine-related litigation matters. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on those fields and ordered their release under FOIA Exemption 6. On the DOJ's motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b), the court granted the motion after determining that its prior ruling relied on the inapplicable statute 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-25 instead of the relevant provision in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(A), which restricts disclosure of certain information submitted in Vaccine Injury Compensation Program proceedings. The court found this constituted a legal error warranting reconsideration of whether the information could be withheld under FOIA Exemptions 3 or 6 based on privacy interests and statutory prohibitions.
In Saxon v. Astrue, plaintiff Shanna Saxon sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming inability to work due to mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia. The ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation process and concluded the plaintiff was not disabled from July 13, 2005 onward, declining to reopen prior applications. The district court found that the ALJ failed to properly weigh treating physician opinions under the relevant regulations, did not adequately assess whether the plaintiff's impairments met listed criteria, and did not correctly determine her residual functional capacity, which undermined the analysis at steps four and five. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings.
The case concerns a mother's application for supplemental security income benefits on behalf of her nine-year-old daughter, who was claimed to be disabled due to a learning disorder and speech/language delays. After the ALJ denied the application at the third step of the three-part child disability evaluation, finding no marked limitations in the six functional domains, and the Appeals Council declined review, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court determined that the Appeals Council erred by failing to consider new evidence submitted after the ALJ decision and that the ALJ's findings regarding the child's limitations in acquiring and using information and attending and completing tasks were not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed the Commissioner's determination and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
In Campbell v. Astrue, plaintiff Bruce Campbell sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, which he claimed due to multiple impairments including a low back condition, obesity, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and illiteracy. The district court reviewed the case following a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, with no objections filed by the parties. The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and remanded the Commissioner's decision for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The underlying analysis applied the five-step sequential evaluation process for disability claims, examined whether the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards, and identified deficiencies such as inadequate consideration of the plaintiff's mental impairments and literacy level when applying the Medical-Vocational Rules.
The case involves a former graduate student at SUNY Binghamton's Biology Department who sued professors, students, and administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his dismissal from the program and loss of funding stemmed from his criticism of a professor's research, among other claims. After earlier dismissals, only two claims remained, which the court addressed on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice, reasoning that the plaintiff's speech did not address a matter of public concern as required for First Amendment protection in this employment/educational context and that no evidence supported a causal link to any adverse actions. The opinion details the program's academic requirements and the plaintiff's disputes over support eligibility but focuses on the lack of protected speech and evidentiary deficiencies.
Plaintiffs Susan B. Long and David Burnham, operators of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, sued the Department of Justice under FOIA to obtain electronic records from the Civil Division’s CASES database covering filed civil cases since fiscal year 2000, plus descriptive information such as table schemas, code definitions, scope of coverage, and data manuals. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the adequacy of its search, the withholding of JCON IDs and attorney time reporting information under applicable FOIA exemptions, and the absence of markings indicating redactions for sealed cases, finding the agency’s declarations sufficient to show technical infeasibility and exemption applicability. It granted the plaintiffs’ cross-motion in part, ordering release of fields concerning vaccine type and date of administration. Remaining issues were denied without prejudice and referred for supplemental declarations and further proceedings.