David C. Norton

This case involves an appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability insurance benefits, where the plaintiff alleged disability onset in March 2005 but the ALJ determined it began only in September 2007. The magistrate judge reviewed the record and found that the ALJ's decision to deny benefits for the earlier period was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly in the evaluation of medical opinions and the plaintiff's impairments. The district court adopted the recommendation after de novo review, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for additional consideration. The core reasoning centered on the need for further administrative proceedings to properly assess the evidence.

federal powerprocedure

In United States v. Kang, the defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and securities fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371, along with related money laundering counts, based on alleged accounting manipulations at Medical Manager Corporation to inflate stock prices and facilitate acquisitions, culminating in a 2000 merger with WebMD. After a jury convicted the remaining defendants, the court considered their Rule 29 motion and supplemental briefing on timeliness. The court granted acquittal on the fraud conspiracy count, holding that the statute of limitations had expired because the conspiracy's objectives were achieved with the September 2000 merger and the post-merger overt acts (such as 2003 interviews concealing information) could not properly be viewed as in furtherance of the conspiracy under Grunewald v. United States. The court reasoned that acts of concealment after the main goals are attained do not extend the conspiracy's duration, and post-merger salary or enrichment alone does not demonstrate ongoing concerted activity posing the dangers of conspiracy.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act, which the Commissioner denied after an administrative law judge found her not disabled based on conditions including back pain, arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, hypertension, and sleep apnea. The plaintiff sought judicial review, and a magistrate judge recommended reversing the denial. The district court adopted that recommendation, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The court determined that the administrative decision failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence and applicable regulatory listings in accordance with the Act.

federal powerhealthcare

The case concerned whether defendant Henry Terrill Johnson’s two prior South Carolina convictions for failure to stop for a blue light qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which would trigger a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence for his federal felon-in-possession conviction. The court held that the convictions did not constitute violent felonies under the ACCA’s residual clause even though the indictments alleged intentional conduct. Applying the categorical approach required by Supreme Court precedent such as Begay v. United States, the court reasoned that the statute encompasses conduct that is neither inherently violent nor aggressive, can be committed without serious risk of physical injury, and includes a mitigating-circumstances exception not found in traditional violent felonies.

criminal lawgunsfederal power

This case involves a limitation of liability action filed in U.S. federal court by the owners and charterer of a container vessel after it collided with a Dutch-owned dredge in Chinese territorial waters near Tianjin, resulting in a claim for approximately $826 million in damages. The petitioners sought exoneration or limitation under maritime law while also moving to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, and the claimants moved to transfer venue and lift the restraining order. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that China provides an available and adequate alternative forum with significantly stronger connections to the dispute, including the location of the collision, the investigation by Chinese authorities, ongoing proceedings in the Tianjin Admiralty Court, and the lack of any U.S. ties involving the vessels, crews, or events. The court reasoned that private interest factors, such as access to evidence and witnesses, and public interest factors, such as China's greater interest in resolving the matter, strongly favored dismissal over retaining the case in the United States. Claimants' remaining motions were denied as moot.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Jelani Aiken, a South Carolina resident, who sued Waffle House, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) and its employee Maurice Kemp (also a South Carolina resident) in state court for assault, battery, and negligence arising from an alleged knife attack at a Waffle House restaurant, seeking liability against the company under respondeat superior. After neither defendant responded, the state court entered default and a damages judgment solely against Waffle House, dismissing all claims against Kemp. Waffle House removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, and Aiken moved to remand, arguing lack of diversity jurisdiction. The court denied the remand motion, reasoning that the dismissal of the non-diverse defendant was voluntary, allowing diversity to be assessed at the time of removal when complete diversity existed between Aiken and Waffle House.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved environmental advocacy groups challenging the South Carolina Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration over their compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) during planning for a proposed roadway connector between Lone Star and Rimini, South Carolina, which included a bridge through a swamp habitat. The plaintiffs alleged that the agencies' draft and final environmental impact statements were deficient in defining the project's purpose, evaluating alternatives, and assessing environmental effects. The court addressed the state defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), focusing on sovereign immunity issues. It granted the motion to dismiss the South Carolina Department of Transportation as a state agency protected by the Eleventh Amendment but denied dismissal of claims against the agency's acting executive director, allowing the suit to proceed for prospective injunctive relief under federal law.

environmentprocedure

The case was a declaratory judgment action by Progressive Specialty Insurance to determine its liability for injuries to passenger Perry Capers in an accident involving an insured pickup truck. The owner had loaned the truck to Murray with oral restrictions limiting use to work-related activities without passengers, but Murray used it personally, lent it to a third party, and allowed Capers to ride as a passenger, resulting in a crash. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer and denied Capers's motion, holding that Murray exceeded the scope of permissive use under South Carolina law and that uninsured motorist coverage did not extend to Capers as a guest of a non-permissive user.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves a Florida corporation that purchased a defective brush-clearing machine from Canadian defendants and sued in South Carolina federal court for fraud, breach of contract, and other claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court also considered the applicability of South Carolina's door-closing statute, which restricts foreign corporations from suing in state courts under certain conditions. The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice, reasoning that determining personal jurisdiction requires further analysis of minimum contacts and potential agency or alter ego relationships, while the door-closing statute's application depends on unresolved factual issues about the contract and the subject of the action that necessitate discovery.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a former phlebotomist suing her employer after termination, claiming that the employee handbook, phlebotomy performance policy, and compliance manual created binding contracts requiring progressive discipline and prohibiting retaliation for internal reports of misconduct, and that her firing violated public policy. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the handbook included a conspicuous at-will disclaimer preventing any contractual alteration of employment status, the policies lacked mandatory language or exclusivity on termination, and internal reporting of misconduct did not qualify for a public policy exception to at-will employment.

