Decisions by Judge Leonard T Strand
This section of the Web Site contains opinions selected by individual Judges for posting and is not intended to constitute a complete set of opinions for the district or any Judge. The decisions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.



JudgeCan be sorted ascendingCase TypeCase NameDate Filed
Hide details for Judge Leonard T. StrandJudge Leonard T. Strand
Hide details for CivilCivil
-Katrina West v. Abendroth & Russell Law Firm -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court granted defendant Abendroth & Russell's motion for summary judgment with regard to all counts. Court found no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the alleged FDCPA violation. Court also found no genuine issue of material fact existed on plaintiff Katrina West's state law claims. Court entered judgment for defendant and against plaintiff. 09/16/2014
-Nathan A. Martin v. Champion Ford, Inc. -- Order on cross motions for summary judgment. Court granted defendant Champion Ford, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff Nathan A. Martin's motion for summary judgment. Court found no genuine issue of material fact existed as to hostile work environment or race discrimination by defendant Champion Ford, Inc. Court entered judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.08/28/2014
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC -- Order on defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s motion to compel plaintiff to comply with court order and motion to compel Everest Reinsurance Company to comply with subpoena. Court granted in part motion to compel plaintiff's compliance and directed plaintiff to provide unredacted reinsurance documents. Court denied in part motion to compel plaintiff to produce certain electronically stored information. Court granted in part motion to compel Everest's compliance and directed Everest to produce documents responsive to the subpoena.08/22/2014
-Wells v. Lamplight Farms, Inc, et al. -- Order on defendant Lamplight's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and discovery of health records. Court granted in part motion to compel and directed plaintiff to supplement their answers to interrogatories. Court denied in part motion to compel discovery of health records.08/15/2014
-Foster v. Cerro Gordo County, et al. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint. Court found that existing defendants had not demonstrated that amendment naming previously unidentified defendants was futile based on a statute of limitations defense and alleged failure to relate back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C).07/25/2014
-Hearing v. Minnesota Life v. Holloway -- Order granting defendant's motion to deposit interpleader funds and plaintiff's motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment on third-party defendant's counterclaim. Court found Minnesota Life was entitled to deposit funds with the court, recover attorney fees and costs and be dismissed with prejudice as the facts demonstrated it had a real and reasonable fear of exposure to double liability. However, third-party defendant's counterclaim ultimately could not survive summary judgment because the insured had not done all he could to comply with the policy requirements for changing a beneficiary and there were no facts suggesting unconscionable conduct to justify imposing a constructive trust. As such, plaintiff was entitled to policy proceeds. 07/21/2014
-Wilkins v. Ludwick -- Order on pending motions and Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court denied motions to add a supplemental claim and expand the record because supplemental claim was barred by statute of limitations. As to the petition, court found Iowa Supreme Court did not identify Strickland as the correct governing law for petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to use of the nickname "O.J." at trial. In conducting de novo review, court found petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland. Court found that Iowa Court of Appeals decision on other ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to investigate a witness and call him at trial did not result in an unreasonable application of federal law. Court recommended the petition be denied. 07/21/2014
-Goettsch et al v. Goettsch et al -- Order on plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' jury demand pursuant to Rule 39(a)(2). Court found defendants were not entitled to a jury trial on Count One in which plaintiffs alleged oppressive conduct and sought judicial dissolution of the corporation or a mandatory buyout of their stock. Court found defendants were entitled to a jury trial on Count Two in which plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty and sought compensatory damages. Court rejected defendants' arguments that affirmative defense of breach of contract and "common issues" entitled them to a jury trial on all claims. 07/08/2014
-GLCC v. AT&T Corp. -- Report and Recommendation on GLCC's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Court recommended the motion to dismiss be denied based on GLCC's standing argument and with regard to Count I of AT&T's counterclaim. Court recommended the motion be granted as to Counts II and III of AT&T's counterclaim pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine. As for GLCC's motion for summary judgment on the issue of AT&T's liability, the court recommended the motion be denied as GLCC had not demonstrated it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.06/24/2014
-DIRECTV v. Klingenberg, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment by default against defendant Last Call Saloon, LLC. Court found it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction and plaintiff had demonstrated that Last Call Saloon was liable under 47 U.S.C. 605(a). Court recommended the motion be granted and judgment be entered against Last Call for basic statutory damages, enhanced damages and costs and attorney fees.06/20/2014
-Life Insurance Company of North America v. Baas, et al. -- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's application to recover costs and attorney fees in interpleader action. Court concluded plaintiff was only entitled to recover $1000 for attorney fees and expenses related to locating and serving defendant in Mexico. Plaintiff was also entitled to recover full amount of attorney fees related to legal research and drafting pleadings, motions and briefs. Court found plaintiff was not entitled to recover local counsel expenses or filing and mailing fees as plaintiff had not provided the appropriate documentation.06/17/2014
-Celia v. North Central Correctional Faciltiy, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff in the treatment and timing of treatment for his ankle injury. In addition, the undisputed evidence showed plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court recommended defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.06/13/2014
-Scott v. City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order denying defendant's motion to amend answer to add affirmative defense of "after-acquired evidence." Court found proposed defense was purely anticipatory because the City had not yet decided to discharge Scott, and in any event, the defense would not apply because the evidence of misconduct was discovered prior to any termination. Court concluded the proposed defense was "legally insufficient" pursuant to Rule 12(f) and futile for purposes of Rule 15(a).06/04/2014
-Langdeaux v. Lund -- Order on motion to expand the record and Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court denied motion to expand the record under 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2). As to the petition, court found Iowa Court of Appeals decision did not result in any unreasonable application of federal law when it concluded the petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsels' failure to advise him about the felony-murder rule in the context of whether to accept the state's plea offer. Court also found Iowa Court of Appeals reasonably applied Strickland in concluding counsels' decision not to call the sheriff as a witness or conduct further investigation based on his statement did not amount to deficient performance. Court recommended the petition be denied. 05/20/2014
