Latest news with #VeteransCourt
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Comfortable making hard decisions': Q&A with prosecutor Jeremy Lightner in judge's race
As one of two chief deputy district attorneys for Erie County, Jeremy Lightner helps District Attorney Elizabeth Hirz run the office. Lightner has spent much of his career prosecuting cases that involve guns and gangs. He said he wants to use that experience "to help make this county a better place" as a judge on the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. Lightner is running in the May 20 municipal primary against Emily Mosco Merski, a part-time assistant public defender for Erie County; and Leigh Ann Orton, the first assistant solicitor for Erie County. Party registration: Democrat. Lightner is cross-filed as a Democrat and a Republican. Age: 39 Residence: City of Erie Experience: Prosecutor in the Erie County District Attorney's Office since 2014. Trial chief deputy district attorney since 2023. Started career as law clerk to Erie County Judge Shad Connelly, now retired. Education: Bloomsburg University; law degree from University of Illinois. Admitted to Pennsylvania bar in 2012. Personal: Married to Sarah Lipiec Lightner, an intensive care unit nurse; one child Social media: Erie County Bar Association poll: No rating Question: Why do you want to be a judge on the Erie County Court of Common Pleas? Answer: I'm excited to use my skills to help make this county a better place. A good judge comes down to sound decision-making, and we need to elect people that are comfortable making hard decisions. I've been making hard decisions about whom to prosecute harshly and leniently for years, and I've been getting those decisions right — the drop in gun violence in Erie coincides with my assignment to reduce gun and gang violence in 2021. But the criminal justice system is just a small part of our legal system, and crime is a downstream result of the biggest problem plaguing our county: poverty. I'm excited to work to get decisions right for vulnerable people so that their lives can be bettered, rather than harmed, by the court system. Describe the case that has had the most impact on you as a lawyer. When I was a prosecutor on Veterans Court, one of the veterans struggled with addiction. He had significant issues from his service in the Iraq war, and he had fallen into addiction and crime. In Veterans Court, you have weekly meetings with the veteran to keep on top of him and ensure he's in a good place. This veteran kept relapsing, no matter how hard he tried. The fifth time this happened, the veteran came into court crying and I ended up alone with him and one of the probation officers. He talked about his nightmares and what caused him to relapse with deep insight, and thanked us for all we had done to make his life better, because it was better than it had been before Veterans Court. It was one of the most emotional conversations of my life, and I will never forget it. That veteran eventually lost his battle with addiction. That "case" taught me that we can never stop fighting for those in our community, and even if we don't reach our loftiest goals, putting in the time and energy to improve their lives is worth it. It also reminded me that being a lawyer isn't about rules and statutes. Those may be the tools of the trade, but we joined this profession to help make people's lives better, and fighting the noble fight is the most important thing you can do. Describe any changes or innovations that you would like to bring to Common Pleas Court. Watching youth gun violence in the city, I want to create programming that attacks these problems, rather than manages them. First, I think that court programming can be more aggressive with at-risk kids at an earlier age, and can try to incorporate mentorship, consequences and development into a cohesive program before they have committed crimes of violence, rather than punishing them appropriately after. Second, I believe that a program needs to exist for those charged with crimes. Right now, pretrial bond is the same whether an individual has a DUI, a retail theft or is charged with attempted homicide for shooting someone. That doesn't seem right, and I have noticed that other cities in our state have developed a "gun court" to make sure these cases, which involve significantly more public danger than the average case, are handled in thoughtful ways to make sure the community is safe and those charged are given the best chance to come out of the case as safer, better members of society. Finally, I think that housing issues are a blight upon Erie, and I do think that a housing court would allow the city, landlords and tenants to fully handle issues that seem to fall to the wayside currently in the system. Contact Ed Palattella at epalattella@ or 814-870-1813. This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Erie County judge race: Jeremy Lightner touts work as prosecutor
USA Today
27-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Disabled child's fight for fair treatment could help others - or raise bar for discrimination claims
