No. 21-1472

Claudia J. Rohr v. Hawaii Crime Victims Compensation Commission

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-05-23
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: ada-amendments-act administrative-law americans-with-disabilities-act board-action disability-discrimination false-evidence judicial-procedure judicial-process statute-of-limitations summary-judgment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the statute of limitations accrued upon service of Commission Decision and Orders or upon first communication of the concurring vote of all three members

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED This action is brought by Petitioner Claudia Rohr, as sole beneficiary and legal representative of Scott Andrews' estate against Respondent Crime Victims Compensation Commission of the State of Hawai'i for discrimination on the basis of disability in program and services in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,! “ADAAA’) and the Title IT implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35. Following a hearing de novo, respondent's threemember Board of Commissioners took action on petitioner’s deceased husband’s applications for program benefits behind closed doors. ; The questions presented are: (1) ‘Under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a), did the four-year statute of limitations accrue ; : upon service of Commission Decision and Orders that were reviewed and approved by only one member of the board and not by the ; concurring vote of the two members necessary to take action under respondent’s own law—Haw. Rev. Stat. § 351-13? Or, did the four-year statute of limitations accrue upon first communication of the concurring vote of all three members that occurred by delivery of the minutes of the hearing de novo on April 20, 2012? 1 Public Law 110-325, codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. ii (2) Did respondent’s counsel, an officer of the court, present and use falsely made and completed Commission Decision and Orders created June 30, 2011, with intent that they be taken as genuine action, and did counsel’s conduct undermine the fair and ; impartial judicial process? (3) The respondent conceded for summary judgment that the statute of limitations accrued on April 24, 201[2]2 for an application for a December 12, 2008 assault. Did the courts below err by contradicting undisputed fact in favor of movant, respondent? ae 2 This date was corrected by Second Errata To Amended Complaint, Case Document 36 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 2. [ECF #36.] iil :

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-07-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-05-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 22, 2022)

Attorneys

Claudia J. Rohr
Claudia J. Rohr — Petitioner