-Rasmussen v. Hacker, et al -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff's health and disregarded it. Defendant McKinney also could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and both defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. 05/07/2014
-Urban v. Sells, et al. -- Report and Recommendation for entry of order dismissing action with prejudice and imposing monetary sanctions on plaintiff. Court found dismissal was appropriate because allegations were totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit or no longer open to discussion. Judgment had been entered against plaintiff four times on claims arising out of some or all of the same events alleged in current complaint and new claims were barred by doctrines of res judicata, prosecutorial immunity, Rooker-Feldman, the Eleventh Amendment, statute of limitations and Rule 12(b)(6). After giving plaintff the opportunity to show cause, the court also recommended imposing monetary sanctions under Rule 11. Plaintiff filed sixth federal lawsuit despite the court having explained the law, advised him of his right to appeal, cautioned him that filing frivolous repetitive lawsuits would result in sanctions and told him what the likely amount of those sanctions would be.04/25/2014
-Pick v. City of Remsen, et all. -- Order granting defendants' motion for order directing destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document. Court found that no waiver occurred as a result of the inadvertent disclosure because defendants' attorney took reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure and acted quickly to seek relief upon discovering the error. Plaintiff also would not be unfairly prejudiced by the requested relief. Plaintiff was directed to destroy all copies of the privileged communication.04/25/2014
-FDIC v. Dosland, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion to compel discovery. Court found that FDIC-R had not met its burden of demonstrating internal OTS documents at issue were so plainly irrelevant that they were not discoverable. Court also found that under 12.U.S.C. Section 1821(o), FDIC-R had the legal right to obtain the documents meaning they were within it's "possession, custody, or control" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).04/04/2014
-Streeter v. Premier Services, Inc. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff could not point to evidence that defendant knew of plaintiff's alleged disability for his disability discrimination claim. With regard to his race discrimination claim, the undisputed evidence showed plaintiff failed to meet his employer's legitimate expectations and employees who committed similar violations as plaintiff were treated the same, regardless of race. Plaintiff was also not entitled to relief under FMLA because he was not employed by the defendant for at least 12 months.04/01/2014
- Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Court found that plaintiff had not met the "good cause" requirement under Rule 16(b) to add a party several months after the deadline. Plaintiff had sufficient information about the proposed party to be put on inquiry notice several months before the deadline. Plaintiff did not follow up on this information before the deadline and did not act promptly when she received an unambiguous answer concerning the proposed party's role in the corporate organization. Court found plaintiff had failed to show that despite diligence, her proposed amendment could not reasonably have been offered sooner.03/26/2014
-Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Agency One Insurance, Inc., et al -- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Agency One. Court found there were genuine issues of material fact on plaintiff's claim of negligence, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. 03/25/2014
-Meighan v. TransGuard Insurance Company of America, Inc. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to compel responses to discovery. Court found that defendant must produce some documents where work product privilege did not apply because the documents were not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Court found work product privilege and attorney client privilege applied to all other documents.03/24/2014
-Wells, et al. v. Lamplight Farms, Inc., et al. - Order on defendant Lamplight's motion to quash or modify a subpoena and motion for protective order. Court granted motion to quash or modify subpoena and directed recipient to comply to the extent that the requested information related to the product at issue. Court also granted motion for protective order and directed defendants to submit a proposed protective order consistent with the terms described by the court.03/12/2014
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC, et al -- Order on defendant's motion to compel production of documents from privilege logs and motion to compel discovery. Court directed plaintiff to serve a supplemental privilege log providing more information concerning 14 disputed documents. Court also found defendant was entitled to production of documents concerning other similar claims, reinsurance information and document retention policies. Court denied defendant's request for production of reserve information and regulatory filings in states other than Iowa. 03/10/2014
-Daniels v. The City of Sioux City, et al -- Order on defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures and plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline for their expert witness disclosures. Court found that plaintiffs barely demonstrated good cause to extend their expert witness disclosure deadline and because the scheduling order could be amended without causing unfair prejudice, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline and denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' disclosure of expert witnesses without prejudice.03/04/2014
-Pick v. City of Remsen, et al. -- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to file fourth amended complaint. Court allowed plaintiff to add new allegation of defamation against a particular defendant, but denied amendments to add new factual allegations in support of plaintiff's wrongful termination claim and a new claim of intentional interference with employment contract as plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for these untimely amendments.02/25/2014
-John and Dave LLC v. Society Insurance -- Order on defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. Court granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintif's claim of unjust enrichment, reasonable expectations, bad faith and punitive damages, but denied summary judgment on plaintif's breach of contract claim as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to additional payments under the Policy. Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's reply, but disregarded the improper new arguments made therein.02/21/2014
-Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc. et al. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum and for protective order. Court found that defendants were entitled to discover disciplinary reports from subsequent employers but not former employers. Court also found defendants were entitled to obtain performance evaluations from plaintiff's employers dating back to January 1, 2007. As for plaintiff's current employer, court found plaintiff could either obtain her entire personnel file herself and produce it in its entirety to defendants or defendants could enforce the subpoena.02/20/2014
