Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Relators Tiffany Montcrief and others filed a False Claims Act suit against Peripheral Vascular Associates, P.A. (PVA), alleging that PVA billed Medicare for vascular ultrasound services that were not completed. The claims were categorized into "Testing Only" and "Double Billing" claims. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Relators, concluding that PVA submitted knowingly false claims. A jury found these claims material and awarded approximately $28.7 million in damages against PVA.The district court granted partial summary judgment to Relators on the issues of falsity and knowledge of falsity. The jury found that the claims were material and caused the Government to pay out money. The district court entered judgment against PVA, including statutory penalties and treble damages. PVA appealed, challenging the district court's grant of partial summary judgment and certain rulings during and after the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on the Testing Only claims but remanded for a new trial on damages. The court reversed the partial summary judgment ruling on the Double Billing claims, vacated the final judgment, and remanded for a new trial consistent with its opinion. The court concluded that the district court erred in interpreting the CPT–4 Manual and in concluding that the Manual required PVA to create separate, written reports for vascular ultrasounds before billing Medicare. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion in relying on Relators' post-trial expert declaration to calculate damages. View "Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular" on Justia Law

Talos ERT, L.L.C. (Talos) hired DLS, L.L.C. (DLS) to remove corroded piping from an oil-and-gas platform off the Louisiana coast. During the project, a 129-pound pipe fell and struck Walter Jackson, a DLS employee, resulting in his death. Jackson’s widow, Vantrece Jackson, and his son, Y.J., represented by his mother, Anika Warner, sued Talos for wrongful death. The suits were consolidated, and the case proceeded to trial.The jury found Talos 88% at fault for Jackson’s death and awarded significant damages to both plaintiffs. Y.J. was awarded $120,000 in special damages and $20,000,000 in general damages. Mrs. Jackson was awarded $987,930 in special damages and $6,600,000 in general damages. Talos filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and alternatively moved for a new trial or remittitur. The district court denied the JMOL and new trial motions but granted a partial remittitur, reducing Y.J.’s general damages to $4,360,708.59 and Mrs. Jackson’s to $5,104,226.22. Plaintiffs declined a new trial on damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Talos’s renewed JMOL motion, finding sufficient evidence to support both theories of liability: vicarious liability and independent negligence. The court also upheld the denial of a new trial on liability, noting the jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence.Regarding damages, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of the maximum recovery rule for Y.J.’s award, using a factually similar case, Rachal v. Brouillette. However, the court vacated Mrs. Jackson’s general damages award and remanded for redetermination of remittitur, as the district court’s comparison case, Zimko v. American Cyanamid, was not factually similar. The court found no plain error in the alleged prejudicial statements made by Plaintiffs’ counsel during the trial. View "Warner v. Talos ERT" on Justia Law

In May 2019, Hezron Stuart committed two armed robberies at gas stations in Houston. He was indicted on two counts of Hobbs Act robbery and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. While awaiting trial, Stuart assaulted a prison officer, leading to an additional indictment. The cases were consolidated and later transferred to Judge Rosenthal. During the trial, the jury was instructed on the charges, and the government presented evidence linking Stuart to the robberies, including testimony about a prior assault involving the same gun used in the robberies.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially joined the robbery and assault charges. During the trial, the court severed the assault charge, instructing the jury to disregard any mention of it. Stuart, representing himself, cross-examined witnesses and contested the identification evidence. The court limited his ability to question a witness about specific pending charges, which Stuart argued violated his confrontation rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the May 7 assault, as it was relevant to establishing Stuart's identity as the robber. The court also found no reversible error in the district court's and prosecutor's mention of the prison assault charge, as it was mitigated by the court's instructions to the jury. Additionally, the court ruled that Stuart's confrontation rights were not violated by limiting cross-examination about the witness's specific charges. Finally, the court determined that Stuart's right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were largely attributable to his own actions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "USA v. Stuart" on Justia Law

In 2015, bipartisan legislation repealed the U.S. ban on crude oil exports, leading to expanded efforts to export U.S. crude oil. This case involves an administrative challenge to a construction permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for expanding operations at the Moda Ingleside Crude Export Terminal in Texas. The expansion includes constructing new docks and a turning basin, requiring dredging and discharging material into U.S. waters. The Corps conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) and approved the permit. Plaintiffs, including Native American tribes and an environmental association, sued to invalidate the permit, claiming violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied summary judgment for the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment for the Corps, concluding that the Corps had adequately studied the environmental impacts of the proposed expansion. The court found that plaintiffs had associational standing but had waived certain claims by not raising them in summary judgment briefing. The court also found that plaintiffs forfeited claims related to increased vessel traffic by not raising them during the notice-and-comment period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the Corps did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its environmental impacts analysis, including its assessment of cumulative impacts and climate change. The court found that the Corps's EA was sufficient and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required. The court also agreed that plaintiffs had forfeited arguments related to increased vessel traffic. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Indigenous Peoples v. U.S. Army" on Justia Law

