Docket – October 23, 2018

4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Elec. Welfare Trust Fund v. United States (P), 4th Cir. (Wilkinson) from DMD at Greenbelt (Chasanow).

The Electrical Welfare Trust Fund sued under the Tax Refund Statute to recover more than $1 million paid to the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Transitional Reinsurance Program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, because § 1346(a)(1) applies only to taxes and other sums collected by the IRS. Because the payment was not a tax, exclusive jurisdiction for a suit for repayment lies with the Court of Federal Claims.


Court of Appeals of Virginia

Davidson v. Commonwealth (P), CAV (Clements) from Fredericksburg (Willis).

In a forcible sodomy and aggravated sexual battery trial, the trial court didn’t err in giving jury instructions that combined the alternative theories of force, mental incapacity, or physical helplessness as the means by which the acts were committed against the victim’s will. The trial court polled the jury after it returned the verdicts, and each juror confirmed that he or she joined in the verdicts, thus establishing that the verdicts were unanimous.


Collins v. Commonwealth (U), CAV (Chafin) from City of Richmond (Marchant).

Police relied in good faith on a warrant authorizing a search of the defendant’s cell phone, which yielded images of a firearm matching the one used in a robbery. The affidavit supporting the warrant may not have established the requisite nexus between the phone and the shooting, but it was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. The circuit court didn’t err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.


Levine v. Arlington Med. Imaging LLC (U), CAV (AtLee) from Arlington (Willis).

The circuit court erred when it reversed the State Health Commissioner’s denial of an application for a Certificate of Public Need for the appellee’s proposed CT scanning facility. The circuit court improperly reviewed the Commission’s decision de novo, rather than applying the substantial-evidence standard. The circuit also erred in admitted new evidence. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s denial of the certificate.

Reversed; agency decision reinstated.

U.S. District Court – Eastern District

Halozyme Inc. v. Iancu, EDVA at Alexandria (Hilton).

Under a binding 2018 case from the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff is required to pay the non-personnel expenses incurred by the U.S. Patent & Trade Office and the Department of Justice in litigating denial of the plaintiff’s patent application. The reimbursable expenses, primarily for expert witnesses, total $474,325.

Categories: Daily Dockets

%d bloggers like this: