CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SAMANTHA MILBY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MCMC LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-5483
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:15-cv-00814—Charles R. Simpson III, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 22, 2016
Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Samantha Milby was granted monthly long-term disability benefits through a group insurance policy provided by her employer, University of Louisville Hospital. Her benefits were subsequently terminated after her disability carrier hired defendant MCMC, a third-party medical record reviewer, and MCMC opined that Milby could return to work. Milby brought this state-law claim against MCMC, which removed the case to federal court alleging complete preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Milby appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to remand the case and its grant of MCMC’s motion to dismiss her case. Based on this court’s decision in Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872, 879-83 (6th Cir. 2016), applied to the specific facts in this record, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DEMETRUS GRUNDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 14-2287
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:12-cr-20153—Denise Page Hood, Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 22, 2016


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. In exchange for the government’s promise to dismiss the bulk of criminal charges against him, defendant Michael Grundy agreed to plead guilty to a single count of honest services wire fraud and to waive his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. After the district court ordered a restitution amount with which he disagreed, Grundy appealed. He insists that his appeal waiver does not preclude challenges to the restitution order. After applying the terms of his plea agreement and our precedent, we disagree. We therefore grant the government’s motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal as barred by the terms of his plea agreement.