-Scott v. City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order on plaintiff's motion to take more than ten depositions. Court found that plaintiff made a "particularized showing" why additional depositions were necessary and that none of the factors listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C) were present to justify limiting discovery. Court granted leave, pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2), for plaintiff to conduct the additional proposed depositions.02/11/2014
-Hanzl v. Collier -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary deficiency judgment against defendants. Court found plaintiff was entitled to deduct attorney's fees from the sale price of the West Street property, but that the total amount of attorney's fees should be reduced based on the scope of services and hourly rate. Court recommended a preliminary deficiency judgment be entered pursuant to the order enforcing the parties' settlement agreement, but that entry of final judgment be deferred until it was determined whether the amount should be adjusted to reflect any income tax liability from the sale of the property.01/31/2014
-Sanders v. McKinney, et al. -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Sander's health and disrgarded it. Alternatively, defendants were entitled to a qualified immunity and there was insufficient factual evidence to support Sander's claim against certain defendants. Court recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.12/17/2013
-Cornell v. Jim Hawk Truck Trailer, Inc., et al -- Order denying plaintiff's motion regarding sequencing of discovery. Court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause for withholding audio recordings from defendants until certain witnesses had been deposed. Plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested audio recordings without further delay. 12/16/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Count found that plaintiff's motion was timely and defendant had not demonstrated undue delay, undue prejudice, harassment, bad faith or futility of claims that would justify denial of the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Court also rejected defendant's argument that the motion should be denied because some of the proposed claims were being pursued in Maryland state court. 12/04/2013
-Catipovic v. Turley, et al -- Order denying plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to amend his complaint. Court found that plaintiff had failed to show good cause for his untimely amendment under FRCP 16(b). Alternatively, his amendment would not be allowed under Rule 15(a) because the proposed new fraud claim was futile and adding the claim at such a late stage in the case would be unduly prejudicial to all defendants.11/20/2013
-Huerta-Orosco v. Cosgrove -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. Court found plaintiff had filed his motion to amend within the time allowed by the court's scheduling order and defendant would not suffer undue prejudice by allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint at this time. While defendant raised valid statute of limitations arguments, the outcome was not so apparent based on the limited information in the record that plaintiff's claims in the new complaint could be considered futile. 10/30/2013
-Redd v. Lutgen -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment where plaintiff alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Court found defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' conduct imposed a substantial burden on his religious beliefs. Alternatively, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to show that a reasonable officer would have had notice that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.10/28/2013
-Redd v. Lutgen -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Court found plaintiff had not demonstrated a relationship between the injury described in the application and the events alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the court recommended plaintiff's application be denied.10/23/2013
-Velazquez-Ramirez v. Fayram -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Court found Iowa Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland's prejudice prong to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion for change of venue and investigate prejudice in the jury pool and failure to raise issue of compliance with the Vienna Convention. However, under de novo review the court found petitioner was unable to demonstrate prejudice. Court found Iowa Court of appeals reasonably applied Strickland in concluding counsel's alleged failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support first-degree murder did not amount to deficient performance. Finally, court found claim of ineffective assistance for failure to file a motion to suppress based on Miranda violation was procedurally barred. Court recommended petition be denied.10/23/2013
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order on plaintiffs' motions for discovery sanctions and contempt sanctions. Court found witness and attorneys had violated rules of civil procedure and court's previous order outlining appropriate deposition procedures by refusing to answer questions or instructing the witness not to answer questions on certain topics based on relevance. Court imposed sanctions on witness and attorneys and denied motions for contempt sanctions.10/09/2013
-Graney, et al v. Mercy Health Services-Iowa Corp. -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for other sanctions. Court found dismissal was warranted based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with multiple court orders including discovery orders, which repeatedly advised plaintiffs of their obligations and that failure to comply could result in dismissal of their case. Court found that plaintiffs' total lack of action was willful and had prejudiced defendant. Court recommended the case be dismissed with prejudice.09/18/2013
-Daniels v. The City of Sioux City, et al. -- Order denying the City of Sioux City's motion to bifurcate claims and stay discovery and trial. Court found that it was too early in the case to determine if bifurcation was apporpriate and plaintiff was entitled to conduct discovery with regard to all claims at this point.09/13/2013
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint. Court found that plaintiffs had failed to show good cause for seeking leave to file a fourth amended complaint six months after the deadline. Court also found defendants would be unfairly prejudiced by a fourth amended complaint that sought to add new claims, reinstate a dismissed claim and add new parties at this stage of the case. 09/09/2013
-Streeter v. Premier Services, Inc,. et al. -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Tur-Pak Foods, Inc. Court found that Tur-Pak was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff was not an employee of Tur-Pak. Even if he could be considered an employee, the court found his claims would still fail as a matter of law because he had not established a prima facie case for his discrimination claims or that he was "eligible employee" for his FMLA claim.09/06/2013
-Jason Martin and Amber Martin v. Apex Tool Group, LLC -- Order denying defendant's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert's opinions and motion for summary judgment. Court found that plaintiffs' expert's opinions should not be excluded because his findings were based on recognized methods and were relevant and likely to aid the jury. Court also concluded that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment regardless of whether the plaintiffs' expert's opinions were excluded because viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support their claim.08/16/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motions to compel discovery concerning five interrogatories and ten document requests. 08/01/2013
-Clay v. Woodbury County, et al - Order denying plaintiff's motion to quash subpoena and discovery deposition of her treating psychiatrist. Court found that the patient-litigant exception applied because the plaintiff asserted a claim based on emotional injry and she could not undo the exception by withdrawing only part of that claim. In the alternative, the court found plaintiff had waived the physician-patient privilege by voluntarily providing copies of her records, signing a waiver that allowed defendants to obtain her records and testifying about her treatment with the psychiatrist.07/17/2013