labor & employment

In Martin v. Stewart, plaintiffs who manufacture and operate video amusement machines in South Carolina brought constitutional claims against state officials, alleging that the Video Game Machines Act (S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-21-2710-2712) is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process, and denies equal protection by subjecting their businesses to arbitrary enforcement and potential machine seizures or criminal penalties. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal court should abstain from hearing the case. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims, applying Burford abstention because the federal issues were deeply intertwined with complex state regulatory policy questions regarding video gaming machines, and federal intervention would disrupt South Carolina's established system of state-law interpretation and enforcement by law enforcement, magistrates, and other officials.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a former CIGNA employee who sued the company's severance pay plan under ERISA after his position was eliminated and he was offered alternative roles he accepted before later resigning voluntarily; the plan denied benefits on the grounds that the new positions were suitable and he had resigned. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiff lacked standing as a plan participant under ERISA because he was ineligible for benefits and had no colorable claim to vested benefits, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Colleton Preparatory Academy suing Hoover Universal over deteriorated fire retardant treated wood used in its building's roof trusses, claiming negligence and a violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA). After default judgment against the defendant and an award of damages, the district court addressed reconsideration motions concerning the economic loss rule's bar on the negligence claim and whether SCUTPA requires privity. The court certified two questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court: whether Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber and related cases permit a tort claim here based on breach of industry standards or risk of harm, and whether Reynolds v. Ryland Group imposes a privity requirement for all SCUTPA claims or only in specific contexts.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a products liability action in which plaintiff Jonathan Disher alleged that a Titanium Humeral Nail manufactured by defendant Synthes fractured after being implanted in his arm following an automobile accident, claiming strict liability based on a design defect. The plaintiff had withdrawn other claims including breach of warranties and fraud. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of a product defect and failed to establish proximate causation, as he offered no expert medical testimony meeting South Carolina's "most probably" standard, while all treating physicians and experts attributed the fracture to the plaintiff's nonunion and obesity rather than any defect in the temporary fixation device.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Phillips v. Whirlpool Corp., the plaintiff filed a class action in South Carolina state court against Whirlpool and Sears alleging breach of express and implied warranties plus violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking damages capped at $74,999 per class member plus treble damages and attorneys' fees. Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but plaintiff moved to remand arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 threshold. The court granted remand, holding that the plaintiff's explicit pleading below the limit controlled, that attorneys' fees under the state statute must be allocated pro rata among class members, and that even after trebling the individual claims still fell short of the jurisdictional amount.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In Brown v. Berkeley County School District, plaintiff Martha Brown, a longtime secretary in the school district, sued under Title VII and the ADEA alleging wrongful failure to hire, retaliation for complaining about age or race discrimination, and promissory estoppel after she was encouraged to retire under a program that allowed continued work but was later not hired for open positions. The district court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff conceded her direct discrimination claims, and the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the remaining retaliation and estoppel claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact because the alleged protected activities occurred before the administrative charge was filed and did not support a retaliation claim. The decision rested on the requirement that a plaintiff must produce evidence beyond speculation to survive summary judgment and that any inconsistencies in the record did not create triable issues.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Maria Talamantes, a custodian at a Berkeley County school, suing the school district and supervisors under Title VII for a sexually hostile work environment based on several incidents of alleged misconduct by her supervisor and for retaliation after she filed a complaint. She also asserted a state-law claim for outrage. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Title VII claims, finding insufficient evidence that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment and that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action, such as changes to pay, benefits, or discipline, after her complaint. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law outrage claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a pediatric orthopedic surgeon who suffered a brain injury in 1999 and sought long-term disability benefits under a group policy issued to her employer by Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (a subsidiary of UNUMProvident). After initial payments, disputes arose over claim handling, delays, partial disability benefits, and an alleged overpayment demand, leading to claims for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and violations of state insurance statutes. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the statutory claims, fraud claim, claims against UNUMProvident and UNUM Life as improper parties, and any recovery of future policy benefits as consequential damages. It denied summary judgment on the breach of contract and bad faith claims, as well as on consequential damages, interest, attorney's fees, and punitive damages, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the insurer's conduct and state of mind. The reasoning relied on federal summary judgment standards, the terms of the insurance contract, South Carolina law limiting certain damages in admitted-liability bad faith cases, and evidence of possible corporate practices supporting a jury question on punitive damages.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liability

The case involved African-American plaintiffs who alleged they were denied service at a Waffle House restaurant in Walterboro, South Carolina, after one of them overheard a racial slur from employees, leading to federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 2000a as well as related state law claims for racial discrimination. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment by first outlining the legal standards, requiring no genuine issue of material fact and viewing evidence favorably to the non-moving party. It reviewed the factual allegations, including the reported comment, the group's departure, and the company's subsequent investigation and offer of coupons. The core reasoning focused on the scope of § 1981 in public accommodations, noting it can cover subtle discouragement or insults beyond outright refusal, and referenced precedents denying summary judgment in analogous restaurant discrimination cases.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit by Eva Dawson, as personal representative of her father's estate, alleging that medical staff at a Veterans Affairs hospital negligently performed surgery on her incompetent father without her consent as his court-appointed guardian, leading to complications and his death. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that Dawson's administrative claim was improperly filed and that she was no longer the proper party after being discharged as personal representative and closing the estate. The court denied the motion, holding that the administrative claim met the minimal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and that jurisdiction was proper over the action.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcarefederal power