AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION ; Isaiah Smith, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Jack MCCARTY, in his individual and official capacity ; Joe D. Tolbert, in his individual and official capacity ; Brad Greene, in his individual and official capacity ; Richard Davis, in his individual and official capacity ; Ralph Kunkel, in his individual and official capacity ; Cary Hancock, in his individual and official capacity ; Dolores Webb, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants–Appellants. American Humanist Association ; Isaiah Smith, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Birdville Independent School District; Jack McCarty, in his individual and official capacity ; Joe D. Tolbert, in his individual and official capacity ; Brad Greene, in his individual and official capacity ; Richard Davis, in his individual and official capacity ; Ralph Kunkel, in his individual and official capacity ; Cary Hancock, in his individual and official capacity ; Dolores Webb, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants–Appellees.
Monica Lynn Miller, American Humanist Association, Washington, DC, Patrick Allen Luff, Luff Law Firm, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs–Appellees. Donald Craig Wood, Attorney, Katie Elizabeth Payne, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants–Appellants. Stacy Tuer Castillo, Attorney, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants–Appellants Ralph Kunkel, in his individual and official capacity, Cary Hancock, in his individual and official capacity, Dolores Webb, in his individual and official capacity. Christopher Blewer Gilbert, Thompson & Horton, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Texas Association of School Boards Legal Assistance Fund.
Monica Lynn Miller, American Humanist Association, Washington, DC, Patrick Allen Luff, Luff Law Firm, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, Roger L. Mandel, Lackey Hershman, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs–Appellees.
Donald Craig Wood, Attorney, Katie Elizabeth Payne, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants–Appellants.
Stacy Tuer Castillo, Attorney, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants–Appellants Ralph Kunkel, in his individual and official capacity, Cary Hancock, in his individual and official capacity, Dolores Webb, in his individual and official capacity.
Christopher Blewer Gilbert, Thompson & Horton, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Texas Association of School Boards Legal Assistance Fund.
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
The American Humanist Association ("AHA") and Isaiah Smith appeal a summary judgment for defendants, the Birdville Independent School District and its seven board members (collectively, "BISD"). AHA and Smith allege that BISD's policy of inviting students to deliver statements, which can include invocations, before school-board meetings violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Because the practice falls more nearly within the recently reaffirmed legislative-prayer exception to the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of the school district and, in the accompanying consolidated appeal, we reverse and render on the denial of qualified immunity to the school board members.
BISD is a public school district. Smith is a 2014 graduate of Birdville High School and a member of AHA, an organization that "advocate[es] progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers." While a student at Birdville High School and as an alumnus, Smith attended BISD board meetings, some of which included student-led prayers. At a board meeting in December 2014, with a student-led invocation, Smith said that he felt affronted by the prayer and that it meant that BISD was "favoring religion over nonreligion." Smith is and has been an adult at all relevant times.
See American Humanist Association, https://americanhumanist.org (last visited Mar. 17, 2017).
BISD's board holds monthly meetings in the District Administration Building, which is not located within a school. The meetings include sessions open to the public. Attendees are free to enter and leave at any time. Most attendees are adults, though students frequently attend school-board meetings to receive awards or for other reasons, such as brief performances by school bands and choirs.
Since 1997, two students have opened each session—with one leading the Pledge of Allegiance and the Texas pledge and the other delivering some sort of statement, which can include an invocation. Those student presenters, typically either elementary- or middle-school students, are given one minute. BISD officials do not direct them on what to say but tell them to make sure their statements are relevant to school-board meetings and not obscene or otherwise inappropriate. At a number of meetings, the student speakers have presented poems or read secular statements. But according to AHA and Smith, they are usually an invocation in the form of a prayer, with speakers frequently referencing "Jesus" or "Christ." AHA and Smith claim that sometimes the prayers are directed at the audience through the use of phrases such as "let us pray," "stand for the prayer," or "bow your heads."
Of the 101 meetings from February 2008 to June 2016, elementary-and middle-school students delivered the presentations 84 times.
According to AHA and Smith, these requests typically come from the student speakers, though on occasion a board member or other school official has asked the audience to stand for the invocation. At the summary-judgment stage, "we must assume the facts as alleged by the [plaintiff]." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., 523 U.S. 75, 76, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998).
From 1997 through February 2015, the student-led presentations were called "invocations" and were delivered by students selected on merit. In March 2015, in an apparent response to AHA's concerns about the invocations, BISD began referring to them as "student expressions" and providing disclaimers that the students' statements do not reflect BISD's views. BISD began randomly selecting, from a list of volunteers, the students who would deliver the expressions. II.
Each BISD campus selected students on a rotational basis (school-board members did not participate in the selection process). Campus officials took into account academic achievement, leadership, citizenship, extracurricular activities, and other factors.
In late 2014, AHA sent BISD a letter complaining of the invocations and asking BISD to provide "written assurances that prayer will not be included in future School Board meetings." BISD's associate superintendent later testified that he recommended the policy changes so that the district "wouldn't be subject to litigation."
The subject of the student introductions must be related to the purpose of the event and to the purpose of marking the opening of the event; honoring the occasion, the participants, and those in attendance; bringing the audience to order; and focusing the audience on the purpose of the event. A student must stay on the subject, and the student may not engage in obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech. The District shall treat a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the District treats a student's voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.
Though student speakers are chosen randomly from a pool of volunteers, that pool may not be representative of the BISD student body: It consists only of members of the student leadership at the respective campuses.
AHA and Smith sued BISD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages from the individual school-board members and declaratory and injunctive relief. In their amended complaint, AHA and Smith alleged that BISD has a "policy, practice, and custom of permitting, promoting, and endorsing prayers delivered by school-selected students" at board meetings, in violation of the Establishment Clause. BISD answered that the student-led invocations either qualify as private speech, satisfy the conventional Establishment Clause tests, or fit within the legislative-prayer exception to those tests.
BISD moved to dismiss, alleging that AHA and Smith had failed to state a claim and that the school-board members were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The individual-capacity defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity.
BISD moved for summary judgment. The district court granted that motion, finding that the legislative-prayer exception applies. AHA and Smith filed a separate appeal, bringing an issue of first impression to this court.
The qualified-immunity and summary-judgment appeals have been consolidated. Because there is no constitutional violation, we do not address qualified immunity except summarily to reverse the denial of immunity.
The Supreme Court generally applies at least one of three tests under the Establishment Clause: the Lemon test, the endorsement test, and the coercion test. But in Marsh v. Chambers , 463 U.S. 783, 784–85, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983), a member of the Nebraska Legislature sued state officials, claiming that the practice of opening each session with a chaplain's prayer violated the Establishment Clause. The Court upheld the practice without applying any of the conventional tests, observing that "[t]he opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country." Id. at 786, 103 S.Ct. 3330.
See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) ("[W]e have repeatedly emphasized our unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area.").
Under the Lemon test, for a government practice to be constitutional, it must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971).
Under the endorsement test, a "[g]overnment unconstitutionally endorses religion whenever it appears to take a position on questions of religious belief, or makes adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Ingebretsen ex rel. Ingebretsen v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 1996). "The government creates this appearance when it conveys a message that religion is favored, preferred, or promoted over other beliefs." Id.
Under the coercion test, unconstitutional coercion occurs where "(1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors." Doe ex rel. Doe v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 173 F.3d 274, 285 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 977 F.2d 963, 970 (5th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Doe v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 1999) ).
Chambers, 463 U.S. at 796, 103 S.Ct. 3330 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("The Court makes no pretense of subjecting Nebraska's practice of legislative prayer to any of the formal ‘tests' that have traditionally structured our inquiry under the Establishment Clause.").
The Court revisited the issue in Town of Greece v. Galloway , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 1827–28, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014), stating unequivocally that the legislative-prayer exception in Chambers extends to prayers delivered at town-board meetings. Those prayers, however, must not "denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion." Id. at 1823. Moreover, "[t]he principal audience for these invocations is not ... the public but lawmakers themselves, who may find that a moment of prayer or quiet reflection sets the mind to a higher purpose and thereby eases the task of governing." Id. at 1825.
