Author Archive for Jen Petersen – Page 3

Lawsuit Claims Arizona Denies Medicaid Benefits to Eligible Immigrants

A recently filed lawsuit alleges that the State of Arizona denies Medicaid benefits to immigrants that are eligible for the Medicaid benefits that Arizona denies them. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of eligible immigrants who claim that they suffered denial of full Medicaid benefits, alleges that eligible immigrants also received a downgraded status.

In 2012, the office of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer reacted to a federal ruling that determined “Arizona must deny ‘dreamers’ Medicaid.” AzCentral reported that the ruling addressed “Illegal immigrants who receive temporary reprieves from deportation.” The ruling did not seek to deny Medicaid to legal immigrants who met requirements for Medicaid benefits.

Dulce Matuz, who came to the U.S. as a teen said at the time, “What Governor Brewer is trying to do is attack defenseless young children and youth just to gain some political points.”

The most recent action taken by Arizona resulted in the lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed by the William E. Morris Institute for Justice and the National Health Law Program alleges that thousands of eligible immigrants lost their eligibility and received downgraded status making them eligible for emergency-only Medicaid benefits. The suit also claims that the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) admitted to errors discovered in October 2015, yet downgraded immigrants again, denying eligible immigrants the same full Medicaid benefits that other eligible recipients receive. The lawsuit also claims that Centers-for-Medicare-Medicaid-Services-quotethe immigrants did not receive proper notification regarding why the AHCCCS denied their renewal of Medicaid benefits.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services states, “Immigrants who are ‘qualified non-citizens’ are generally eligible for coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), if they meet their state’s income and residency rules.” However, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also explains, “Refugees, asylees, or LPRs who used to be refugees or asylees don’t have to wait 5 years.”

The Albuquerque Journal published information from the Associated Press, which states that the deputy director of the AHCCS said she could not comment on the pending litigation.

The primary plaintiffs of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, are Aita Darjee, originally from Nepal and Alma Sanchez Haro. The lawsuit seeks class-action status.

 

 

 

 

 

Cosby Drops Breach Of Contract Lawsuit Against Accuser

Longtime comedian and actor, Bill Cosby has dropped the lawsuit filed back in February of this year against Andrea Constand.  The lawsuit stated that Andrea Constand breached the terms of an agreement made back in 2006. Constand and her lawyer Dolores Troiani willingly cooperated with the Montgomery County district attorney’s criminal investigation into sexual assault allegation against Cosby in 2004.  The agreement “expressly prohibited such cooperation, according to Cosby’s lawsuit.” He denies all charges.

The lawsuit was pursued to recover the money he gave in a confidential financial agreement to Constand. The dismissal was filled July 28th   in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Cosby’s lawyer said in a statement that he has “stepped away from that suit and will instead focus his efforts on defending himself against the claims that have been lodged against him.”

Cosby also included Constand’s second lawyer, Bebe H. Kivitz and Constand’s mother in the lawsuit.  He claimed that they also broke that confidentiality agreement.  A ruling made this month said that Cosby could not sue them based on the charges that they had cooperated with law enforcement in connection with Constand’s criminal accusations against him.

Cosby faces a trial with three counts of felony aggravated indecent assault from the 2004 case concerning Constand, who is an employee at Temple University, Cosby’s Alma mater. Troiani said “The dismissal of the lawsuit was a win for Constand and her mother, Gianna Constand and it is a victory for all of the victims.”

Additionally, Cosby’s lawsuit also involved American Media Inc. (owner of the National Enquirer) The comedian claimed American Media Inc. continued to publish several stories about Constand’s claims regarding Cosby, even though there were clear requirements in the agreement to not publish any stories relating to certain allegations made.

Cosby also claimed of another violation when Constand gave an interview to the National Enquirer. Vice president and chief content officer at American Media Inc., Dylan Howard, said “We were always confident that AMI had not breached any agreement with Mr. Cosby, and we are pleased that he has decided not to pursue the litigation further.”

