Judgment for Plaintiff in ERISA Action Affirmed, and Criminal Matter

In US v. Golinveaux, No. 09-1959, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of seven rounds of .22 caliber ammunition while having been previously convicted of three or more violent felony offenses, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant showed no signs of being under the influence and rejecting defendant's argument that she was likely under the influence at the time she gave consent to search; and 2) defendant was not so overcome by police authority or by an officer's persuasive powers as to make her consent involuntary.

Rote v. Titan Tire Corp., No. 09-2510, involved an ERISA action challenging defendant-employer's denial of long-term disability benefits.  The court of appeals affirmed judgment for plaintiff on the ground that the treating doctors' affirmative responses, when read in context, showed that the restrictions on plaintiff's working capacity were permanent, not temporary.  Moreover, the court affirmed the district court's attorney's fee award on the ground that defendant relied on a hypertechnical reading of the medical evidence and ignored the doctors' attempts to clarify their opinions.

Related Resources

• Full Text of US v. Golinveaux, No. 09-1959
• Full Text of Rote v. Titan Tire Corp., No. 09-2510