As distinguished from legislative-prayer cases, however, the Supreme Court, in school-prayer cases such as Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe , 530 U.S. 290, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000), Lee v. Weisman , 505 U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992), and County of Allegheny v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989), has applied the conventional Establishment Clause tests. In Weisman , a graduation-prayer case, the Court, 505 U.S. at 592, 112 S.Ct. 2649, explained that "there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools" and that "prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk" of unconstitutional coercion. The Court distinguished Weisman from Chambers , noting that the legislative-prayer exception does not apply in "the public school context." Id. at 597, 112 S.Ct. 2649. In ACLU , the Court opined that "state-sponsored prayer in public schools" is "unconstitutional."
ACLU, 492 U.S. at 590 n.40, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (1989) (citing Abington Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) ).
The key question, then, is whether this case is essentially more a legislative-prayer case or a school-prayer matter. Like Galloway , this dispute is about the constitutionality of permitting religious invocations at the opening, ceremonial phase of a local deliberative body's public meetings. But like Santa Fe , this case is about school-district-sanctioned invocations delivered by students on district property.
We agree with the district court that "a school board is more like a legislature than a school classroom or event." The BISD board is a deliberative body, charged with overseeing the district's public schools, adopting budgets, collecting taxes, conducting elections, issuing bonds, and other tasks that are undeniably legislative. See TEX. EDUC. CODE § 11.1511. In no respect is it less a deliberative legislative body than was the town board in Galloway .
The invocations are appropriately "solemn and respectful in tone." Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1823. Most attendees at school-board meetings, including Smith, are "mature adults," and the invocations are "delivered during the ceremonial portion of the [school board's] meeting." Id. at 1827. "Nothing in the record suggests that members of the public are dissuaded from leaving the meeting room during the prayer, arriving late, or even ... making a later protest." Id. Occasionally, BISD board members and other school officials will ask the audience, including any students in the audience, to stand for the invocation. Those polite requests, however, do not coerce prayer.
AHA and Smith advance three colorable theories for why this should be understood as a school-prayer case. First, they claim that legislative prayers must be "internal acts" that are "entirely" for the benefit of lawmakers. As BISD acknowledges, its invocations are meant to benefit students and other attendees at school-board meetings, not just board members. But in Galloway , id. at 1825, the Court explained that lawmakers were merely the "principal audience" for the invocations, suggesting that the audience may be made up of various groups, as well as unaffiliated individuals, so long as lawmakers are the main one. In its brief, BISD explains that the board members are the invocations' primary audience. AHA and Smith have not shown otherwise.
Second, AHA and Smith claim that BISD's invocation policy does not fit within the legislative-prayer exception because it lacks a "unique history." In Galloway , id. at 1819, the Court drew on historical evidence, describing its inquiry as "determin[ing] whether the prayer practice ... fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures." In Chambers , 463 U.S. at 790, 103 S.Ct. 3330, the Court emphasized the long history of legislative prayer, explaining that Nebraska's custom was "consistent with two centuries of national practice" and would not "be cast aside."
School-board prayer presumably does not date back to the Constitution's adoption, since "free public education was virtually nonexistent at the time." Edwards v. Aguillard , 482 U.S. 578, 583 n.4, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987). Nonetheless, dating from the early nineteenth century, at least eight states had some history of opening prayers at school-board meetings. And Chambers and Galloway show that there was a well-established practice of opening meetings of deliberative bodies with invocations. See Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1819. Such practices date from the First Congress, which suggests that "the Framers considered legislative prayer a benign acknowledgement of religion's role in society." Id .
See Marie Elizabeth Wicks, Prayer Is Prologue: the Impact of Town of Greece on the Constitutionality of Deliberative Public Body Prayer at the Start of School Board Meetings, 31 J.L. & Pol . 1, 30–31 (Summer 2015).
Arguably, BISD's practice of student-led invocations undermines its claim that its practice is consistent with the historical practice, given that, historically, legislative invocations were delivered by chaplains. See Chambers, 463 U.S. at 787–88, 103 S.Ct. 3330. But the long history of chaplain-led invocations is relevant only insofar as it suggests that the Framers approved of them.
Although chaplains may be better at giving appropriately solemnizing invocations, the fact of their institutional religious affiliations risks the perception that the governmental body responsible for inviting them is affiliating itself with institutional religion. Allowing a student to give a Jewish prayer does not create the same perception of institutional entanglement that might result from a prayer from a rabbi. Thus, BISD's practice of allowing students to deliver invocations fits within the legislative-prayer exception, notwithstanding its departure from the historical practice of chaplain-led invocations.
See also id. at 786, 103 S.Ct. 3330 (stating that "[t]he opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.").
We do not overlook AHA and Smith's notion that the presence of students at BISD board meetings distinguishes this case from Chambers and Galloway . That is significant, because courts must consider "both the setting in which the prayer arises and the audience to whom it is directed." Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1825. Children are especially susceptible to peer pressure and other forms of coercion. See , e.g. , Weisman , 505 U.S. at 592, 112 S.Ct. 2649. Nonetheless, the presence of students at board meetings does not transform this into a school-prayer case. There were children present at the town-board meetings in Galloway , as the dissenting and lower court opinions noted; the Court nonetheless applied the legislative-prayer exception. Moreover, here, as in Galloway , "the prayer is delivered during the ceremonial portion of the ... meeting." Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1827.
Galloway, 134 S.Ct. at 1846, 1848 (Kagan, J., dissenting).
Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 2012) (stating that "members of Boy Scout troops and other student groups have led the Pledge of Allegiance, and high school students may fulfill a state-mandated civics requirement necessary for graduation by going to Board meetings.").
See Galloway, 134 S.Ct. at 1831 (Alito, J., concurring) (rejecting the dissent's concern that "ordinary citizens (and even children!) are often present" at town-board meetings).
Although the Supreme Court has not addressed whether the legislative-prayer exception applies to school-board invocations, two circuits have. Both found that the legislative-prayer exception does not apply. In Coles ex rel. Coles v. Cleveland Board of Education , 171 F.3d 369, 383 (6th Cir. 1999), the court held that the legislative-prayer exception does not extend to invocations at school-board meetings. Although such meetings "might be of a ‘different variety’ than other school-related activities ... they are part of the same ‘class' as those other activities in that they take place on school property and are inextricably intertwined with the public school system." Id. at 377. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that it is a tough question: "This case puts the court squarely between the proverbial rock and a hard place." Id. at 371.
The court in Doe v. Indian River School District , 653 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2011), reached a like conclusion. It described comparisons between the school board and municipal bodies as "ill-suited," because the board's "entire purpose and structure ... revolves around public school education." Id. at 278–79.
Coles and Indian River predate Galloway and are factually, and therefore legally, distinguishable from the circumstance at BISD. Coles involved a school board that always had at least one student member. Coles , 171 F.3d at 383. In Indian River , student representatives attended board meetings "in their formal role as student government representatives." Indian River , 653 F.3d at 264. In contrast, no students sit on the BISD board, BISD board members do not deliver the invocations, and the student representatives are not expected to attend board meetings.
Establishment Clause cases often hinge on facts peculiar to each situation. See Weisman, 505 U.S. at 597, 112 S.Ct. 2649 ("Our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains a delicate and fact-sensitive one....").
At least two other circuit-court decisions—including one by this court—have touched on these issues. Both predate Galloway and turn on an argument the Court rejected there.
Two district courts (in addition to the court a quo ) have discussed the issue. In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19995, at *31–32 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016), the court found that the legislative-prayer exception does not apply to a school board's practice of beginning its meetings with invocations. In Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 631 F.Supp.2d 823, 839 (E.D. La. 2009), the court found that the legislative-prayer exception did apply to a school board's practice of beginning school-board meetings with invocations.
In Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified School District Board of Education , 52 Fed.Appx. 355, 356–57 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), the court assumed arguendo that the legislative-prayer exception applies to school-board invocations but held the district's policy unconstitutional because of the sectarian nature of the invocations. In Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board , 473 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 2006), vacated on reh'g en banc , 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007), a split panel of this court struck down a school board's invocation policy. One of the judges in the majority did so on account of the sectarian nature of the invocations. Id. at 202–04. But in Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1820–23, the Court said the Constitution does not require invocations to be non-sectarian.
The en banc court vacated that decision for lack of standing.
BISD's case is factually distinguishable from Bormuth v. County of Jackson, 849 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2017), vacated for reh'g en banc, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3564 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017), which also involved the legislative-prayer exception. Bormuth concerned a county board whose members personally delivered religious invocations and "affirmatively excluded non-Christian prayer givers." Id. at 287. The record suggests that board members "singled out [the plaintiff] for opprobrium" and may have denied him a spot on a particular committee in retaliation for his criticisms of the board's invocation policy. Id. at 286.
BISD board members often stand and bow their heads during the student-led invocations. AHA and Smith claim that violates the Establishment Clause regardless of whether the invocation policy itself is constitutional. They point to Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District , 70 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1995), holding that a high-school basketball coach's participation in team prayers, on the basketball court at games, was an "unconstitutional endorsement of religion." AHA and Smith note that unlike that case, this one concerns high-level school district officials (such as principals and board members), some of whom publicize their religious affiliation on the district's website. Moreover, in Duncanville a member of the team was mocked and "required to stand by while the team prayed" and was confronted by spectators who asked, "Aren't you a Christian" and by a teacher who, in class, called her a "little atheist." Id. at 404.
This case, by way of stark contrast, concerns legislative prayers. It is distinguishable from Duncanville for that reason alone. Legislative prayers are recited for the benefit of legislative officers. It would be nonsensical to permit legislative prayers but bar the legislative officers for whom they are being primarily recited from participating in the prayers in any way. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not take issue with the fact that Town of Greece board members bowed their heads during invocations. Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1826.
We do not reach BISD's arguments that the student-led invocations are private speech and that the district's policy satisfies the conventional Establishment Clause tests.
"[L]egislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society." Galloway , 134 S.Ct. at 1818 (citing Donnelly , 465 U.S. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 1355 ). Although it is possible to imagine a school-board student-expression practice that offends the Establishment Clause, this one, under its specific facts, does not. In No. 16–11220, the summary judgment is AFFIRMED. In No. 15–11067, the order denying summary judgment is REVERSED, and a judgment of dismissal is RENDERED.
It is thus unnecessary for us to decide whether a contrary practice, which would prohibit student speakers from religious expression at school-board meetings, would offend the Free Exercise Clause. Nor do we opine on the assertion, by thirteen states and two state governors, appearing severally as amici curiae, that "what [AHA and Smith] are truly seeking is a ban on allowing students to express a religious message during their remarks."


text:
Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1946.
See 327 U.S. 814 , 66 S.Ct. 526.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.
Mr. Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Messrs. Harry C. Weeks, of Fort Worth, Tex., and J. Paul Jackson, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
This is a companion case to Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 , 66 S. Ct. 178, decided this day. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, proceeding under 811(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 811( e)(2), as amended by 402 of the Revenue Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 798, 26 U. S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, 811(e)(2), has levied, and appellee has paid, an estate tax on the termination of a Texas marital community by the death of the husband, a domiciled resident of Texas, the tax being measured by the value of the entire community property. All of the constitutional questions raised here were presented and decided in Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 , 66 S.Ct. 178.
Appellee, decedent's Administrator, brought this suit under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 761-765, 28 U.S.C.A. 761-765, to recover as an alleged overpayment so much of the estate tax paid as is attributable to the inclusion in decedent's gross estate of the value of the wife's share of the community property.
The facts found by the district court were stipulated and are not in dispute. Decedent, a resident of Texas, was married February 12, 1901, and died on November 17, 1943, leaving him surviving his wife, their child, and grandchildren. From the date of the marriage until 1934 decedent's principal activity was that of raising livestock on a ranch in Texas, acquired largely on credit, and paid for out of savings from the ranching business. Other savings from the business were invested from time to time. After 1934 he received rent from the ranch property and income from loans and investments accumulated out of savings. During the marriage neither decedent nor his wife was ever employed by any one at a wage or salary, and neither received any commissions, fees, or similar compensation for personal services rendered. At the time of decedent's death the community property consisted of the original ranch property, investments acquired from [326 U.S. 367, 369] savings from the ranch business, rentals and other income from investments.
In the estate tax return for decedent's estate only one-half of the value of the community property was reported. The Commissioner included the full value of the community property in the decedent's gross estate, and assessed a deficiency accordingly, which appellee paid. In this suit which followed, the district court gave judgment for appellee, 59 F.Supp. 483, holding that the tax violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the command of Article I, 8 that 'all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.' The Court found it unnecessary to pass on other constitutional contentions presented.
The case comes here on direct appeal under 2 of the Act of August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. 751, 28 U.S.C. 349a, 28 U.S.C.A. 349a, appellant assigning as error the district court's ruling that the tax violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the uniformity clause of Article I, 8 of the Constitution, and the district court's failure to hold that the tax is constitutional.
Community property has been recognized and defined by the laws of Texas throughout its history.* Its laws governing community property interests are similar in most respects to those of Louisiana described in our opinion in the Wiener case, supra. On the death of the husband, in Texas, as in Louisiana, the wife's share of the community is freed from the restrictions of his exclusive management and control, and the wife acquires exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property constituting her share, as well as important new powers of control and disposition over it. On the death of the wife, her share passes to her heirs, and his share is freed from the limitations which the existence of the community places on his [326 U.S. 367, 370] control of community property. While Texas does not have the statutory restrictions on gifts which are to be found in the Louisiana Civil Code, Texas does place some limitations on the husband's power to make gifts of community property. As we said of Texas community property in Hopkins v. Bacon, 282 U.S. 122, 126 , 51 S.Ct. 62, 63, the authorities hold 'that if the husband, as agent of the community, acts in fraud of his wife's rights, she is not without remedy in the courts. Stramler v. Coe, 15 Tex. 211; Martin v. Moran, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 509, 32 S.W. 904; Watson v. Harris, 61 Tex.Civ.App. 263, 130 S.W. 237; Davis v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W. 775.' Appellee also concedes that 'excessive and capricious donations are void,' and that malicious or fraudulent intent need not be established in order that the wife shall have the remedies referred to. Appellee does not question that these are the rules generally applicable to community property in Texas.
For the reasons fully stated in our opinion in the Wiener case we conclude that the tax amendment of 811 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizing the tax as applied in this case is not open to any of the constitutional objections which have been raised against it either here or below. The judgment is accordingly reversed.
Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concur in the result for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340 , 66 S.Ct. 178.
[ Footnote * ] Speer, Law of Marital Rights in Texas (1929) p. 409 et seq.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


In Trustees of Laborers Union Local No. 1298 of Nassau & Suffolk Counties Ben. Funds v. A to E, Inc., No. 13-CV-4800 ADS ARL, 2014 WL 6926276 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014), a matter alleging violations of the LMRA and ERISA to recover monetary damages, plus injunctive and equitable relief, Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) for leave to file an amended complaint to add two additional defendants who are not signatories to the CBA under an alter ego or single employer theory. The court found that the relevant allegations, taken as true, state a plausible claim that the proposed additional defendants are alter egos of the Defendant or that they and the Defendant constitute a single employer. In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant and the additional defendants have common ownership, common principals, failed to follow corporate formalities, common officers, directors and management, share assets/financing, similar line of business and customers, common equipment and employees, and have centralized control of labor relations, and perform work within the trade and geographical jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ Union. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant aided the additional defendants in evading its contractual obligations to Plaintiff by performing work within the trade and geographical jurisdictions of the Union without conforming to the terms of the CBA. The court found that the proposed amended complaint would not be futile and granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint.
DECEDENT’S ESTATE LACKS STANDING TO BRING CLAIM FOR ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT BENEFITS. In Cole v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 13-4104, __Fed. Appx.___2014 WL 6808358 (3d Cir. Dec. 4, 2014), Guardian denied Plaintiff’s claim for AD&D benefits for the death of her sister, where Plaintiff was not designated as a beneficiary but served as co-administrator of the decedent’s Estate. In a previous interpleader action between the parties concerning a basic life insurance benefit, the parties settled the claim whereby Plaintiff received one-third of the proceeds. In the dispute for AD&D benefits, the district court granted summary judgment for Guardian on the basis that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claim because she was not a beneficiary or participant in the plan. Plaintiff argued that the previous action finally determined that the Appellant/Plaintiff is a proper beneficiary under the ERISA Plan, and that this finding has collateral estoppel effect, precluding a determination that she or the Estate is not a beneficiary. Collateral estoppel bars a party to an earlier action from litigating an issue in a later action if: (1) the identical issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the previous determination was necessary to the decision; and (4) the party being precluded from relitigating the issue was fully represented in the prior action. The 3rdCircuit found that the issue of whether she or the Estate was a beneficiary of the Plan was not actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment since the action ended with a settlement agreement that controlled the division of the basic life insurance benefit. The court rejected Plaintiff’s other argument that either she or the Estate has standing as a beneficiary under the Plan, because there are no other named beneficiaries. This argument was based on Plaintiff’s contention that the enrollment form was fraudulent and therefore invalid. The court noted that Plaintiff cited no evidence in the record of fraud and that her argument relied on highly speculative and unsupported conjecture. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the district court.