Costand’s claims are the first to result in charges being filed, out of over 50 women who have accused Cosby of sexual misconduct.

The New York MTA Will Sue City for East Harlem Fire That Wreaked Havoc for Metro-North Commuters

A neighborhood plant nursery, a place to pick up soil for windowsill herb gardens or some potted plants to give as a housewarming gift, hardly seems the sort of place likely to house the materials capable of creating an explosive situation, but on May 17, the Urban Garden Center in East Harlem turned out to be combustible. Workers mistakenly poured gasoline onto a generator, causing the lot, which the garden center used to store materials that included flammable fertilizer and wood pallets, to be quickly engulfed in flames. The four alarm fire occurred directly underneath Metro-North train tracks, severely disrupting service to three lines: the Hudson, Harlem and New Haven, all of which run out of Grand Central Station to points north.

MTA-fire-lawsuit-NY-quoteWhile no one was injured, the fire left between 30,000-40,000 commuters stranded in Grand Central on that Tuesday evening, as the MTA worked through the night to try and make enough repairs to allow for limited service for the morning commute on the following Wednesday. In the end, serious structural damage led to major delays and disruptions for a few days for the tens of thousands of people who use those lines during each weekday commute. Now, the MTA has warned that they will file a lawsuit against the city of New York.

Last Wednesday they filed a notice of claim, stating that the fire was due to the city’s “carelessness, negligence and recklessness” in allowing the storage of flammable and explosive substances underneath the elevated railroad tracks. Soon after the accident, Urban Garden Center, was served with four summonses for its storage of gas and propane and an illegal generator. They have since renegotiated their lease and remain open on the same land, which is owned by the Economic Development Corporation of the city, which has also been specifically named in the suit. While the MTA has not commented on the exact amount of damages it will seek in its suit, it has said that it is looking to recoup the lost income from the period of time when the trains were not running, or running at diminished capacity, as well as the cost of repairs to the tracks from the fire.

Both David Mayer, the MTA’s chief safety officer, and a spokesman for the mayor’s office have both stated that in the wake of the fire, an office has been set up to monitor and regulate safety measures regarding the property underneath the train tracks.

UNC School Of The Arts To Allow Graduate Student To Return After Legal Settlement

The idea of giving special treatment to people with disabilities is somewhat controversial. The UNC School of the Arts has had to deal with this issue over the past two years while dealing with a lawsuit from Erin Dickinson, a former graduate student.

Dickinson, a Pennsylvania native, believes that the institution has discriminated against her due to her medical conditions. She suffers from poly-cystic ovary syndrome and migraine headaches, both of which conditions caused her a great deal of debilitating suffering while she attended the school and led to her missing classes. She alleged that the instructors and administration of the school discriminated against her by penalizing her for those absences. In her 26-page complaint, she said that the school played a role in a sequence of actions that led to her expulsion in 2011. The lawsuit was initially filed in the Forsyth Superior Court, but it was moved to the US District Court, as Dickinson claimed that the institution had violated her rights according to the federal American with Disabilities and Rehabilitation acts.

Dickinson had requested that a federal court order that the school clear her academic record and award her a master’s degree or set fair terms for her to complete one at this point.

UNC-teacher-Colavecchia-quoteOne of the defendants, Franco Colavecchia, is a now-retired set design teacher who gave Dickinson an incomplete grade in the spring of 2009. The registrar’s office changed his grade to an F in 2010 because she had not completed the requirements for that course within the academic year. The university has agreed now not to calculate this grade as a part of her GPA. Colavecchia does not agree with the outcome of this lawsuit and believes that the school is not abiding by its own rules. He stated during a telephone interview, “She failed — end of story.”

Dickinson can be readmitted to the school this fall to finish her master’s degree in fine arts and will not be required to live in Winston-Salem while pursuing this degree. The school has also agreed to give her $5,000 in scholarship funds for her thesis and to pay $35,000 of her attorney fees. However, other monetary damages are not included in this settlement.