In 2010, Thomas Steven Sanders kidnapped and murdered a twelve-year-old girl, L.R., after killing her mother, Suellen Roberts. Sanders was apprehended and confessed to the crimes. He was prosecuted under federal law and, in 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana convicted him of kidnapping and murder, sentencing him to death on both counts.Sanders appealed, raising numerous challenges to his convictions and sentences. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Sanders argued that the district court erred by not ordering a competency hearing, denying his motion to suppress statements made during interrogation, and violating the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing two sentences for one act. He also challenged the jury selection process, the death-qualification of the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of victim impact testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA).The Fifth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a competency hearing or in denying the motion to suppress. However, the court agreed with Sanders that his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as Congress did not authorize cumulative punishment for violations of § 1201(a) and § 924(j). Consequently, the court vacated Sanders’s conviction and sentence under Count Two of the indictment.The court rejected Sanders’s other arguments, including those related to jury selection, death-qualification, sufficiency of the evidence, victim impact testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the FDPA. The court concluded that Sanders’s sentences were not imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor and that the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Jeremy Jason Schnur, previously convicted of multiple felonies including aggravated battery, burglary, and robbery, was indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Schnur was apprehended by law enforcement at the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi, where he was found in possession of a loaded Canik 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Schnur moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him. The district court denied his motion, and after a bench trial, found him guilty.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied Schnur's motion to dismiss the indictment. Schnur waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial based on stipulations regarding his possession of the firearm and his felony convictions. The district court found Schnur guilty and sentenced him to seventy-eight months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $3,000 fine. Schnur appealed the decision, maintaining his as-applied Second Amendment challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) de novo. The court held that the Second Amendment's plain text covers Schnur's conduct, but the government demonstrated that disarming Schnur is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court cited precedents indicating that individuals with violent criminal histories, like Schnur's aggravated battery conviction, can be constitutionally disarmed. The court also referenced Schnur's robbery and burglary convictions, which further supported the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as applied to him. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in Schnur's case. View "United States v. Schnur" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) disapproval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) submitted by Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address interstate air pollution. The EPA disapproved these SIPs, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of the Good Neighbor Provision, which mandates that states prevent their emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of national air quality standards in downwind states.The lower courts had not previously reviewed this case. The case was directly brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the petitioners sought to vacate the EPA's disapprovals. The petitioners argued that the EPA's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the CAA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petitions for review from Louisiana and Texas, finding that the EPA's disapprovals were justified based on the states' own data and interpretations of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court concluded that the EPA had reasonably considered the relevant issues and provided adequate explanations for its decisions.However, the court granted the petition for review from Mississippi, vacated the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP, and remanded the matter to the EPA. The court found that the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on updated data that was not available to Mississippi at the time of its SIP submission. The court held that the EPA failed to reasonably explain its decision to use this updated data in an outcome-determinative manner. View "Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Ellen Williams purchased a residential property in Houma, Louisiana, which was mortgaged by Flagstar Bank. Since Williams did not insure the home, Flagstar obtained a lender-placed hazard insurance policy from Integon National Insurance Company at Williams's expense. The policy named Flagstar as the "Insured" and Williams as the "Borrower." Williams paid all premiums and complied with all policy requirements. The policy included a provision stating that if the loss amount exceeded Flagstar's insurable interest, Integon would pay Williams any residual amount due for the loss, not exceeding the policy limit.In August 2021, Williams's home was damaged by Hurricane Ida. Although Integon inspected the property and exchanged repair estimates with Williams, it ultimately refused to pay for the full property repairs. Williams sued Integon in the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, asserting breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims under Louisiana law. Integon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Williams lacked standing to sue under the policy. The district court agreed with Integon, ruling that Williams was not a named insured, additional insured, or third-party beneficiary, and dismissed the case without allowing Williams to amend her complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the policy's loss payment provision clearly manifested an intent to benefit Williams, provided a certain benefit when the loss amount exceeded Flagstar's insurable interest, and that this benefit was not merely incidental. The court held that Williams might be able to plead plausible facts supporting her status as a third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to allow Williams to amend her complaint. View "Williams v. Integon National Insurance" on Justia Law

Trevor Dylan Lehew pleaded guilty to Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal, with certain exceptions. Lehew challenged a $5,000 special assessment imposed under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, arguing that the appeal waiver did not apply because he was indigent and that the special assessment exceeded the statutory maximum.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas accepted Lehew's guilty plea and sentenced him to 420 months of imprisonment, a $100 special assessment, the $5,000 JVTA special assessment, and supervised release. The court did not explicitly discuss Lehew's indigency during the sentencing hearing but adopted the presentence investigation report (PSR), which detailed Lehew's financial situation and potential future earnings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Lehew argued that the district court erred by imposing the JVTA special assessment without determining his indigency and that his appeal waiver did not bar this challenge. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the appeal waiver barred Lehew's challenge. The court noted that the district court implicitly found Lehew to be non-indigent by adopting the PSR, which included information about his financial history and future earning potential. The court held that the district court conducted the requisite analysis by adopting the PSR and that Lehew's appeal waiver expressly waived any challenges to the determination of any monetary penalty or obligation.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Lehew could not appeal the JVTA special assessment as a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum and that his appeal waiver barred his appeal. View "United States v. Lehew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Perry Spriggs was struck by a U.S. Postal Service vehicle while riding his bicycle on Calliope Street in New Orleans on March 23, 2022. On March 23, 2023, Spriggs faxed his medical records and a signed Standard Form 95 (SF-95) to the Postal Service, addressed to Tara D. Lennix, a Louisiana District Tort Claims/Collections Specialist, at the correct fax number. Spriggs received a fax confirmation stating successful transmission. On March 22, 2024, Spriggs filed a lawsuit against the United States for personal injury and property damage from the accident.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Spriggs’s claims with prejudice, granting the United States' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found no affirmative evidence of receipt of the SF-95 by the Postal Service, relying on declarations from Postal Service employees stating they did not receive the fax. The court also dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) due to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations for presentment to the agency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in disregarding the fax confirmation sheet as probative evidence of presentment under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Fifth Circuit held that a fax confirmation sheet indicating successful transmission to the correct recipient is probative evidence that the FTCA’s presentment requirement has been satisfied. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Spriggs v. United States" on Justia Law