-Mapleton Processing, Inc. v. Society Insurance Company -- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion to compel appraisal. Court found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's violation of a condition precedent caused prejudice to defendant, allowing its breach of contract claim to proceed to trial. Plaintiff's other claims of bad faith and punitive damages failed as a matter of law. Court denied plaintiff's moton to compel appraisal, finding that although plaintiff had a contractual right to appraisal, it had waived that right through various decision and actions. 07/10/2013
-Community Voice Line LLC v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. -- Order granting plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant for failure to comply with court's discovery order. Court found that defendant failed to produce requried documents by the deadline set forth in the discovery order and qualified its supplemental responses against the court's instructions. Court ordered a monetary sanction and prohibited defendant from offering certain documents into evidence. 07/09/2013
-Peters v. Woodbury County, et al and Clay v. Woodbury County, et al -- Order denying plaintiffs' joint motion to consolidate cases. Court found that although cases demonstrate common questions of law, there are no common issues of fact which could create a serious risk of prejudice to defendants. Additionally, the burden on parties, witnesses and resources outweighed any benefits of consolidation.06/24/2013
-Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and her state law claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment Court found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether probable cause existed at the time of her arrest, whether she was arrested pursuant to an official governmental policy and whether individual defendants knowingly made a false statement to law enforcement, instigated her arrest or acted with malice.06/24/2013
-Van Stelton v. Van Stelton -- Order on defendants' motions to strike plaintiffs' disclosures of expert witnesses. Court granted motions based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C) after the court warned plaintiffs they may not have been in compliance, directed them to the rule, and gave them extra time to comply. Because plaintiffs still failed to comply with the rule and did not demonstrate that noncompliance was harmless or substantially justifiable, the court ruled that exclusion of expert opinion testimony was the appropriate sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).06/03/2013
-Harrington v. Holder -- Report and Recommendation granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging defendant had violated his constitutional rights by disclosing a complaint he had written about two other inmates which led to an assault by a third inmate. Court found that plaintiff had not produced evidence showing that defendant knew of a risk to plaintiff and failed to take action to protect him. Court also found that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. 04/12/2013
-Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, et al -- Order denying defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiff's summary judgment appendix. Court concluded that transcripts of unsworn recorded interviews were properly authenticated by plaintiff and included in the summary judgment record. 04/02/2013
-Boss v. Ludwick -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's advice to disclose the location of the deceased's body and allegedly-inadequate consultation by his attorney prior to Boss giving consent. In recommending the petition be denied, the court found the petitioner failed to show that the Iowa Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in concluding counsel's representation did not amount to deficient performance.02/19/2013
-Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream -- Order granting defendant's motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal. Court found defendant's appeal to the Eighth Circuit divested the court of jurisdiction while the appeal was pending, and even if it did not, the case should be stayed in the interests of justice and judicial economy.01/31/2013
-Hanzl v. Collier -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion to enforce settlement. The court found the parties agreed upon a settlement in which plaintiff is entitled to payment in the amount of $262,500. The parties agreed that plaintiff must be given a deed to the West Street property so that she may sell it and apply the net sale proceeds towards the settlement amount. They also agreed that defendants would be entitled to any proceeds in excess of $262,500, but that they would be liable for any deficiency.01/09/2013
-Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al -- Order granting St. Luke's Regional Medical Center's motion to quash a subpoena issued by defendants based on the peer review privilege because Hagen's professional competence is not at issue and the privilege extends to credentialing documents as held by the Iowa Court of Appeals in Day v. The Finley Hospital.12/07/2012
-Vails v. United Community Health Center, Inc., et al -- Order on defendants' and plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment. Court granted defendants' motion in part dismissing the claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy and promissory estoppel against UCHC and the claims of tortious interference with employment contract and fraud against the individualdefendants. Defendants' motion was denied as to their argument that plaintiff's alleged damages relating to the sale and maintenance of her home should be stricken. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim was denied.12/05/2012
-Van Stelton, et al v. Van Stelton, et al -- Order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for extension of scheduling order as to Rule 26(f) meeting and plaintiffs' initial disclosure under FRCP 26(a) and renewed request for scheduling conference under FRCP 16(b). Court found that the motion to amend was timely and defendants did not demonstrate futility or other available grounds to deny the motion. The parties were directed to prepare a new proposed scheduling order and discovery plan and necessity of 16(b) conference would be determined at a later date.11/09/2012
-Wells Enterprises, Inc. v. Olympic Ice Cream -- Order denying defendant's motion to stay case in favor of arbitration and denying plaintiff's motion to stay arbitration proceedings. Olympic, as a nonsignatory, was unable to bind Wells to arbitration based on its agreements with another company, Marina, through alternative estoppel. Wells was not entitled to stay the arbitration proceeding brought by Olympic and Marina because it had agreed to let the arbitrator determine arbitrability and Marina and its breach of contract claim were not a part of Wells' civil action.10/22/2012
-Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics, et al. -- Order denying motion to extend discovery deadline. Defendants failed to show good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order due to lead counsel leaving law firm when three other attorneys from the same firm had entered appearances and did not specify what additional discovery was necessary.10/12/2012
-Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entertainment, et al -- Order granting defendants' motion to quash subpoena and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and defendants' motion for protective order relating to the scope of permissible jurisdictional discovery concerning the defendants' websites and their contacts in Iowa. Defendants must generate Google Analytics reports formatted as HTML pages or as otherwise agreed that reveal the number of visits to defendants' websites from Iowa-based IP addresses. The websites are limited to only those owned by defendants nd not by their subsidiaries and the time period is limited to visits since January 1, 2009.09/28/2012