Dickinson agreed on the settlement on June 24, which was 17 days before the trial was supposed to start in US District Court.

Texas Bends to Pressure from Immigrants to Grant Birth Certificates

Though many people take for granted that anyone born on United States soil is legally entitled to a birth certificate, this is not always the case. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the country, but Texas has made it very difficult for undocumented immigrants to obtain birth certificates for their children born in the US.

In 2015, a large number of Mexican and Central American individuals sued the state of Texas for denying their children birth certificates. Texas officials responded by agreeing to make a longer list of documents acceptable for presentation when trying to obtain birth certificates.

As a result of not being able to obtain birth certificates, many of these children were denied medical services that they needed, and other families had difficulties registering for Section 8 Housing and Head Start.

Previously, parents who did not have forms of identification issued in the US had been denied birth certificates. However, the list of documents that qualify for these purposes has now been significantly expanded. Parents must present a form of secondary identification, such as national identification or a voter registration card from their home country, and two supporting documents. Acceptable supporting documents now include school transcripts, library cards, cell phone bill, auto insurance cards, leases, and recent utility bills, among many others.

However, registrars in Texas will still not be accepting matriculas, or consular identification cards that are often issued to foreign nationals, though many other states do accept them.

This new agreement, while not altering the state policies, makes it much easier for parents to obtain birth certificates for their US born children.

Opinions of this change in procedure are mixed. This is happening at a time when many conservatives, including Donald Trump, are expressing consternation over the number of individuals who are entering the country illegally. Jon Feere, legal policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, States, “This is yet another example of how our institutions are being asked to accommodate foreigners who think they are above the law. This entire issue could be avoided if people entered our country lawfully.”

However, many support the recent legal changes. Juan Hinojosa, State Senator, believes that they represent “a step in the right direction.”

Settlement reached in fatal shooting of black man by Bridgeton police

The family of Jerame Reid reached a tentative settlement in a federal lawsuit filed after Bridgeton police officers shot and killed the 36-year-old black man.

During a 2014 traffic stop, Officer Braheme Days, who is black, fired the fatal shot that killed Reid. Officer Roger Worley, who is white, also fired at Jerame Reid but missed. The officers shot Reid after he refused to obey their orders to stay in his vehicle during a traffic stop. The family subsequently filed the suit, alleging deadly force and civil rights violations. Dashcam video recorded the shooting and although the dashcam shows the officers firing at Reid, a Cumberland County grand jury failed to indict either of the officers.

The Times Union reports details provided by David Porter of the Associated Press who says that under the settlement, Jerame Reid’s widow receives $200,000, including legal fees. His infant son receives periodic payments upon reaching the age of 18. Those payments total $1.5 million. Both Jerome Reid’s mother and the mother of his son receive $70,000 each.

This settlement is not the only settlement recently announced concerning the Bridgeton, N.J. Police Department and Jerame Reid. In 2015, New Jersey Online announced a $340,000 settlement reached as the result of a suit filed in U.S. District Court in January 2011 by Reid, alleging assault by police and corrections officers when Reid was in the Cumberland County Jail.

Reid claimed that officers kicked and punched him and threw a bucket of cold water on him, even as he lay curled up on the floor of his cell. As a result, he suffered broken ribs, nerve damage in his face and other injuries. Cumberland County awarded the $340,000 settlement to Jerame Reid’s widow.

The Jerame Reid lawsuits resulting in the injuries and death of Jerame Reid are just two in a series of lawsuits against Bridgeton, NJ police officers, including a lawsuit filed by 45 year-old Marella Lawson who settled her case for $690,000 in April 2016, says the Daily Journal. Bridgeton officers assaulted her during two separate arrests, both involving the same police officer. As in the case of the Jerame Reid lawsuits, Bridgeton officers continue to deny all liability.

