Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Southwest appealed the district court's dismissal of its claim regarding the Medicare Part D statute, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-101 et seq., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Citing Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Southwest argued that its claim provided a narrow exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(h)'s requirement that required a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a claim in federal court. The court concluded that caselaw interpreting the application of section 405(h) to Medicare claims emphasized that the Illinois Council exception was extremely narrow and appropriately applied only in cases where judicial review would be entirely unavailable through the prescribed administrative procedures. Because Southwest has not carried its heavy burden of showing that the Illinois Council exception applied, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the suit. View "Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, et al" on Justia Law

Figueroa received the flu vaccine in 2008. Within 20 days, he developed numbness in his face, impaired speech, and weakness. He was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a sometimes fatal nervous system disorder. Because GBS is not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(a), it requires proof of causation, although flu vaccine GBS cases have been compensated under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Figueroa had 36 months from the onset of symptoms to file a petition under the Act (until November, 2011), but, in 2010, he died of pancreatic cancer. His widow timely sought compensation for the vaccine-related neurological injuries suffered prior to his death. A special master dismissed, reasoning that because Figueroa had died of pancreatic cancer, a non-vaccine-related cause, Ms. Figueroa lacked standing to seek injury compensation. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed, interpreting a section that provides: “any person who has sustained a vaccine-related injury, the legal representative of such person if such person is a minor or is disabled, or the legal representative of any person who died as the result of the administration of a vaccine ... may ... file a petition for compensation,” 42 U.S.C. 300aa-11(b)(1)(A) View "Figueroa v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Kentucky provided medical care to its poorest citizens through Medicaid (42 U.S.C. 1396-1) using a traditional fee-for-service model until 2011, when it transitioned to a managed-care program and awarded Coventry a contract to administer Medicaid services in southeastern Kentucky. Coventry entered into a temporary agreement with Appalachian, the dominant hospital care provider in that area, to provide members in-network hospital care and other services. Coventry soon realized it was losing money, partly because its network included Appalachian, whose patients, on average, were sicker and more expensive to treat. Coventry learned that its competitors were not required to contract with Appalachian and unsuccessfully sought an increase in payment rates. Coventry then noticed termination of Appalachian’s contract, which would have made thousands of Medicaid recipients unable to access healthcare providers at Appalachian’s facilities without first paying fees. Appalachian sued Coventry and state defendants. The district court required Coventry to keep Appalachian in its network for four months longer than the contract specified (until November 1, 2012) and denied Coventry’s motion to require Appalachian to post a security bond. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the bond and otherwise dismissed an appeal as moot because no recognized exception permits review of an expired injunction. View "Appalachian Reg'l Healthcare, Inc. v. Coventry Health & Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Under the Medicaid program, the federal government offsets some state expenses for medical services to low-income persons; a state’s plan must cover medical assistance for specific populations, but a state may expand its Medicaid program by obtaining a waiver for an “experimental, pilot, or demonstration project.” In 1993, Tennessee obtained a waiver for TennCare, to cover uninsured and uninsurable individuals. Following approval, hospitals received reimbursement under the umbrella of TennCare. Because hospitals serving large numbers of low-income patients generally incur higher costs than Medicaid flat payment rates reflect, hospitals that treated a disproportionate share of low-income patients could apply for the “DSH” adjustment. A fiscal intermediary processed requests for reimbursement, including DSH adjustment payments. Due to discrepancies between the practices of fiscal intermediaries in different states, the Secretary issued a 2000 rule, providing that eligibility waiver patients were to be included as individuals “eligible for medical assistance” under Medicaid for purposes of DSH adjustment calculations. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act ratified the rule. Adventist, a not-for-profit hospital network, provided more than 1,200 patient care days to TennCare expansion waiver patients 1995-2000. The fiscal intermediary did not include those days in calculating the adjustment. The Secretary’s Provider Reimbursement Review Board upheld the exclusion. The district court dismissed, concluding that section 1315 provided the Secretary discretion to exclude expansion waiver patient days from the DSH calculation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed that PacifiCare was not entitled to any reimbursement payments out of the wrongful death benefits paid by an insurance policy to them. PacifiCare counterclaimed, arguing that it was entitled to reimbursement under both the terms of its contract with the deceased (Count I) and directly under the Medicare Act (Count 11), 42 U.S.C. 1395. At issue was whether a private Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) plan could sue a plan participant's survivors, seeking reimbursement for advanced medical expenses out of the proceeds of an automobile insurance policy. Because interpretation of the federal Medicare Act presented a federal question, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether that act created a cause of action in favor of PacifiCare against plaintiffs. The district court properly dismissed the causes of action arising under the Medicare Act for failure to state a claim where section 1395y(b)(2) did not create a federal cause of action in favor of a MAO and where, under section 1395y(b)(3)(A), the Private Cause of Action applied in the case of a primary plan which failed to provide for primary payment, which was not applicable in this instance. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Count II for failure to state a claim as well as its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 1. View "Parra v. Pacificare of Arizona" on Justia Law