-Escobedo v. Lund -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2254. Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to move for a mistrial when a juror was substituted during deliberations. In recommending the petition be denied, the Court found the petitioner fialed to show that the decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.09/06/2012
-Vails v. United Community Health Center, Inc., et al. -- Order denying motion to extend discovery deadline. Plaintiff failed to show good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order. In particular, she failed to demonstrate diligence in attempting to schedule the deposition she now seeks to take after the close of discovery.08/20/2012
-Dorrah v. United States of America -- Order granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to conduct limited discovery while its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jursidiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is pending. The court had previously granted plaintiff leave to conduct limited discovery to gather facts that may be relevant to defendant's argument concerning subject matter jurisdiction. The court now determines that defendant, too, may conduct limited written discovery but may not depose plaintiff at this stage of the case.07/31/2012
-French v. Cummins Filtration, Inc. -- Order denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add a new claim. The motion was filed long after the deadline for amendments to pleadings and after the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the only existing claim. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for the untimely amendment as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).07/19/2012
-Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. FDIC, et al. -- Order denying defendant FDIC's motion for early discovery, finding that a request for discovery materials needed to defend an anticipated (but not yet filed) motion for summary judgment was not good cause for early discovery and defendant's concerns could adequately be addressed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).07/11/2012
-Jackson v. Green -- Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged his employment was terminated unlawfully on the basis of his race and in retaliation for his complaints. The court held that the summary judgment record contained no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with regard to either claim. Plaintiff failed to show the defendants' proferred non-discriminatory reason for termination was false or that his termination was motivated by discrimination or retaliation.06/26/2012
Hide details for CriminalCriminal
-USA v. Tome Rojas -- Order denying defendant's motion to compel discovery. Court found defendant had not established a need to learn the identity of a confidential informant in Texas who did not witness the alleged offenses in Iowa and did not provide information that led to the return of a federal indictment against defendant based on those alleged offenses. Nor did defendant demonstrate that information contained in a Texas investigative file might be helpful and material to his defense in Iowa. 08/12/2014
-USA v. Jose Orellana -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a post-Miranda interview. Court found that the defendant expressly waived his Miranda rights before making a statement and that the waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. 07/31/2014
-USA v. McCammon -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a post-Miranda interview and subsequent search of his residence. Court found that defendant's statements were not involuntary due to his impaired state or any alleged coercive police activity. Defendant also provided a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before making a statement. Court recommended that the motion to suppress be denied. 01/23/2014
-USA v. Montoya-Echeverria -- Order granting defendant's motion to strike portions of the indictment. Court found that 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) identifies the elements of the alleged offense (reentry of deported alien) and subsection (b)(2) describes circumstances relevant to sentencing. Court ordered that references to aggravated felon, subsection (b)(2) and defendant's alleged prior conviction be stricken as surplusage pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d).12/30/2013
-USA v. Himes -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from impoundment and inventory of vehicle. Court found that decision to impound was not based on community caretaking function or standardized criteria and was therefore an unreasonable seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment. Court recommended that evidence found in vehicle be suppressed as well as subsequently-gathered evidence from defendant's residence and statements he made to officers while in custody.12/30/2013
-United States of America v. Delgado -- Order granting motion for pretrial detention. Court found the Government had the right to seek pretrial detention because defendant had been convicted of two or more offenses decribed in subparagraphs (A) through (C) as pvoided in 18 U.S.C. section 3142(f)(1)(D). Court found pretrial detention was warranted based on the weight of the evidence against the defendant and her history and characteristics.12/04/2013
-United States of America v. Dean -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss counts for lack of jurisdiction. Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over counts based on alleged violations of the Hobbs Act and that defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the Government's evidence prior to trial. Court recommended the motion be denied without prejudice to defendant's right to make a motion for acquittal pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29.12/03/2013
-USA v. Boykin -- Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to sever. Court granted part of motion requesting severance of defendant's trial from his codefendant's, but denied part of motion requesting severance of the four counts against defendant into two separate trials.10/15/2013
-USA v. Sandoval -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his house and from a post-Miranda interview. The court found the information supporting the search warrant was not stale, it was reaonable for the issuing judge to rely upon information from all informants and there was sufficient evidence to connect the defendant and his residence to information about "Nacho." Court also found that exclusion of the evidence was not appropriate under United States v. Leon and recommended defendant's motion be denied.09/03/2013
-USA v. Barragan -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a search of his hotel room and from a post-Miranda interview. The court found that defendant gave voluntary consent to search his hotel room, the search did not exceed the scope of consent and the defendantprovided a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.08/27/2013
-USA v. Hansen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the placement of a GPS tracking device on defendant's vehicle. Court found that although the search warrant applications violated Iowa law because the applicant was not a "special state agent," the search did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because the warrants were supported by probable cause. Court also found that exclusion of the evidence was not appropriate under United States v. Leon and recommended defendant's motion be denied. 06/19/2013