“Once a plan administrator is on notice that readily-available evidence exists that might confirm claimant’s theory of disability, it cannot shut its eyes to such evidence where there is little in the record to suggest the claim deficient.” In Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-2379, __F.3d___, 2014 WL 6845461 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 2014), the court held that the disability plan administrator, Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, did not satisfy ERISA’s full and fair review requirements and breached its fiduciary duty to Plaintiff-Participant in this matter where Plaintiff alleged that her short-term disability benefits had been improperly terminated while she was undergoing series of treatments for thyroid disease. The district court upheld Defendant’s decision, finding the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s claim. However, the court found that because Defendant failed to consider readily available material evidence of which it was put on notice, the review process failed to conform to the directives of ERISA and the Plan’s own terms. The physician reviewing Plaintiff’s claim for Liberty Life did not contact one of Plaintiff’s treating doctors even though he had his contact information and was referred to him by Plaintiff’s primary care physician. The court found that Plaintiff’s medical records for her thyroid condition alone presented a close case. She was undergoing multiple surgical procedures for a large mass in her chest that was causing her pain and tracheal compression. In the midst of it all, Plaintiff suffered the unexpected loss of her husband who had been a source of support after the earlier deaths of her mother and children. Other evidence suggested that Plaintiff would not be able to return to work. On such a close record, Defendant’s “process was simply not the collaborative undertaking that ERISA envisions.” The court found that under the terms of the Plan here, Defendant should have instructed Plaintiff plainly and specifically that additional records from her doctor were needed to perfect her claim. Additionally, a plan administrator cannot decline to undertake the most nominal efforts to obtain readily available information that was made known to the Plan, that was plainly material to the claim, and that could well have provided the proof crucial to the participant’s success. The court explained that it now adopts this “narrow principle”-narrow because it does not undercut a claimant’s responsibility to provide medical information nor impose a duty on plan administrators to fish for medical information on the mere possibility that it may be helpful in some remote way. The court reversed and remanded to the district court with directions to return the case to Defendant for a full and fair review of Plaintiff’s disability claims.
INSURER DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN INTERPRETING UNDEFINED TERM OF “DATE OF LOSS” IN DEATH BENEFIT POLICY. In Ellis v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 14-50284, __Fed.Appx.___, 2014 WL 6879124 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Reliance Standard did not abuse its discretion in calculating the death benefit paid to Plaintiff following her husband’s death in 2011 using his 2009, as opposed to his 2010, income, where her husband stopped working in 2010 due to disability. The relevant policy provides that the death benefit will be paid in the amount of two times earnings, rounded to the next higher $1,000, subject to a maximum of $700,000. “Earnings” is defined as the amount of wages the employer paid to the insured as reported on his W-2 form for the year just before the “date of loss.” “Date of loss” is not defined in the general definition section of the policy and Plaintiff argued that the term is ambiguous and should be held to mean “date of death.” The court disagreed, finding that language in the waiver provision makes clear that the date when coverage under the waiver provision begins is the day that the insured became totally disabled irrespective of the use of the term elsewhere in the contract. The waiver provision provides that the amount of insurance continued will be the amount that was in force at the time that Total Disability began, and that this amount will not increase. As such, the date of loss must be the date of disability under this provision. If the date of loss could be defined as the date of death then it would be possible for the amount of insurance to increase if the insured earned more money in the year before death than in the year before disability, but this increase is prohibited by the terms of the waiver provision. It is uncontroverted that the decedent was not “Actively at Work,” as defined in the policy, after November 19, 2010 when he became disabled and began receiving disability benefits. Thus, RSL reasonably concluded that the date of loss was November 19, 2010 and it had to look to W-2 income from the previous year, 2009, to calculate the death benefit. The court found that the district court did not err in granting Reliance Standard’s motion for summary judgment.
Denial of long-term disability benefits supported by substantial evidence despite contrary Social Security DIsability Insurance award. In Liebel v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 14-6046, __Fed.Appx.___, 2014 WL 6791181 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2014), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment for Aetna Life Insurance Company in a claim involving a denial of long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff suffered from a history of painful back and related problems associated with scoliosis and exacerbated by injuries, which have been addressed through a series of surgeries ultimately leading to a fusion from the sacrum through the thoracic spine. Aetna paid Plaintiff disability benefits for twenty-four months under the disability plan provision tying the determination of disability solely to the job she had performed. Aetna encouraged Plaintiff to apply for SSDI benefits, which would reduce the amount of long-term disability benefits that it would have to pay her. In so doing, Aetna provided the services of a specialized Social Security claims administration company to represent her. Subsequently, the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that she was disabled, meaning that it found her unable to perform not just her past job but all other occupations available in the national economy. After twenty four months, the disability plan applies a stricter definition of disability similar to Social Security’s standard. In connection with its review of Plaintiff’s claim under the stricter definition of disability, Aetna requested Plaintiff’s medical records, retained physicians to review them and engage in peer-to-peer consultation with her medical providers, sent her for an independent medical examination and a functional capacity evaluation, and had a home assessment conducted by a registered nurse. Aetna concluded that, with a gradual work-hardening program recommended by her doctor, Plaintiff could perform sedentary work that met the criteria for gainful activity in a reasonable occupation. Aetna provided Plaintiff with a lump sum of three months’ additional benefits to cover the program and terminated her long-term disability status. On appeal, Plaintiff contended that Aetna improperly ignored the contrary SSA determination of disability and conducted a skewed and incomplete assessment of her claim. She also contended the district court reviewed Aetna’s decision under an unduly deferential standard. The court found that under “a substantial-evidence standard,” the independent examination, the functional capacity evaluation, and the successive reviews of two doctors, all support Aetna’s determination, which was also largely consistent with later communications from Plaintiff’s physician. The court noted that the determination was contrary to some earlier opinions but it reflects a reasonable judgment supported by substantial evidence.
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for N. California v. Lindquist Family LLC, No. 13-CV-01063-SC, 2014 WL 6879931 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014) involved a declaratory judgment action which sought a declaration from the court that Defendants had engaged in a transaction with a primary purpose of evading liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”). The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and moved for fees. Section 4301(e) provides for the discretionary award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party and the Ninth Circuit has a set of factors (Hummell) relevant to the grant of attorneys’ fees authorized under ERISA, which apply to attorneys’ fees sought under the MPPAA as well. In considering those factors, the court found that neither the fact that Plaintiffs’ judgment in the underlying action is not against Defendants nor the fact that Plaintiffs sought only equitable relief in this action is a reason that Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees. With respect to the factors, the court found that: 1) Defendants engaged in a transaction with a primary purpose of evading liability under the MPPAA; 2) Defendants can satisfy the fee award; 3) an award of fees in this case would likely provide some degree of deterrence against similar efforts to shield assets from MPPAA judgments; 4) the less that the Carpenters Fund has to pay its lawyers, the more it will be able to pay its participants; and 5) the merits of Plaintiffs’ position was “very strong,” and the merits of Defendants’ was “weak.” With respect to the reasonableness of the fees sought, Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for five attorneys’ and two paralegals’ work on this case, totaling 200 hours and $70,065.00. Plaintiffs also sought $1,003.04 in costs. The hourly rates ranged from $275/hour to $600/hour. However, the court used hourly rates that Plaintiffs’ attorneys previously declared were consistent with the prevailing market rates for litigation involving union-sponsored benefit funds: $275 for attorneys with 10 or more years of experience, $225 for attorneys with less than 10 years of experience, and $115 for paralegals for litigation matters. Applying the reduced rates to all of the time Plaintiffs’ sought, the court awarded $46,495 in attorneys’ fees and reimbursement for the reasonable costs of litigation.
In Lynn R. v. ValueOptions, No. 2:12-CV-1201 TS, 2014 WL 6832903 (D. Utah Dec. 3, 2014), the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision to deny Plaintiff an award of attorneys’ fees despite finding that Defendants’ denial of residential mental-health care was arbitrary and capricious. The court did award Plaintiff $76,801.22, plus prejudgment interest at 10% per annum and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, for the cost of the treatment. The court supplemented the administrative record with Plaintiff’s documentation of costs incurred throughout the treatment period because: 1) Plaintiff submitted documentation demonstrating that her dependent received continuous treatment from July 2010 to June 2011; 2) the disputed charges were incurred after Plaintiff’s administrative appeals had been denied, so Plaintiff could not have submitted them to ValueOptions at the time the claim was denied; 3) the additional documentation reflects unique charges incurred for treatment that is not cumulative or repetitive of evidence elsewhere in the record; and 4) the documentation reflects unique costs incurred, it is not simply better evidence than what is already contained in the administrative record.