FedEx and Company Driver are Named in Road Rage Lawsuit

Road rage can affect drivers of any size vehicle, including semis. It can also come back to haunt a driver years later. Such is the case that has just been filed for a 2014 incident between a Fed Ex driver and another semi driver. A truck driver by the name of George Reich has filed a lawsuit against FedEx and also one of their drivers, Rick Crum.

FedEx-driver-lawsuitIn the lawsuit, Reich claims that in November of 2014, FedEx driver Crum began tailgating him on Interstate 5 in Southern California. Crum continued to tailgate for several miles before passing Reich at speeds in excess of 55 mph. California has a 55 mph speed cap for semis.  While passing him, Crum obscenely gestured at Reich. After passing Reich, Crum abruptly swerved into Reich’s lane and slowed down to 45 mph, causing Reich to brake.   Both drivers then pulled over.

During the time the drivers were on the side of the road, Reich tried to photograph Crum’s license plate with his phone. Crum forcefully knocked the phone from Reich’s hand. Reich also stated that Crum punched him. It is unclear as to which blow was strong enough to knock Reich to the ground. Reich claims that during the time of the altercation, he tried to remain calm at all times.

Reich has filed his lawsuit with the Los Angeles Superior Court. In the suit, Reich alleges emotional distress caused by intentional and negligent infliction, negligence, assault, and battery. Since this lawsuit has become publicized, attorneys for either party have not been available for comment.

FedEx stated it “holds its service providers to high standards of safety and professionalism. We cannot comment on the specifics of these allegations while they are under review.”

It is unknown if any tickets or citations were issued at the time of the initial incident for reckless driving or the indicated assault.

Road rage is a catch-all phrase used to describe violent or aggressive behaviors of motorists. There is no set “road rage” law in California, but due to the nature of the behaviors of Crum, a lawsuit was permissible.

 

Microsoft Wins One For Privacy Advocates

Microsoft won a historic victory over federal prosecutors. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the computer company did not have to turn over information from its Irish data center.

The government had argued that the Stored Communications Act compelled Microsoft to release data regardless of its physical location. The court found the argument unpersuasive, ruling for the corporation. Since the data center resided in Ireland, the law of that land applies, rather than American law, cited the court in its decision.

Privacy is the Issue

This case has enormous implications for privacy issues. Various companies, including rivals, such as Apple and Verizon, supported Microsoft. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also sided with the tech giant.

Microsoft executives and legal counsel expressed concern for the privacy of cloud technology users. If data centers located wholly in foreign countries fall under American law, then that could mean citizens of those nations are subject to this authority as well.

Likewise, other nations could begin acting in a reciprocal manner concerning Americans. This loss of privacy and national autonomy proved too much for the court.

Local Companies Stood to Gain

Financially, Microsoft stood to lose money. If the court had decided the other way, local data centers could persuade residents of their countries to avoid using Microsoft. They could have argued that personal information would not be safe in American hands. Now that possibility has been curtailed, at least for the time being.

Microsoft-data-Ireland

The Case

The prosecution made a claim that since Microsoft executives could easily access its cloud technology, the stored data was still technically inside American borders. This assertion does broach an issue that future courts will have to deal with. Just how do we define location in an era of digitally stored information?

Microsoft won this case by opining that despite the American infrastructure, the data center was physically located in Ireland. On the other hand, prosecutors believed physical location should not matter. Who has control over the center does, they put forth.

The debate is far from over. Though Microsoft defeated federal regulators this time, the Supreme Court could still overturn the decision.

Nations Moving to Protect Internet Users

Many nations have begun to take action to protect their Internet users. Brazil, Russia and Germany all passed Internet localization laws. These statutes require data be stored within national boundaries. Thus, authorities in these lands can demand access to information according to local law; moreover, they can deny requests for access by foreign powers.

American Government Not Done Yet

Even if the Supreme Court does not reverse the ruling, Microsoft could one day be forced to allow the government to see the information. Congress might pass stronger legislation to buttress the Stored Communications Act.