-USA v. Clayton -- Order denying pro se motion to proceed under a pseudonym and prohibit public disclosure of defendant's physical description. Court held that defendant's concern for anonymity was speculative and unsupported and did not fall within the limited scope of legitimate reaons for anonymity in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that under these circumstances, an oder prohibiting public disclosure of defendant's physical description would violate the First Amendment.06/14/2013
-USA v. Poole -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle after a traffic stop. The court found that the initial stop was lawful and the extension of the stop to bring a narcotics-detecting canine to the scene was supported by the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court also found that the canine was certified and reliable and that his indication of narcotics provided probable cause to search the vehicle.04/18/2013
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-USA v. Ramirez-Hernandez; USA v. Millan-Vasquez; and USA v. Roque-Castro -- Order on detention for defendants facing charges of illegal reentry. Court held that Government met burden of showing no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the defendants' apperance as required based on the testimony of an ICE officer that removal was certain if defendants were released and taken back into ICE custody and based on the court's lack of authority to impose conditions that could prevent removal.12/19/2012
-US v. Mathison -- Order granting motion for severance of trial. Defendant raised a legitimate Bruton concern and the Government was unable to offer any concrete solutions to avoid a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment rights at a joint trial. In addition, the court identified a serious risk of a "spillover" effect if defendant was tried with codefendants based on the nature of the charges. The defendant therefore met his burden of demonstrating a joint trial would cause him to suffer real prejudice.12/13/2012
-USA v. Troy Fulkerson -- Order overruling defendant's relevancy objection to his criminal history and circumstances of arrest offered by the Government to be used in determining revocation of pretrial release. Court found that evidence of dangerousness did not have to relate to the charged offense and the requirements for revocation and detention under 18 U.S.C. section 3148(b) were met.11/21/2012
-USA v. Barber -- Order denying Dominic Barber's motion for severance of trial. Defendant failed to show his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses would be violated by anticipated statements from a co-defendant. Defendant also did not demonstrate such unique circumstances that the jury would not be able to compartmentalize the evidence against him or that appropriate jury instructions would not be able to prevent any prejudicial "spillover."11/02/2012
-Earl Foy, Jr. v. United States of America -- Order granting in part and denying in part petitioner's motion for psychological evaluation in a Section 2255 case. Petitioner has shown the necessary good cause to allow the requested discovery. However, the court does not have the authority to compel the Bureau of Prisons to move petitioner to a facility closer to Fort Dodge, Iowa, for purposes of the proposed evaluation. In addition, petitioner's request for advance authorization of payment for the expert's fee must be approved by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit because the proposed fee exceeds the cap set forth in the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3006A(e)(3).10/15/2012
-United States of America v. Ruben Olivares-Rodriguez -- Report and Recommendation on plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis. Court recommended that the motion be denied and the petition re-filed as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. section 2255. The defendant is procedurally barred from relief under a coram nobis petition because he is still "in custody" while under supervised release, but his petition may be construed as a section 2255 motion given the alleged errors and requested relief.10/02/2012
-USA v. Baisden -- Order granting government's motion for psychiatric examination of defendant. Defendant has pled guilty and has been evaluated by a mental health professional selected by the defense. The defense intends to rely on the professional's opinion as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes. The government seeks to compel defendant to undergo a second evaluation by an expert selected by the government in order to address and rebut the defense expert's opinion. Defendant correctly notes that this situation does not fall within Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2. However, the court finds that it has the inherent authority to compel the requested examination and that it is appropriate to do so under these circumstances.08/01/2012
-USA v. Stephenson -- Report and Recommendation denying defendant's motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement while a search warrant was executed at his home. Although the defendant was not Mirandized prior to being questioned, The circumstances show that he was not in custody. As such, the lack of a Miranda warning does not render the statements inadmissible.06/27/2012
Hide details for Social Security CasesSocial Security Cases
-Kennedy v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II Social Security Disability benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security income benefits. Court found ALJ's assessment of plaintiff Kennedy's credibility was proper and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court also found ALJ afforded proper weight to Kennedy's subjective allegations and ALJ's determination that Kennedy was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against Kennedy.09/16/2014
-Rollefson v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis and consideration of Rollefson's credibility, VE's testimony, and vocational evaluation were proper and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court affirmed ALJ's decision.09/08/2014
-Rozeboom v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not provide good reasons for discrediting treating therapist's opinion and did not explain how medical evidence supported RFC determination. Court recommended that case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings for the ALJ to either obtain additional medical evidence from claimant's treatng psychiatrist or a consultative examiner or explain how existing medical evidence supports the RFC determination.07/23/2014
-Barrows v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ had appropriately indicated he considered obesity in determining the claimant's RFC and ALJ's evaluation of claimant's mental RFC was supported by substantial evidence. Court found ALJ's evaluation of claimant's physical RFC was not supported by substantial evidence and ALJ had failed to fully and fairly develop the record to support a Step Five determination that claimant could perform other work available in the national economy. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.07/01/2014
-Gutierrez v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found new and material evidence from treating physician was not credible and did not require reversal. Court also found ALJ's credibility determination and RFC and hypothetical question to the VE were supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.06/25/2014
-Thimmesch v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis of medical opinions, credibility and VE testimony was supported by substantial evidence. However, ALJ erred at Step Three by failing to discuss whether claimant's impairments were medically equal to Listing 12.05C or why this Listing was ignored. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.05/27/2014
-Kruger v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis of claimant's mental impairments was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. However, ALJ did not meet burden at Step Five concerning claimant's physical impairments because there was no medical opinion from a treating or examining source and the medical evidence was insufficient to establish claimant's ability to perform competitive work. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.04/21/2014