In Jabara v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 3:13·CV·02041, 2014 WL 6769971 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2014), the court determined that the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review would apply to the court’s review of Aetna’s denial of Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim. The Plan provides that Aetna is “a fiduciary with complete authority to review all denied claims for benefits under this Policy.” It also states, “In exercising such fiduciary responsibility, [Aetna] shall have discretionary authority to determine whether and to what extent eligible employees and beneficiaries are entitled to benefits and to construe any disputed or doubtful terms under this Policy, the Certificate or any other document incorporated herein.” Following the 3rd Circuit’s decision in Fieisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116, 121 (3d Cir.2012), the court held that this policy language granted discretionary authority with respect to the determination of eligibility for benefits under an employee benefit plan. The court rejected Plaintiff’s assertion that a conflict exists between the Group Insurance Policy and the Booklet-Certificate because the former purports to grant discretionary authority while the latter is silent. The court found that the fact that the Booklet-Certificate does not repeat the grant of discretionary authority contained in the Group Insurance Policy does not create a conflict.
Reiling v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, No. 6:13-CV-01349-JAR, 2014 WL 6895951(D. Kan. Dec. 5, 2014) involved a claim for accidental death benefits where the decedent died in a car crash while driving with a suspended license-a class B misdemeanor under Kansas law. In this case, the court found that there is no indication that Defendant has taken steps to reduce potential bias. Thus, in light of Defendant’s financial interest in denying benefits in this case, the court found that the conflict of interest is entitled to some weight. The court found that the term “criminal act” is ambiguous but because both interpretations are reasonable, the court upheld Defendant’s interpretation that violation of K.S.A. § 8-262(a)(1) is a criminal act. However, the decedent’s driving while suspended did not cause her death here. Under LaAsmar, Kellogg, and Fought, the policy’s definition of “accidental death” does not support Defendant’s use of “but-for causation” to deny benefits in this case. Accordingly, the court found that Sun Life abused its discretion in denying benefits based on the policy exclusion applicable to “committing or attempting to commit an assault, felony or other criminal act.” The court awarded accidental-death, seat belt, and air bag benefits totaling $101,250, and prejudgment interest using the current Kansas rate of 10%.
In Jacquez on behalf of Jacquez v. Health & Welfare Dep’t of Constr. & Gen. Laborers’ Dist. Council of Chicago & Vicinity, No. 13-CV-9221, 2014 WL 6888459 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2014), the dispute centered on the denial of physical and occupational therapy for a plan participant diagnosed with cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia. The Claim Committee determined that this therapy was excluded under the Plan’s exclusion for Maintenance or Developmental Care. In so doing, the Committee did not consider additional information submitted as part of a second voluntary appeal, wherein Plaintiffs submitted information supporting that the therapy was also for pain management. The court found that the Committee abused their discretion in the second appeal and remanded for a fresh administrative decision.
In Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, No. AP 08-01789(SMB), 2014 WL 6879248 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2014), the court determined that the “Inter-Account Method” does not violate ERISA as it pertains to inter-account transfers involving Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC IRA accounts based on ERISA’s rule that benefits under pension plans “may not be assigned or alienated.” 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1). The court found that ERISA does not generally apply to IRA accounts, including those that were rolled-over from ERISA-regulated plans. Further, ERISA contains an express provision subordinating ERISA to other federal statutes and ERISA’s anti-alienation provision trumps the Securities Investor Protection Act’s (“SIPA”) net equity calculation or distribution procedures. The SIPA net equity calculation as approved in the Second Circuit’s Net Equity Decision trumps any affect ERISA might have on the net equity calculation.
In Alampi v. Cent. States Se., No. 14-CV-11910, 2014 WL 6861449 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2014), the court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the administrative record in dispute concerning whether Plaintiff was an “employee” (rather than an independent contractor) of a company that would entitle him to receive Vesting Service or Contributory Service Credit. Defendant determined that Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the company was required to make Employer Contributions on his behalf and that Plaintiff was not eligible to receive Vesting Service or Non-Contributory Service based on his affiliation with the company because he did not demonstrate that such affiliation constituted a period of employment (instead of self-employment). On this record, the court found that it could not conclude that the Trustees’ failed to apply the proper common-law standard when determining whether Plaintiff was an “employee” under the terms of the Plan. Further, the court found that the Trustees’ decision that Plaintiff was an independent contractor for the company cannot be deemed arbitrary or capricious simply because there may have been sufficient evidence in the record to support the opposite conclusion. Lastly, the court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to benefits because he “reasonably relied” on the Fund’s repeated statements that he had earned 14.3 years of service credit and therefore qualified for a Vested Pension. When the Fund told Plaintiff that he had earned 14.3 years of service credit and qualified for a pension, it also told him that this assessment was based on current information and that his eligibility for a pension could change if the Fund found additional or conflicting information. The court found that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under a reliance or equitable estoppel-like theory because he has not demonstrated that his case fits within the test for equitable estoppel in the ERISA context as set forth in Sixth Circuit decisions such as Marks v. Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 456 (6th Cir.2003) and Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 403 (6th Cir.1998) (en banc).
In Medeiros v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, No. CV-14-01129-PHX-JZB, 2014 WL 6769190 (D. Ariz. Dec. 1, 2014) Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: (1) recovery of plan benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) against Liberty Life and the Plan; (2) failure to disclose and maintain plan documents pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c) against Wells Fargo; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) against Liberty and Wells Fargo. Liberty Life filed a motion to dismiss the third claim in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 512, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996), arguing that Plaintiff’s § 1132(a)(3) breach of fiduciary duty claim is precluded by her § 1132(a)(1)(B) claim for benefits. The court noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866, 179 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2011) control and that Plaintiff’s § 1132(a)(3) claims are subject to dismissal if in them she seeks relief that is duplicative of the relief she seeks in another cause of action. Plaintiff alleged that that Liberty Life and Wells Fargo breached their fiduciary duties in the following ways: 1) Liberty acted with malice and in bad faith against Plaintiff; 2) Liberty arbitrarily and capriciously denied Plaintiff’s benefits; 3) Wells Fargo acted imprudently by failing to oversee Liberty’s claims administration; 4) Defendants and Liberty had a duty to engage in meaningful dialogue with Plaintiff, which they failed to do; 5) Liberty was unjustly enriched as a result of its breach of fiduciary duty violations, because it wrongfully withheld benefits for its own profit; 6) Liberty did not adequately set aside reserves for Plaintiff’s LTD claim; and 7) Liberty incentivized its employees to make claims determinations based on Liberty’s “reserve report” and in the interest of its net income reports regarding company profitability. Based on this alleged unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks to “enjoin any act or practice by Wells Fargo and/or Liberty, which violates ERISA or the Plan, and/or she is entitled to see other appropriate equitable relief that is traditionally available in equity.” She further requests “mandamus relief, requiring Wells Fargo to establish a proper Plan pursuant to ERISA and other applicable law” and to have Liberty return any benefits resulting from its breaches. The court found that with regard to Liberty, to the extent that Plaintiff requests relief in the form of payment of past and future benefits, that claim is duplicative of Plaintiff’s benefit claim; however, Plaintiff seeks other forms of equitable relief against Liberty for other conduct, including equitable relief based on alleged procedural violations by Liberty in administrating Plaintiff’s claim. The court found that with regard to Wells Fargo, to the extent Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against Wells Fargo is based on its failure to maintain and disclose Plan documents to Plaintiff, those claims are duplicative of the claims in Count II of the Complaint; however, Plaintiff also asserts that Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duty by failing to oversee Liberty in its claims administration, and she seeks equitable relief to remedy such conduct. The court found that Plaintiff sufficiently pled distinct claims for relief under § 1132(a)(3) against both Liberty Life and Wells Fargo.
In Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pittman, No. CIV. WDQ-14-1442, 2014 WL 6835676 (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2014), the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant in part and deny in part Unum’s motion for default judgment against a long-term disability participant who Unum overpaid benefits as a result of a Social Security Disability Insurance award. The court found that Sereboff, rather than Knudson, controls in this case: Unum seeks to recover specific funds (Defendant’s LTD payments) and identifies the specific portion to which it is entitled (the amount of LTD benefits it overpaid while Defendant was receiving Social Security disability benefits and LTD benefits at the same time). Although Unum did not identify a specific financial account that Defendant’s Social Security disability benefits were deposited into, or prove that they are still in his possession, the court found that Unum is not required to do so. The court noted that the 4th Circuit has not addressedSereboff‘s application in the overpayment context. Because ERISA permits fiduciaries only to bring actions for equitable relief, the court recommended that Unum’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Count I (breach of contract) be denied, but the Motion as to Count II (unjust enrichment) be granted.
In Trustees of Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Bass Plumbing & Heating Corp., No. 13-CV-06797 ERK VMS, 2014 WL 6886107 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2014), the court granted the Fund’s motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid fringe contributions from Defendants. The court found that Defendants were bound by the terms of two CBAs and they did not provide adequate notice to the Union about either their termination from the Association or their desire to abrogate the Agreements. The court explained that even if a letter from a multiemployer association to a union could be considered a proper form of notice of an employer’s withdrawal from the bargaining unit, the Association’s one-sentence notification that Defendants’ membership had been terminated falls short of the standard for “unequivocal” notice of withdrawal from the Agreements.


text:
A life insurance company stipulated to pay double indemnity (twice the face of the policy) upon receipt of due proof that death of the insured resulted, directly and independently of all other causes, from bodily injury effected solely through external, violent, and accidental means, but that double indemnity should not be payable if the death resulted from self-destruction. The insured died of a rifle shot. In an action on the policy in which only the right to the additional payment was in controversy, the issue raised by the pleadings was whether the death was accidental, the company claiming suicide.
1. That the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the death was accidental. P. 303 U. S. 171.
2. The presumption that the death was due to accident, rather than suicide, lost its application to the case when evidence was introduced sufficient to sustain a finding that death was not due to accident. Id.
3. This presumption requiring the inference of accident, rather than suicide, in a case of violent death is a rule of law; it is not evidence, and may not be given the weight of evidence. Id.
Travelers' Insurance Co. v. McConkey, 127 U. S. 661, distinguished.
Certiorari, 302 U.S. 670, to review the affirmance of a judgment recovered by the present respondent in an action on a life insurance policy. See also 76 F.2d 543.
"The Double Indemnity . . . shall be payable upon receipt of due proof that the death of the Insured resulted directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injury effected solely through external, violent, and accidental means. . . . Double Indemnity shall not be payable if the Insured's death resulted from self-destruction, whether sane or insane."
Respondent sued petitioner in a state court for $20,000. There being diversity of citizenship, defendant removed the case to the federal court for the District of Montana. The complaint alleges that the death of the insured resulted directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injury effected solely through external, violent, and accidental means, and did not result from self-destruction, but directly from the accidental discharge of a rifle.
Defendant's answer concedes that plaintiff is entitled to the face of the policy, and alleges a deposit of that amount with interest in court. It denies that death resulted from bodily injury effected through accidental means, and specifically denies that it resulted from the accidental discharge of a rifle or other firearm. And, "as an affirmative defense," it alleges that the death of the insured resulted from self-destruction by intentionally discharging a loaded rifle into his body with intent to take his life.
The case came on for trial, and, at the close of the evidence, the judge, on motion of defendant directed the jury to return a verdict in its favor. Plaintiff appealed; the Circuit Court of Appeals held that the question whether the death was accidental should have been submitted to the jury, and reversed the judgment. 76 F.2d 543. At the second trial, plaintiff went forward; at the close of all the evidence, defendant requested the court to direct a verdict in its favor, insisting that plaintiff had failed to prove accidental death, and that the evidence showed death was caused by self-destruction, and was not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff. The court denied the motion, and submitted the case to the jury.
"In this case, the defendant alleges that the death of E. Walter Gamer was caused by suicide. The burden of proving this allegation by a preponderance, or greater weight of the evidence, is upon the defendant. The presumption of law is that the death was not voluntary, and the defendant . . . must overcome this presumption and satisfy the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that his death was voluntary."
means, but, by its answer . . . the . . . Company has admitted that . . . [he] died through external and violent means. . . . The question remains as to whether the death was accidentally caused, or the means of the death was accidental, or whether it was suicide. But, when the defendant took the position that it takes here, it assumed the burden of proving to you by a preponderance of evidence that Walter Gamer killed himself voluntarily. . . ."
"The presumption of law is that the death was not voluntary, and the defendant, in order to sustain the issue of suicide . . . , must overcome this presumption and satisfy the jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his death was voluntary. . . ."
The jury gave plaintiff a verdict for $20,000 with interest, and the court entered judgment in her favor for that amount. Defendant appealed, alleging that the trial judge erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict and in giving each of the quoted instructions. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 90 F.2d 817. This Court granted a writ of certiorari.
There are presented for decision questions whether the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant or in giving any of the instructions quoted above.
refrain from discussion of the evidence. We find it sufficient to sustain a verdict for or against either party. Defendant was not entitled to a mandatory instruction.
The form and substance of the challenged instructions suggest that the trial judge followed those brought before this Court in Travelers' Ins. Co. v. McConkey, 127 U. S. 661. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals reads that case to require approval of the instructions here in question. As it has not been uniformly interpreted, we shall examine its principal features. There, the accident policy sued on covered bodily injuries effected through external, violent, and accidental means when such injuries alone occasioned death or disability. A proviso declared that no claim should be made under the policy when the death or injury had been caused by suicide, or by intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or by any other person. The complaint alleged that the insured had been accidently shot by a person or persons unknown to plaintiff, by reason of which he instantly died. The answer denied that death was occasioned by bodily injuries effected through external, violent, and accidental means, and alleged that it was caused by suicide, or by intentional injuries inflicted either by the insured or by some other person.
"The plaintiff . . . gives evidence of the fact that the insured was found dead . . . from a pistol shot through the heart. This evidence satisfies the terms of the policy with respect to the fact that the assured came to his death by 'external and violent means,' and the only question is whether the means by which he came to his death were also 'accidental.'"
this presumption and satisfied the jury by a preponderance of evidence that the injuries which caused the death of the insured were intentional on his part."
"Neither is murder to be presumed . . . , but, if the jury find . . . that the insured was in fact murdered, the death was an accident as to him. . . . If . . . the injuries of the insured . . . were not intentional on his part, the plaintiff has a right to recover. . . . The inquiry . . . is resolved into a question of suicide, because, if the insured was murdered, the destruction of his life was not intentional on his part."
"The defendant, in its answer, alleges that the death of the insured was caused by suicide. The burden of proving this allegation by a preponderance of evidence rests on the defendant."
This Court held that the trial judge erred in charging that, if the insured was murdered, plaintiff was entitled to recover, and, on that ground, reversed the judgment and remanded the case with directions to grant a new trial.
It was not necessary to consider any other question. But, for guidance of the trial ordered, the Court discussed other parts of the charge.
"principal facts to be established were external violence and accidental means producing death. The first was established when it appeared that death ensued from a pistol shot through the heart of the insured. The evidence on that point was direct and positive. . . . Were the means by which the insured came to his death also accidental? If he committed suicide, then the law was for the company, because the policy . . . did not extend to . . . self-destruction."
law was for the plaintiff unless that presumption was overcome by competent evidence? This question must be answered in the negative. The condition that direct and positive proof must be made of death having been caused by external, violent, and accidental means did not deprive the plaintiff, when making such proof, of the benefit of the rules of law established for the guidance of courts and juries in the investigation and determination of facts."
the charges to which it referred. It falls far short of sustaining the instructions challenged in the present case.
Under the contract in the case now before us, double indemnity is payable only on proof of death by accident as there defined. The burden was on plaintiff to allege, and by a preponderance of the evidence to prove, that fact. The complaint alleged accident, and negatived self-destruction. The answer denied accident and alleged suicide. Plaintiff's negation of self-destruction, taken with defendant's allegation of suicide, served to narrow the possible field of controversy. Only the issue of accidental death vel non remained. The question of fact to be tried was precisely the same as if plaintiff merely alleged accidental death and defendant interposed denial, without more. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Wilkes, 76 F.2d 701, 705; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Driver, 79 F.2d 713, 714; cf. Home Benefit Assn. v. Sargent, 142 U. S. 691.