Disabled child's fight for fair treatment could help others - or raise bar for discrimination claims The case is a being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court rejects broader disability review for veterans The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Veterans Court does not have to reexamine all evidence when reviewing disability benefits denials. unbranded - Newsworthy A student with a rare form of epilepsy said her school failed to accommodate her need for different instructional hours. The student won her case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act but was blocked from suing for damages under two other federal laws. School officials across the country and advocates for students with disabilities are closely following what standard the Supreme Court will set for such suits. WASHINGTON − When a Minnesota family took their fight for fair treatment for their disabled daughter to the Supreme Court, they hoped the justices would make it easier for them to hold their school district accountable. Many lower courts use a tougher standard for discrimination suits related to education than for other allegations pursued through the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gina and Aaron Tharpe want the Supreme Court stop that. But the district is defending itself in a way that threatens to raise the bar for all victims of disability discrimination, they say. Lawyers for the Tharpes told the court the Osseo Area School District is pursuing 'a sweeping argument threatening to eviscerate protections for every American who endures disability discrimination – and quite possibly other kinds of discrimination too.' "No court has ever embraced anything close to the District's new rule," they wrote. The school district's attorneys say the standard for all claims should be whether there was intentional discrimination. Otherwise, any negligent or even good-faith failure to give a student with special needs an appropriate education could expose public schools to 'potentially crushing liability,' they told the Supreme Court. The justices on April 28 will hear that argument. Closely watched by disability rights groups The case is a being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families. But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits for damages easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources. Litigation will also shrink those resources, lawyers for a national association of school superintendents and other educational groups told the Supreme Court in urging the justices to 'proceed with caution.' More: Justice Department asks Supreme Court to rule narrowly on whether the ADA protects retirees Morning seizures prevented a typical school schedule The dispute started when the Tharpes moved in 2015 to a Twins City suburb from Tennessee where they said Ava's needs had been accommodated. Ava has severe cognitive impairment and a rare form of epilepsy. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. Ava's Tennessee school shifted her school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what non-disabled students received. And as Ava prepared to enter middle school, that time was going to shrink further. The Tharpes then went to court. Ava wins IDEA claim but blocked from other suits An administrative law judge said the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs but a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the judge said the Tharpes couldn't also use the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and an injunction to permanently set the hours of instruction. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 decision from that circuit – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities. The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said. `Hundreds' of other court cases have applied tougher standard Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts are unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases outside the school setting, their attorneys argue. That position is backed by the Justice Department. School says it made good-faith effort to help Ava Attorneys for the school district counter that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination, which is not what happened here. They also say they did not show 'deliberate indifference.' Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while 'effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities.' Like many of the nation's 19,000 school districts, they argue, Osseo Area Schools regularly face budget shortfalls and don't have enough staff. Sometimes a district's best efforts won't be enough, but Congress didn't intend to expose public schools to monetary damages and federal court oversight when good-faith efforts fail to satisfy everyone, they told the Supreme Court. More: Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims Advocates say more help is needed for students with disabilities But advocates for children with disabilities say the remedies available under the IDEA aren't always enough. For example, a deaf student who did not graduate from high school until his mid-twenties in part because his school assigned him a classroom aide who did not know sign language should be able to sue for diminished future job opportunities and wages, they argue. A Michigan family should be able to recover lost wages and medical expenses because their son's mental health deteriorated after his school failed to assist him with his schoolwork following a month-long, illness-related absence, they said. 'Without these remedies,' they told the court, 'school children subjected to discrimination would be left without full redress for the harms inflicted on them.'
