U.S. District Court, Western District of N.Y. Case Summaries: July

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Jul 2, 2008

U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

Public Corporations

11th Amendment

Sulieman v. Roswell Park

Cancer Institute

05-CV-0766A

Judge Skretny

Background: The plaintiff is a medical doctor who, while on a fellowship at Roswell Park, became embroiled in a controversy with the supervising physician, who also is named as a defendant in this case. The plaintiff believed the supervising doctor engaged in unethical medical practices and raised the issue with him; the fellowship was terminated. A claim for wrongful discharge and one alleging a violation of the New York Health Care Whistleblower's Protection Act of 2002 remain standing at this point of the litigation. The defendant moved to dismiss. The magistrate judge issued a recommendation, which was before Judge Skretny.

Ruling: The supervising physician is immune from liability in his individual capacity on the plaintiff's [section]741 whistleblower claim, and his motion is granted as to that basis for the plaintiff's suit. As to the suit against Roswell Park, it is noted by the magistrate that the vulnerability of a state's treasury is of paramount concern under an 11th Amendment analysis. The balancing test leads to a finding that the action is not barred by the 11th Amendment and the plaintiff's action survives.

A.L.A. Sulieman, pro se, and James R. Grasso of Phillips Lytle LLP for the defendant

Social Security

SSI

Papoi v. Astrue

06-CV-445

Judge Telesca

Background: The plaintiff seeks judicial review of the denial of his claim for SSI benefits. In 2004, when he was 41, the plaintiff filed the claim due to cervical disk herniations, lumbosacral strain, severe muscle spasms, carpal tunnel syndrome of the right hand, asthma and depression. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Ruling: The defendant's motion is granted as the denial was supported by substantial evidence. Although the plaintiff's disabilities are severe, they are not severe enough, either singly or in combination, to qualify for benefits.

Jeffrey E. Marion for the plaintiff, and Kevin D. Robinson, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the defendant

Disability

Gates v. Barnhart

05-CV-6732

Judge Telesca

Background: The plaintiff brought action seeking review of the denial of his claim for disability benefits, filed in 2003 when he was 36. He had suffered from emotional problems, memory problems, anxiety, breathing and pulmonary problems. He alleges the decision denying his application for benefits did not properly weigh the opinions of his treating physicians and other medical sources and did not properly assess his credibility. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Ruling: The motion of the defendant is granted. The plaintiff is not prevented from doing low-stress work at all exertional levels, therefore his claim correctly was found to be outside of the scope of coverage.

Mark M. McDonald of Bond and McDonald for the plaintiff, and Christopher V. Taffe, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the defendant

Insurance Law

Default Judgment

Robinson v. Allstate

07-CV-6431L

Judge Larimer

Background: This case arises out of a fire in the plaintiff's barn that resulted in an $800,000 loss due to the many motorcycles he stored there. The complaint alleges that Allstate, the insurer, and government entities including Yates County and the State of New York conspired to deny him his constitutional rights and his insurance claim. The defendant insurer failed to answer and an entry of default was entered June 6. The plaintiff moved for a default judgment on June 10. The defendant entered an appearance on June 11 and moved to vacate the default on June 13.

Ruling: The plaintiff's motion is denied and the defendant's motion is granted. It is established Second Circuit policy that cases should be resolved on their merits, not by default judgment. The defendant fully intended to contest the plaintiff's claims.

Christina A. Agola for the plaintiff, and Howard S. Rosenhoch of Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel LLP for the defendant

Corporations

Shareholder Suits

Martindale v. Gleasman

07-CV-6517

Judge Telesca

Background: The plaintiffs brought this shareholder derivative action under New York Business Corporation Law [section]720. The other causes of action are breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with the plaintiffs' employment contracts. Until June 2007, the plaintiffs were directors of ISDI and controlled ISDI's board of directors. ISDI's sole asset was a license to a certain deicing technology for automobiles. The license was sold and the company was liquidated. The plaintiffs now claim they were denied payment of their salaries, provided for in their employment agreement with ISDI, from 2002 to 2004. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Ruling: The court notes the principle that a shareholder who participated in the challenged activity or did not oppose the challenged action is estopped and may not challenge its legality in a derivative suit. The defendants' rights were waived by their failure to object to the liquidation plan and their approval of the plan's main elements. The defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.