Ins. Co. v. Clemmer, 79 F.2d 724, 730; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Wilkes, supra, 76 F.2d 701, 705; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Driver, 79 F.2d 713, 714; Frankel v. New York Life Ins. Co., 51 F.2d 933, 935; Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Schachner, 70 F.2d 28, 31. But see New York Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 30 F.2d 80; Tschudi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 72 F.2d 306, 308, 310; Nichols v. New York Life Ins. Co., supra.
In determining whether, by the greater weight of evidence, it has been established that the death of the insured was accidental, the jury is required to consider all admitted and proved facts and circumstances upon which the determination of that issue depends, and, in reaching its decision, should take into account the probabilities found from the evidence to attend the claims of the respective parties.
The challenged instructions cannot be sustained.
the evidence, that his death was voluntary. . . ."
The policy of insurance was a Montana contract, and, even though the company was able to remove plaintiff's case to a federal court, I believe the plaintiff's rights should be determined by Montana law. Under Montana law, I believe the above instructions were proper.
"Where, as here, death is shown as the result of external and violent means and the issue is whether it was due to accident or suicide, the presumption is in favor of accident."
"Upon the fact of violent death without more, the presumption, i.e., the applicable rule of law, required the inference of death by accident, rather than by suicide."
At this point, agreement ends between the rule here declared by the majority and the law of Montana.
Contrary to this clear statement by the Montana Supreme Court is the different rule clearly announced by the majority here in holding that the presumption disappears after the insurance company introduced evidence merely "sufficient to sustain a finding that the death was not due to accident."
This Court does not find that the evidence in this case excludes every other reasonable hypothesis but suicide, or that all of the evidence points "unerringly to suicide as the cause of death." [Footnote 3] On the contrary, the majority opinion states: "We find it [the evidence] sufficient to sustain a verdict for or against either party. Defendant was not entitled to a mandatory instruction."
is that suits on policies for less than $3,000, tried in state courts, will frequently be decided by rules different from the rule which governs similar suits tried in federal courts because they involve more than $3,000. In an orderly and consistent system of jurisprudence, it is important that the same law should fix and control the right of recovery on substantially identical contracts made in the same jurisdiction and under the same circumstances. Neither the company nor the policyholder should obtain an advantage by the application of a different law governing the contract merely because the case can be removed to a federal court.
In this case, the law determining the burden of proof as to suicide affects the substantial rights of the parties. [Footnote 4] Substantial rights arising from an insurance contract are governed by the law of the state where the contract is made. [Footnote 5] Since the court below instructed the jury in accordance with the law of Montana, I do not believe the charge constituted reversible error.
death by violent and external means. This inevitably follows if the presumption, or right of the jury to infer death by accident, "disappears" whenever the judge believes sufficient evidence of suicide has been introduced.
Stripped of discussions of legal formulas designated as "presumptions" and "burden of proof," the net result of the rule of "disappearing presumptions" is that trial judges in federal courts (irrespective of state rules) have the power to determine when sufficient "substantial evidence" has been produced to justify taking from the jury the right to render a verdict on evidence which, had the judge not found it overcome by contradictory evidence, would have justified a verdict. The judge exercises this power as a "trier of fact," although evidence, previously introduced and sufficient to support a verdict, has neither been excluded nor withdrawn.
the previous adequate proof. Here, this Court holds that, at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, the jury had adequate proof upon which to find accidental death, and which would authorize a verdict that insured died as result of accident, but also holds that, after subsequent contradictory evidence of defendant, the judge (not the jury) could decide that plaintiff's adequate proof (presumption) had "disappeared" or had been overcome by this subsequent contradictory testimony. This took from the jury the right to decide the weight and effect of this subsequent contradictory evidence. Such a rule gives parties a trial by judge, but does not preserve, in its entirety, that trial by jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. I cannot agree to a conclusion which, I believe, takes away any part of the constitutional right to have a jury pass upon the weight of all of the facts introduced in evidence.
I believe the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Nichols v. New York Life Ins. Co., 88 Mont. 132, 140, 292 P. 253, 255.
"The testimony as to the incidents connected with the death of the insured is slight, but is sufficient to establish the death of insured by external and violent means. . . ."
". . . If plaintiff had 'shown by the fair weight of the evidence that the assured came to his death as the result of a pistol shot, . . . then the law will presume that the shot was accidental and that it was not inflicted with murderous or suicidal intent. And, under such circumstances, the burden will be upon the defendant to overcome this presumption, and to show that the death was not caused by accidental means. . . .'"
"It is apparent, therefore, that, under the great weight of authority, plaintiff's evidence made a prima facie case. As said by this Court in numerous decisions, when a prima facie case is made by plaintiff, the defendant must rebut the case so made or fail in the action."
Withers v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., 58 Mont. 485, 491, 492, 493, 494, 193 P. 566, 568.
"Testimony constituting a mere contradiction of the facts established presumptively by the prima facie case does not necessarily suffice to overthrow the same. . . . The prima facie case must not only be contradicted, but overcome, as well. When such case is made, contradictory testimony merely amounts to a conflict in the evidence, with the ultimate facts to be determined by the court or jury, as the case may be."
State v. Nielsen, 57 Mont. 137, 143, 187 P. 639, 640; cf. Johnson v. Chicago, M. & St.P. R. Co., 52 Mont. 73, 155 P. 971. See Renland v. First Nat. Bank, 90 Mont. 424, 437, 4 P.2d 488.
Cf. Nichols v. New York Life Ins. Co., supra, at 144.
Cf. Central Vermont Railway Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 238 U. S. 511-512; New Orleans & N.E. R. Co. v. Harris, 247 U. S. 367, 247 U. S. 371-372.
Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 106 U. S. 130; Northwestern Mut. Life Insurance Co. v. McCue, 223 U. S. 234, 223 U. S. 246-247.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
[274 U.S. 325, 326] Mr. A. J. Hill, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.
The constitutional validity of the ordinance in its general scope is settled by the recent decision of this court in Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S. Ct. 114, and upon the record here we find no warrant for saying that the ordinance is unconstitutional constitutional as applied to the facts in the present case. The property of plaintiffs in error adjoins Wilshire avenue, a main artery of travel through and beyond the city, and if such property were available for business purposes its market value would be greatly enhanced. The lands within the district were, when the ordinance was adopted, sparsely occupied by buildings, those in which business was carried on being limited to a few real estate offices, a grocery store, a market, a fruit stand, and a two-story business block. Much of the land [274 U.S. 325, 328] adjoining the boulevard within the restricted district had already been sold with restrictions against buildings for business purposes, although the property of plaintiffs in error and the adjacent property had not been so restricted. The effect of the evidence is to show that the entire neighborhood, at the time of the passage of the zoning ordinance, was largely unimproved, but in course of rapid development. The common council of the city, upon these and other facts, concluded that the public welfare would be promoted by constituting the area, including the property of plaintiffs in error, a zone 'B' district, and it is impossible for us to say that their conclusion in that respect was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. The most that can be said is that whether that determination was an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unequal exercise of power is fairly debatable. In such circumstances, the settled rule of this court is that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body charged with the primary duty and responsibility of determining the question. Euclid v. Ambler Co., supra, pages 388, 395 (47 S. Ct. 114); Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 294 , 44 S. Ct. 325; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U.S. 394, 408 , 412 S., 413-414, 36 S. Ct. 143, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 927; Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 526, 530 , 531 S., 37 S. Ct. 190, L. R. A. 1918A, 136, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 594; Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U.S. 342, 357 , 36 S. Ct. 370, L. R. A. 917A, 421, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446, 452 , 35 S. Ct. 892.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
TEL:- 25112364. TEL :- 25038354.
I am sending herewith the updated complete list of all books.
v ALPAP & FECHNER. FECHNER’S INTROCULAR LENSES 1.1. ALP.
v BEYER-MACHULE. PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE.
SURGERY OF THE EYELIDS. 2.1. BEY.
v DUKE ELDER TAX BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 4.1-A. DUK.
v DUKE ELDER TAX BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 4.2. DUK.
v DUKE ELDER SYSTEM OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 4.3. DUK.
v DUKE ELDER THE PRACTICE OF REFRACTION 4.4. DUK.
v EMERY & CURRENT CONCEPT IN CATARACT 5.1. EME.
v ELLIS RADIAL KEROTOTOMY & ASTIGMATISM 5.2. ELL.
v ERNEST 1982 – YEAR BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 5.3. ERN.
v ERNEST 1983 – YEAR BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 5.4. ERN.
v ERNEST 1985 – YEAR BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 5.5. ERN.
v ERNEST & 1986 – YEAR BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 5.6. ERN.
v ERNEST & 1987 – YEAR BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 5.7. ERN.
v GIRARD INTRAOCULAR SURGERY VOL. 1 7.1. GIR.
v GREGORY EYE & BRAIN – THE PSYCHOLOGY OF 7.2. GRE.
v HACK & COLES INTROCULAR INJURIES 8.1. HAI.
v HAVENER & ATLAS OF DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUE & 8.2. HAV.