Vazquez-Claudio is a Vietnam veteran. Following his service, Vazquez-Claudio filed a claim with the VA seeking disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2005, after finding that his PTSD was service- connected, the VA granted his request for benefits with an effective date in June, 1994. The VA rated Mr. Vazquez-Claudio’s PTSD as 50 percent disabling, Vazquez-Claudio appealed, arguing entitlement to a 70 percent rating. He had been unable to work since 1994, when he left his job as a police officer as the result of an emotional breakdown following a prisoner’s suicide. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals found that other than occasional suicidal ideation, social isolation, and some difficulty adapting to stressful situations, none of his symptoms corresponded to impairment greater than 50 percent. The Veterans Court agreed, stating that “[t]he issue before the Board was not how many ‘areas’ Mr. Vazquez-Claudio has demonstrated deficiencies in but, rather, ‘the frequency, severity, and duration of the psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and Mr. Vazquez-Claudio’s capacity for adjustment during periods of remission.’” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from California's implementation of a change to Medicare in 2006. The Centers argued that California mishandled the shift in payment responsibility for dual-eligibles' prescription drug costs from state Medicaid programs to the new, federal Medicare Part D Program. The Centers brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. Among other things, the Centers urged the federal courts to declare unlawful California's "seizure" of the Centers' Medicare Part D funds, in excess of what would be owed under the per-visit rate for the Centers' expenses. The court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Centers' claims for retroactive monetary relief; the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Centers' claims to the extent that they sought money damages; however, the court reversed the district court and remanded to allow the district court to assess Ex parte Young's application to the Center's remaining claims. View "North East Medical Services v. CA Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

In 2008, Pepper, then 54 years old, applied for Supplemental Security Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging that she became unable to work in November 1998 as a result of numerous physical and mental impairments. The alleged onset date was later amended to October 2002, when Pepper last worked. Extensive medical records show that Pepper sought treatment for numerous health concerns over the years. At various times, Pepper has been assessed as having ongoing neck pain and limited range of motion in her neck, degenerative disc disease in her spine, left knee problems, migraine headaches, problems with her vision, diabetes, asthma, mitral valve prolapse, sciatica, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, hypertension, allergic rhinitis, obesity, plantar fasciitis in her left heel, caregiver stress, and depression. An ALJ denied the claim and the district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the ALJ erred when addressing Pepper’s residual function capacity and that the ALJ’s credibility determination was inadequately supported and patently wrong. Substantial evidence supported denial of benefits. View "Pepper v. Astrue" on Justia Law

MedQuest is a diagnostic testing company that operates more than 90 testing facilities in 13 states. In 2006 a former MedQuest employee, brought a qui tam suit against MedQuest alleging violations of the False Claims Act. The United States intervened and obtained summary judgment ($11,110,662.71) that MedQuest used supervising physicians who had not been approved by the Medicare program and the local Medicare carrier to supervise the range of tests offered at the Nashville-area sites, and after acquiring one facility, MedQuest failed to properly re-register the facility to reflect the change in ownership and enroll the facility in the Medicare program, instead using the former owner’s payee ID number. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that the Medicare regulatory scheme (42 U.S.C. 1395x) does not support FCA liability for failure to comply with the supervising-physician regulations. MedQuest’s failure to satisfy enrollment regulations and its use of a billing number belonging to a physician’s practice it controlled do not trigger the hefty fines and penalties created by the FCA. View "United States v. MedQuest Assocs, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services promulgated 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(b), concerning the amount that certain hospitals are entitled to receive as enhancements to their regular reimbursement payments from the Medicare program. In connection with the Medicare program, Congress created a statutory formula to identify hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients and to calculate the increased payments due such hospitals. Metropolitan Hospital challenged the way that the Secretary of HHS interprets this statutory formula to exclude certain patients who are simultaneously eligible for benefits under both Medicare and Medicaid, claiming that exclusion of dual-eligible patients cost it more than $2.1 million in 2005. The district court ruled that the challenged HHS regulation was invalid as violating the statute that it purported to implement. The Sixth Circuit reversed, upholding HHS’s interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1395. View "Metro. Hosp. v. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law