-King v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's analysis of consultative examiners' opinions and treating psychiatrists's notes were supported by substantial evidence as was ALJ's credibility determination. Court found ALJ did not meet burden at Step Five though because there were no medical opinions from a treating or examining source on work-related limitations associated with claimant's physical impairments. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.04/04/2014
-Walker v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, but ALJ did not meet burden at Step Five because there was no medical evidence from a treating or examining source on the work-related limitations associated with claimant's severe impairment of recurrent headaches. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 04/03/2014
-Murphy v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that substantial evidence supported ALJ's finding that claimant could perform past relevant work and ALJ appropriately considered claimant's receipt of unemployment benefits in evaluating her credibility. Court found ALJ erred, however, by failing to discuss the weight he gave the consultative examiner's opinion and failing to provide good reasons supported by substantial evidence for discrediting the treating physician's opinion. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.03/26/2014
-DeVary v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found that substantial evidence supported ALJ's finding that claimant had RFC to perform sedentary work. Court also found substantial evidence supported ALJ's credibility assessment and Step Five determination that other work existed in the national economy that claimant could perform. ALJ's decision was affirmed.03/19/2014
-Bauerly v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence and claimant's credibiltiy was supported by substantial evidence. Court also found ALJ obtained appropriate testimony from a vocatonal expert on claimant's ability to perform work available in the national economy. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.03/11/2014
-Niebaum v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record by not obtaining medical opinions from an examining source as to claimant's mental and physical work-related limitations. ALJ's credibiltiy determination was also not supported by good reasons or substantial evidence. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.03/04/2014
-Tennyson v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's evaluation of the treating psychologist's opinion and claimant's credibility was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Court also found that ALJ's decision remained supported by substantial evidence when considering the new evidence in the record from claimant's nurse practitioner and vocational rehabilitation services.02/10/2014
-Ramos v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions and claimant's credibilty. Although the ALJ mistakenly used a more limited RFC in determining if claimant could perform other work in the national economy and referred to a non-treating source as a treating source, the court found these errors did not warrant reversal. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.01/29/2014
-Kunik v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ failed to consider relevant medical evidence in evaluating claimant's RFC and credibility. Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the ALJ to consider the evidence and additional evidence that had been submitted to the Appeals Council.01/27/2014
-Gulick v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's weighting of the medical opinions and RFC determination were supported by substantial evidence but Commissioner did not meet burden at Step Five in determining whether claimant could perform work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.01/17/2014
-Whited v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinions was supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ adequately accounted for all of the claimant's impairments and related limitations in the RFC and hypothetical question to the VE. ALJ's credibility determination was also supported by substantial evidence. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.01/09/2014
-Figgins v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not err in weighing medical evidence or discrediting claimant's allegations, but the ALJ should have obtained a medical opinion from a treatment source or consultative examiner regarding claimant's work-related limitations. Court recommended remand for the ALJ to obtain this evidence and re-evaluate whether claimant retained the RFC necessary to perform work that exists in the national economy.01/02/2014
-Vantuyl v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not err by failing to address all of the limitations identified by the state agency consultants or by failing to discuss certain evidence in evaluating the claimant's credibility. Court found ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. ALJ's decision was affirmed.11/20/2013
-Ditsworth v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported ALJ's analysis of claimant's credibility and the medical opinion evidence. Court also found the ALJ properly applied the Act's definition of disability and asked hypothetical questions that incorporated all of the claimant's proven impairments. ALJ's decision was affirmed. 11/12/2013
-Sneller v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ provided good reasons supported by substantial evidence for discrediting the opinions of the treating physician and the claimant's subjective allegations. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.11/07/2013
-Al-Hameed v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not provide good reasons for giving no weight to the claimant's treating physician's opinion and failed to obtain a medical opinion addressing the claimant's work-related limitations for her mental impairment. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.11/04/2013
-Phalakhone v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ erred by failing to order a new consultative examination after rejecting the first consultative examiner's opinion because she was not an acceptable medical source. The ALJ further erred by drawing his own inferences from the medical evidence when he cited the lack of objective medical evidence as the basis to discredit only the medical opinions identifying a sitting limitation, but found the same evidence sufficient to support other opinions/limitations. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.11/04/2013
-Loftis v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not meet burden at Step 5 because there were no medical opinions supporting the claimant's RFC to perform other work available in the national economy. Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the ALJ to attempt to obtain medical opinions.10/16/2013
-Kohn v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ provided good reasons for discrediting the claimant and her husband and properly weighed the medical opinions in determining the claimant's RFC. The ALJ appropriately incorporated the limitations from his RFC finding into the hypothetical question to the VE. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.09/26/2013
-Carter v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and the hypothetical question submitted to the VE accounted for all of the claimant's credible impairments. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.09/26/2013
-Hattig v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no medical evidence of the claimant's work-related limitations to support the ALJ's finding at Step Five that the claimant could perform other work available in the national economy. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further development of the record.09/16/2013
