| During the early morning hours of October 20, 2017, McShann was asleep in the driver’s seat of a locked, running car with his right hand resting on a pistol in his lap and music blaring from the car stereo. Officers, responding to a complaint, determined that the car was registered to a woman whom they were unable to contact. Seconds after officers roused him from sleep, McShann stopped complying with their orders that he keep his hands up and away from the gun. He grabbed the gun and swung it toward the driver-side door, where two officers were positioned. Fearing for their safety and that of their fellow officers, the officers opened fire, killing McShann. After the shooting, the officers immediately called for medical assistance and attempted first aid. The district court concluded the use of deadly force was reasonable and granted the officers summary judgment on excessive force claims, 42 U.S.C. 1983, by McShann’s estate. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that “[t]he lack of damage to the gun provides clear evidence that Mr. McShann was not holding the gun when he was shot in the hand” did not create a genuine issue of material fact. Such speculation is not enough to controvert consistent officer testimony. |
| Dockets: 20-5159, 19-6395, 19-6396, 19-6397, 19-6398, 19-6399, 19-6400, 19-6401, 19-6402, 19-6403, 19-6412, 19-6413, 19-6414, 19-6415, 19-6419, 19-6422, 19-6432, 19-6433, 19-6438, 19-6438, 19-6440, 19-6441, 19-6442, 19-6443, 19-6444, 19-6445, 19-6446, 19-6452, 19-6453, 19-6472, 19-6473, 19-6474, 19-6487, 19-6488, 19-6489, 19-6490, 19-6491, 19-6492, 20-5057, 20-5058, 20-5059, 20-5060, 20-5061, 20-5062, 20-5063, 20-5064, 20-5065, 20-5066, 20-5067, 20-5078, 20-5079, 20-5080, 20-5106, 20-5107, 20-5108, 20-5109, 20-5146 Opinion Date: February 3, 2021 Judge: Gibbons Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Legal Ethics, Public Benefits |
| For many years, attorney Conn obtained social security benefits for his clients by submitting fraudulent reports and bribing an Administrative Law Judge. After the government discovered this fraud, the SSA decided to redetermine whether each of Conn’s 1,500 claimants was actually eligible for disability benefits. The SSA held hearings and allowed the claimants to submit evidence but categorically excluded medical reports created by the doctors with whom Conn had conspired because it had “reason to believe” fraud was involved in the creation of the reports (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(7)(A)(ii))). The claimants were not permitted to challenge that finding. After the denials of their claims, 57 plaintiffs filed suit. The Sixth Circuit held that the exclusion of the reports violated the Due Process Clause and the APA. On remand, the district courts concluded that remand to the SSA was proper because “the Commissioner erred in some respect in reaching the decision to deny benefits.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed the subsequent denial of the plaintiffs’ motions for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government’s position in the litigation was “substantially justified,” in light of the precedent cited by the government, the rationale for the decision, and the fact that district courts across the country have split on this issue. The case involved numerous issues of first impression. Despite the fact that the government’s arguments were rejected, a reasonable person could have believed them to be correct. |