Also, officials are currently working out deals with other governments to share data center information. Most prominently, the U.K. and U.S. have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (or MLAT) on the table. Both nations would be able to serve warrants on companies without having to go before a foreign court.

Georgia Woman Sues Body Armor Manufacturer

A Georgia widow has filed a federal lawsuit against a body armor manufacturer, alleging that the vest her police officer husband wore failed to stop bullets from piercing his back and killing him.

Tammy Jordan of Hampton, Georgia filed the lawsuit against the company, Armor Express, in a U.S. District court claiming a vest made by the Michigan-based company failed to save her husband’s life.

Officer Kevin Jordan, 43, of the Griffin Police Department was shot five times while intervening in a fight at a Griffin Waffle House, where he moonlighted as a security guard in 2014.

According to court documents, Armor Express has denied that the vest failed to meet standards. Attorney John Dixon wrote that the company has neither seen the vest, nor has it been given specific information about the way it was worn or exactly where Jordan was shot. He and the company were not available for comment Tuesday.

In her claim, the widow declared “the vest specifically physically covered” the areas of Officer Jordan’s back, where he was shot. It was designed to protect the officer “from bullet wounds or being shot by a .40-caliber handgun in his upper, middle and low back areas,” Tammy said.

According to its website, Armor Express, which is also known as Central Lake Armor Express, has contracted with several U.S. and international police forces, including the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy.

The company highlights examples where body armor saved officers from injury and death on its website. It specifically cites the April 2015 shooting of a sheriff’s deputy in Lockport, New York, and a shooting of a deputy in Lawrence County, Illinois.

Tammy Jordan filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the seven children she had with Officer Jordan. Originally filed in a Spalding County court, the suit was transferred to Georgia’s northern district of federal courts.

While working his side job as a security guard at the Waffle House on May 31, 2014, Jordan tried to detain a man who was fighting with customers. He was allegedly shot by Michael Dwayne Bowman, who was later indicted on charges of murder and aggravated assault of a police officer, among others.

No Liability for Save-A-Lot in Banana Slip and Fall Case

The classic comedic trope of slipping on a banana peel made a real-life appearance last March. A shopper by the name of Charles McDowell entered a Philadelphia Save-A-Lot store and slipped on a piece of banana that was on the store’s floor. But, McDowell wasn’t laughing about it. He claimed the fall caused him serious injuries. McDowell filed a lawsuit against Save-A-Lot, alleging that the store was negligent in failing to clean up the piece of banana.

Store owners have a duty to protect customers from foreseeable harm by cleaning up any dangerous conditions in a store. But, the claim ultimately failed because McDowell couldn’t prove that Save-A-Lot knew or should have known that the piece of banana was there. In other words, the harm wasn’t foreseeable because the risk wasn’t known. On June 13, 2016, Judge Robert Kelly of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Save-A-Lot.

Judge Kelly found that there was no evidence whatsoever that Save-A-Lot had actual knowledge that the piece of banana was there. Therefore, the dispositive issue in this case was whether Save-A-Lot should have known about it. Even if a store owner is unaware of a risk, constructive knowledge can be imputed to them if a reasonably prudent store owner would have been aware of it. If constructive knowledge existed, the harm is considered foreseeable.

Generally, in these types of cases the issue of constructive knowledge turns on how long a hazard was present. If McDowell could have shown that the piece of banana had been on the floor long enough that reasonably prudent store cleaning procedures would have noticed it and cleaned it up, he would likely have won his case. But, McDowell couldn’t show this.

The upshot of the case is that plaintiffs must provide evidence showing constructive knowledge in these types of cases. Courts will not presume it. Store owners will not be found liable for a customer slip-and-fall unless the customer can provide clear direct or circumstantial evidence that the owner should have known about it.

The case, McDowell v. Moran Foods, LLC, No. 15-4995 (E.D. Pa. Jun 13, 2016), and can be found in full here.