GLOECKNER TREATMENT OF RETINAL DETACHMENT.
v HUGHES 1981 – YEAR BOOK OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 8.3. HUG.
v JAFFE CATARACT SURGURY & ITS 10.1. JAF.
v JAFFE CATARACT SURGURY & ITS 10.1.1. JAF.
v KANSKA & CATARACT & LENS IMPLANT SURGERY 11.1. KAN.
v KAPOOR PRACTICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY 11.2. KAP.
v NEWELL OPHTHALMOLOGY – PRINCIPLE AND 14.1. NEW.
v RITCH, SHIELDS THE GLAUCOMAS – VOL I 18.1. RIT.
v RITCH, SHIELDS THE GLAUCOMAS – VOL II 18.2. RIT.
v ROSEN & KALB INTERCAPSULAR CATARACT 18.3. ROS.
v UDWADIA DIAGNOSIS & MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE 21.1. UDW.
v VAKIL & UDWADIA DIAGNOSIS & MANAGEMENT OF MEDICAL 22.1. VAK.
v VAUGHAM, COOK & GENERAL OPTHALMOLOGY 22.2. VAU.
v WALTMAN & OTHERS SURGERY OF THE EYE – VOL I 23.1. WAL.
v WALTMAN & OTHERS SURGERY OF THE EYE – VOL II 23.2. WAL.
v WOLFF A PATHOLOGY OF THE EYE 23.3. WOL.
Ø 2. Vitreous Surgery by Michels (2 Copies).
Ø 3. Fundamentals of Ophthalmology by Reinecke & Farrell.
Ø 4. Ophthalmic Medical Assisting – An Independent study Course by Stamper.
Ø 5. Visual Fields – Examination and interpretation by Walsh.
Ø 6. Basic and Clinical Science Course 1997 – 98 (2 Copies).
and Design, Editors: Rosen & Kelly.
Ø 8. Storz Ophthalmology Instruments.
Institutions & Manufactures, 2nd Edition.
Ø 10. Quality of Cataract – Surgery, Editors: Rosen, Obastbaum. Lim, Philipson.
Ø 11. New Frontiers in Ophthalmology, Editors: Khoo, Ang, Chew & Lim.
Ø 12. Indian Ophthalmology today, 1993, Editors: J.K. Pasricha.
Ø 13. Indian Ophthalmology today, 1995, Editors: J.K. Pasricha.
Ø 14. All India Ophthalmological Society. Proceedings – 1992, Editors: V. Kalevar.
Ø 15. Hereditary Retina Choroidol Diseas3e4 & Fluroscein Angiography.
Ø 16. Practical Guide and Phaco by Dr.Mahipal Sachdeo.
Ø 17. Contact Lens, Dr. V. K. Dada.
Ø 18. Glaucoma Surgery – By Mourice H. Luritz & Harrison.
1. Update on General Medicine.
2. Fundamentals and Principles of Ophthalmology.
3. Optics, Refraction and Contact Lenses.
4. Ophthalmic Pathology & Intraocular Tumors.
6. Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus.
7. Orbit, Eyields and Lacrimal System.
8. External Diseases and Cornea.
9. Intraocular, Inflammation and Uveitus.
Ø 1. Basic Ophthalmology = Frank Berson A.A.O.
Ø 2. Wills Eye Manual = Donglas Cullom.
Ø 3. Eye Care in Developing Nations = Larry Schwah A.A.O.
Ø 4.Clinical Physiology of the Retina (Xerox Set).
Ø 5. Phaco Emulsification (A Practical Guide).
Ø 6. Contact Lenses (A Textbook For Practitioners & Students, By Dr. V. K. Dada).
Ø 8. Techno – Ophthalmolagica, 1997.
Ø 9. Eye Hope Newsletter.
Ø 10. 21st Gujarat Estate Ophthalmology Conference (18th & 19th Sept 1993 – Bhavnagar).
Ø 11. Ophthalmic Digest No.33.
Ø 12. Ophthalmic Digest Part 04.
Ø 13. Publications On Ophthalmology in Developing Nation.
§ 1. I.C.O XXVIth 18th to 24th March 1990. Exibition’s Directory.
§ 2. Toshniwals Directory = Trade Exhibition.
§ 3. Directory of Ophthalmic Surgeon’s of Gujarat Estate.
§ 4. Medical Telephone Directory (Bombay Hospital Journals).
1. IOL SURGERY IN THIRD WORLD.
2. FOLDABLE IOL INSERTION FORCEPS.
3. TECHIQUE OF YAG.LASER APPLICATION IN SILICON IOLS.
4. PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY & MEMBRANECTOMY.
5. TREPLE PROCEDURE - PKP WITH ECCE WITH PC IOL-IMPLANTATION.
6. EMULSIFICATION WITH FOLDABLE IOLI.
8. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE FOR CATARACT- IOL SYMPOSIUM.
9. SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF TRAUMATIC CATARACTS.
11. SCELERAL SUTURE FIXTATION OF PCL-GERALD R. SCHULTE.
12. VIDEO JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
13. ECCE WITH IRIS CLAW LENS FIXTATION BY-DR. DALJIT SINGH.
14. ECCE WITH PC IOL IMPLANTATION.
15. ECCE WITH PC IOL IMPLANTATION.
16. ECCE WITH PC IOL BY. DR. DANIEL KANE.
17. PC.43 IN THE BAG.IOL IMPLANTATION-DR. YOUNG.
19. PHACO WITH PC IOL IMPLANTATION.
20. PC.15 NB IOLS, IMPLANTATION BY DR. MALONEY.
22. KELMAN OMNI FIT IOLS.
23. PHACOEMULSIFICATION & AC IOL IMPLANTATION.
24. AUDIOVISUAL JOURNAL OF PHACO SERGERY.
25. BILLING AND CODING. ISSUES IN OPTOMETRIC-CO-MANAGEMENT.
1. CATARACT & AFTER CATARACT SURGERY.
3. IOL & OPHTHALMIC UPDATE.
5. REFRACTIVE CORNEAL SURGERY-PART 1-CHARLES CASBEERS.
6. REFRACTIVE CORNEAL SURGERY-PART 2-CHARLES CASBEERS.
8. IOPTEC MEDICAL MARKETING PVT. LIMITED.
9. EXTRACAPSULAR LENS EXTRACTION & INTRAOCULAR-IMPLANTATION.
10. RADIAL KERATOTOMY IOL &VITREOUS SURGERY UPDATE.
11. PHACO & FOLDABLE IOL UPDATE.
12. IOL, GLAUCOMA & RETINAL UPDATE.
13. IOL & PAN-OPHTHALMOLOGY UPDATE.
¨ CATARACT # 1 TO 5.
¨ CORNEAL # 1 TO 2.
¨ GLAUCOMA # 1 TO 3.
¨ INFORMATIONAL # 1 TO 2.
¨ OCULOPLASTICS # 1 TO 5.
¨ RETINA # 1& 2.
¨ STRABISMUS # 1 & 2.
2)ORBIC INTERNATIONAL PLANE SURGERIES MUMBAI: INDIA 1998.
TAPE. # 1, 2, & 3.
PREPARED BY DR. JAYAVANTI D. GANGAR.
3. INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
1998 JAN TO OCTO DEC.
1999 JAN, FEB, APRIL, MAY, JUNE.
9. JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
10. JOURNAL OF KERALA OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
11. INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
BASIC AND CLINICAL SCIENCE COURSE.
I A) 1 TO 13 VOL OF - YEAR 1998-1999.
IB) 1 TO 13 VOL OF - YEAR 1999-2000.
14. AMERICAN JOURNALS OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
15. EYE WORLD INTERNATIONAL NEWS FOR EYE CARE.
16. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
23. INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
NEWS B.O.A VOL.2 NO - 1 TO 12.

matches:
V.
V.
V.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4