USA Today
05-03-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims
Supreme Court sides against veterans wanting stronger benefit of the doubt review in disability claims Advocacy groups argue veterans have, for more than a century, been entitled to the benefit of the doubt for service-connect disability payments. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court leans toward allowing ban on youth transgender care The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for patients under 18. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the argument by two veterans who said the government must err on the side of granting them disability benefits if it's unclear the evidence supports their claim. The court ruled 7-2 that the Veterans Court doesn't have to start from scratch to review the evidence when evaluating a benefits denial in a close call. Instead, the court can reverse a denial only for a clear error. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the majority's decision "all but ensures that the Veterans Court will continue rubberstamping" the Department of Veterans Affairs' decisions despite steps Congress took to prevent that. The case involved Norman Thornton, a veteran of the first Gulf War who says he rated a higher level of disability from PTSD, and Joshua Bufkin who was denied post-traumatic stress disorder benefits after leaving the Air Force because doctors didn't agree if he qualified. Their lawyers had said the case could have "profound implications for untold numbers of veterans.' The challengers had the backing of several veterans' groups who argued that veterans had been entitled to the benefit of the doubt for service-connected disability payments for more than a century. And Congress has twice stepped in to ensure that happens. In 1988, Congress created the Veterans Court to review disputed determinations and codified the requirement that scales should be tipped in favor of the veteran in close cases. However, veterans' groups complained that the new court was too deferential to the VA when reviewing the agency's decisions. In 2002, Congress directed the Veterans Court to 'take due account' of the VA's application of the benefit-of-the doubt requirement. Veterans say Congress wanted a more thorough review, especially since the evidence often isn't clear-cut. The federal government argued the Veterans Court must only review a decision for a clear error, not re-evaluate each piece of evidence. More: Supreme Court weighs veterans' disability denials, affecting 'untold numbers' of vets In Bufkin's case, the Veterans Court found nothing obviously wrong with the VA's determination that one doctor's assessment about whether he suffered from service-related PTSD was more comprehensive and persuasive than another's. Leave the military or get a divorce His lawyers argue the court failed to review whether the VA applied the benefit-of-the-doubt standard to the complete set of evidence. Bufkin said he was traumatized by being caught between his wife's threats to kill herself if he didn't leave the military and the military's alleged response that he could leave the service or get a divorce. The federal government said Bufkin's case was not a close call as the preponderance of evidence was against him. Similarly, in Thornton's case, the VA found that the cumulative evidence showed Thornton did not merit a higher level of disability payments. Thornton has had difficulty with work and with social interactions, among other issues, qualifying him as 50% disabled, according to the VA. But Thornton said his disability rating should be higher based on one examiner's assessment of how "dissociative episodes" have affected his employment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the Veterans Court properly reviewed both determinations. The case is Bufkin v. McDonough.
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Yahoo
Bank robber sentenced to Veterans Court in Youngstown
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) — An 83-year-old Austintown man accused of robbing a township bank pleaded guilty Tuesday to a charge of robbery in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. Read next: Los Gallos owner explains reasoning for Monday closure In exchange for his plea, Forrest Lytell was placed into the county's Veterans Court by Judge Anthony D'Apolito. If Lytell completes the programs offered by the court, the charge against him will be dropped. Judge D'Apolito told Lytell while he wants to help him, he also has to look at his actions and how they affected other people, especially the bank employees who were working the day the bank was robbed. 'You are very fortunate you have a prosecutor and a defense attorney who are willing to work with you,' Judge D'Apolito said. Judge D'Apolito told Lytell he wanted to know why he was in such dire straits that he felt he needed to rob a bank and find a way to fix that issue. 'We have a lot of work to do,' the judge said. Reports said police answered a holdup alarm about 10:20 a.m. Nov 20 at a 4949 Mahoning Ave. bank where a teller said a man later identified as Lytell gave her a note saying, 'Give me all the money or else.' The teller complied and slipped in some bills that had a tracking device, reports said. Reports said Lytell took the money and left out the front door. Police were able to track the money to an address in the double-digit block of South Anderson Avenue, near a wooded area. Police went there and an officer spotted Lytell near the wooded area, where he was taken into custody. Lytell told police the money was in a shed in a nearby yard, reports said. Police looked there and found the money, reports said. When asked if had anything to say, reports said Lytell replied, 'How did you guys find me so fast?' At his arraignment a few days later in Mahoning County Area Court in Austintown, Lytell told the judge he has been retired since 2001 and has only Social Security to live on. He told the judge he needed help. He was able to post $13,000 bond after he was arraigned and has been free ever since. He was indicted Jan. 9 by a grand jury. Lytell served in the United States Army for two years from 1961-63 followed by four years of service in the United States Navy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
