Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Medicare pays teaching hospitals for work by residents when a teaching physician supervises. During the 1990s, HHS concluded that many hospitals were billing for unsupervised services and began to audit invoices. There was also a GAO report and private litigation: qui tam suits under the False Claims Act, allowing relators to collect a bounty. Under 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(A), suits cannot be based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in public agencies’ official reports unless the relator is an original source of information. A prior case concluded that the 1998 GAO report and similar public documents disclosed that billing for unsupervised work was common practice. The district court dismissed a suit filed against a teaching hospital in 2004, claiming to describe conduct, such as inadequate supervision, not previously disclosed. The Seventh Circuit vacated. No one who read the GAO report, or followed the progress of the audits, would suspect that Rush University was misrepresenting "immediate availability" of teaching physicians during concurrently scheduled procedures. The complaint alleged a kind of deceit that the GAO report does not attribute to any teaching hospital. View "Goldberg v. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this qui tam suit alleging that the District of Columbia and its schools violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, by submitting a Medicaid reimbursement claim without maintaining adequate supporting documents. The district court dismissed the case, relying on the court's precedent in United States ex rel. Findley v. FPC-Boron Employees' Club. Because the court concluded that the Supreme Court had implicitly overruled Findley in Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, the court reversed. View "Davis v. DC" on Justia Law

States both appealed the district court's grants of summary judgment in favor of HHS, which upheld HHS's disallowance of certain Medicaid claims for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) as ineligible for "medical assistance" under the "Institution for Mental Diseases" (IMD) exclusion set forth in section 1905(a) of 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. (Medicaid Statute). Because HHS correctly concluded that the disputed claims were not eligible for FFP under the plain language of the IMD exclusion and the under-21 exception, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Virginia Dept. of Medical Assist. Svcs. v. HHS, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of BioniCare Medical Technologies, contested determinations of the Medicare Appeals Council (MAC) refusing to provide coverage for the BIO-1000, a device to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. Plaintiff alleged that the Secretary improperly used the adjudicative process to create a policy of denying coverage for the BIO-1000, that the MAC's decisions were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the MAC's decisions were arbitrary and capricious on account of a variety of procedural errors. The court rejected those contentions and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Almy v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa, for injuries to their children allegedly caused by the Diptheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis vaccine. The children suffer a seizure disorder, known as Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy. The same special master presided over both cases and determined that plaintiffs failed to show entitlement to compensation because evidence showed that a gene mutation present in both children was the sole cause of their injuries. The Court of Federal Claims affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting considerable evidentiary support for the conclusion. View "Stone v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Petitioner, then 45 years old and having previously worked in a factory and as a health aid, applied for disability benefits in 2004, claiming an onset date in 2004. Her conditions include peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, obesity, vascular dementia, depression, panic disorder, and anxiety. The Social Security Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's adverse decision. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The ALJ failed to adequately consider petitioner's mental impairments, her obesity, and several of her physical problems. View "Arnett v. Astrue" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the district court's order granting final judgment to the United States upon equitable claims of payment by mistake of fact and unjust enrichment against Tuomey arising out of alleged violations of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395nn, (the Stark Law), and awarding damages plus pre- and post-judgment interest. Because the court concluded that the district court's judgment violated Tuomey's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Because the court was remanding the case, the court also addressed other issues raised on appeal that were likely to recur upon retrial. View "Drakeford v. Tuomey Healthcare System" on Justia Law

Plaintiff first sought treatment in 1988, at age 27, experiencing double vision, eye strain, and facial numbness, and was diagnosed with abducens nerve palsy of the left eye. He continued to work as a welder until 2004, when symptoms forced him to sell his business. In 2007, he applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging onset in 2004. In 2010 an ALJ rejected the claim, concluding that plaintiff; she noted plaintiff’s complaints of headaches, but concluded that they must be non-severe. The district court upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit remanded to the Social Security Administration, holding that the ALJ’s credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Shauger v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Alabama sued CMS claiming that it violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500-596, 701-706, by issuing - without notice and an opportunity for public comment - an October 28, 2008 letter to state health officials (SHO letter). The district court held that the SHO letter constituted a substantive administrative rule issued without the notice-and-comment procedures mandated by the APA. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief in addition to vacating the SHO letter, and because Alabama's remaining claims were unripe, the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State of Alabama v. Centers For Medicare And Medicaid, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District was violating the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. Since 1993, a consent decree has governed how the District provides "early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services" under the Act. The District has now asked the district court to vacate that decree on two grounds: that an intervening Supreme Court decision has made clear that plaintiffs lack a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act, and that in any event, the District has come into compliance with the requirements of the Act. Because the court concluded that the district court's rejection of one of the District's two arguments did not constitute an order "refusing to dissolve [an] injunction[]" within the meaning 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Salazar, et al. v. DC, et al." on Justia Law