-Henn v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found the ALJ's analysis of whether the claimant suffered repeated episodes of decompensation and whether substance use was a contributing factor material to a finding of disability were not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The ALJ also erred in his evaluation of the medical evidence and the credibility of the claimant and third parties. Court recommended remand with instructions to conduct new analyses on these issues.09/05/2013
-Lopez v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ provided good reasons for the weight she gave to the medical opinions in the record and for discrediting claimant's subjective allegations. The VE's testimony based on the ALJ's hypothetical question was also supported by substantial evidence. Court affirmed the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled. 08/13/2013
-McCormick v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred in evaluating the treating physician's opinion and the claimant's credibility. Court recommended the case be reversed and remanded for further consideration and findings.07/26/2013
-Simmonds v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ's credibility determination and hypothetical question to the VE were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled. 07/19/2013
-Tedford v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to consider her somatization disorder diagnosis at step two and at step four in conducting his credibility analysis while determining her RFC. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 07/02/2013
-Keyser v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred by relying heavily on claimant's noncompliance with recommended treatment to discredit her subjective complaints without considering whether noncompliance was related to her mental impairments. Court recommended remand to obtain medical opinion on this issue and reconsider her RFC in light of this evidence and new evidence that had been submitted to the Appeals Council.05/31/2013
-Henning v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ erred at step two by failing to conduct a careful evaluation of the medical findings and consider the claimant's subjective complaints in determining whether her skin condition was severe. Court recommended remand with instructions to conduct a new step two analysis, consider whether her skin condition met or equaled a listing at step three and consider the effects of her skin condition both separately and in combination with her mental impairment in determining her RFC at step four. 05/09/2013
-Miller v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred at step two by failing to consider the claimant's subjective allegations and the combination of all his impairments. ALJ also erred at step four by failing to consider both severe and non-severe impairments in determining the claimant's RFC. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.05/07/2013
-Meyerhoff v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not obtain additional medical evidence as required by the previous remand order, improperly excluded a previously identified limitation and provided a new RFC that was not supported by substantial evidence. Court recommended the case be reversed and remnded for further proceedings. 05/02/2013
-Kinseth v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinions and recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.04/04/2013
-Tomlinson v. Colvin -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of the treatiing source opinion and claimant's credibility and recommended the ALJ's decision be affirmed.03/15/2013
-Newcomb v. Colvin -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's evaluation of the medical evidence, the credibility analysis, the hypothetical question to the VE, and his ultimate decision that claimant was not disabled.03/06/2013
-Comstock v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not properly evaluate the credibility of the claimant or her husband concerning the severity and limitations of her migraines. Case reversed and remanded for re-evaluation of credibility and further development of the record if necessary.02/14/2013
-Kling v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ did not properly evaluate treating physician's medical opinion in that she did not give it controlling weight or explain why it was not given controlling weight as required by the regulations. Court recommended the ALJ's decision be reversed and remanded.01/31/2013
-Rohwer v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant's impairment did not meet the listing requirements of Section 12.04. Substantial evidence also supported the limitations provided in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert and the ALJ was entitled to rely on the expert's testimony in concluding the claimant could perform other work and was not disabled.01/09/2013
-Jansen v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application for Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's credibility analysis, RFC determination, and the finding that claimant's hearing loss did not meet or equal any of the listed impairments. 01/08/2013
-Tracy v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ did not provide "good reasons" for giving the treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight and there was overwhelming evidence that claimant could not lift more than 10 pounds since his alleged onset date. Because claimant could not return to past relevant work and had no transferrable skills under this limitation, the court recommended the ALJ's decision be reversed and remanded.12/28/2012
-Sangel v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions, analyzed claimant's credibility, and concluded claimant could perform other work in the national economy, with findings supported by substantial evidence.12/21/2012
-Morrison v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and disabled widow's benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found ALJ erred in discrediting treating physician's opinion and claimant's subjective allegations relating to mental disorder based on her efforts to gain employment and an improper inference that her disorder was situational which was not supported by substantial evidence. Case reversed and remanded for calculation and award of benefits.11/28/2012
-Kofron v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Court found ALJ properly considered the medical opinions and new medical evidence did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ's decision. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's credibility analysis, RFC determination, hypothetical question to the VE, and his ultimate decision that claimant was not disabled.10/25/2012
-Agan v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ properly determined claimant's credibility and fully developed the record as to claimant's work-related limitations, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and mental impairments, with findings supported by substantial evidence.10/15/2012
-Foster v. Astrue -- Report and Recommendation on judicial review of denial of application for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. Court found ALJ failed to fully develop the record regarding claimant's past work and should have made findings regarding claimant's vocational rehabilitation and whether claimant met criteria under Listing 12.05C. Court recommended remand for further development of the cord. 09/26/2012
-Carter v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of application of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI supplemental security income benefits. Court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that claimant was not disabled.08/20/2012
-Nicolls v. Astrue -- Memorandum Opinion and Order on judicial review of denial of applications for Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. Court found substantial evidence supported Commissioner's decision that claimant was not disabled.07/12/2012