Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed several suits against healthcare groups on behalf of the United States, claiming violation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b). No court has ever found that the MSP is a qui tam statute, permitting private attorneys general to sue on behalf of the United States. The Sixth Circuit found plaintiff was on notice of the frivolous nature of his filings from their inception in the Tennessee district courts and remanded for a show-cause hearing on why sanctions should not issue. The district court awarded sanctions to two defendants in amounts of $131,158.50 and $145,431.19. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but denied an award for the appeal.

West Virginia sued pharmaceutical manufacturers, claiming that the defendants artificially inflated the reimbursement values of certain drugs, in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code 46A-1-101, and a state statute prohibiting fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program. The complaint alleged that the defendants inflated the average wholesale price of certain drugs and caused the state to pay an artificially inflated amount of reimbursement for the drugs. One company agreed to pay West Virginia $850,000. After learning of the settlement in 2007, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services notified West Virginia of a disallowance in federal funding for the state’s Medicaid program for failure to credit the federal government its share of the settlement proceeds. The Appeals Board sustained the disallowance. The district court upheld the decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396b(d)(2)(A), authorizes a disallowance only when the state has recovered from a "provider."

A 51-year-old man with a history of violent crime and drug abuse, applied for SSI (42 U.S.C. 1381). He alleged disability beginning in April 2002 due to bipolar disorder and anxiety. The application was denied in October 2006. An ALJ determined that petitioner was not disabled because he has been capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. The appeals council denied review. The district court upheld the decision and the Third Circuit affirmed. Any error in the district court's articulation of the standard of review was harmless, and the commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Defendants are health service providers that receive reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid under 42 U.S.C. 1395, 1396. Plaintiffs, former employees of defendants, filed a qui tam action, alleging violations of various federal laws. After investigation, the government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 claims based on violation of Medicare marketing regulations and reversed with respect to allegations that the defendants submitted false claims to the government by violating the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320. Payment of Medicare claims was not conditioned on compliance with marketing regulations.

Martin J. Bradley III and his father, Martin J. Bradley, Jr. (collectively, the Bradleys), owned Bio-Med Plus, Inc. (Bio-Med), a Miami-based pharmaceutical wholesaler that purchased and sold blood-derivatives. This case stemmed from multiple schemes to defraud the Florida and California Medicaid programs by causing them to pay for blood-derivative medications more than once. The Government chose to prosecute the schemes and a grand jury indicted eight individuals, including Albert L. Tellechea, and two companies, Bio-Med, and Interland Associates, Inc. The Bradleys, Bio-Med, and Tellechea subsequently appealed their convictions and raised several issues on appeal. The court affirmed the Bradleys', Bio-Med's, and Tellechea's convictions, and Bradley III's and Bio-Med's sentences. The court vacated Bradley, Jr.'s sentences on Counts I and 54 and Tellechea's sentence on Count 3, and remanded those counts for resentencing. The court reversed the district court's October 4, 2006 order appointing the receiver and monitor, and its supplemental receivership order of May 17, 2007. The court finally held that, as soon as circumstances allowed, the receivership should be brought to an immediate close.

This appeal involved a putative class action filed by three Pennsylvania Medicaid beneficiaries subject to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare's (DPW) liens against future settlements or judgments. At issue was whether state agencies responsible for administering the Medicaid program have the authority to assert such liens and, if so, whether Pennsylvania's statutory framework was consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn. The court examined the text, structure, history, and purpose of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and held that liens limited to medical costs were not prohibited by the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396p(a)-(b). Accordingly, the court upheld Pennsylvania's longstanding practice of imposing such liens. The court also held that Pennsylvania's current statutory framework, which afforded Medicaid recipients a right of appeal from the default allocation, was a permissible default apportionment scheme.

This case stemmed from the discovery in an unrelated case that the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") had paid hospitals less than they were due because it had miscalculated the disproportionate share hospital ("DSH") payment. Appellants, a group of hospitals that received DSH payments, filed claims with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ("PRRB") seeking full payments for the fiscal years 1987-1994. At issue was whether the district court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and whether the Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. 1395oo(a), allowed for equitable tolling. The court held that a decision by the PRRB denying jurisdiction was a final decision subject to judicial review by the district court. The court also held that, given the factors emphasized in United States v. Brockamp did not apply to the facts presented, and without any other reasons for rebutting the presumption of equitable tolling, the court found that equitable tolling was available under 1395oo(a). The court noted that whether tolling was appropriate in this particular case, however, was a different question for the district court to answer on remand. The court also rejected appellants' alternative arguments and therefore, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This case involved cost-saving tools that Congress had devised for Medicare payments to cancer hospitals and specifically concerned Medicare reimbursements paid to one cancer hospital, appellant, in 2000 and 2001. The first issue on appeal related to the cancer hospitals' inpatient costs where appellant requested an increase to its target amount in 2000 and 2001 due to the high cost of certain new cancer drugs and where the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") denied that request. Appellant argued that it did not receive proper notice of the new net financial impact requirement and thus did not have a fair opportunity to satisfy the requirement at the administrative hearing. The court agreed and held that appellant did not receive timely notice of the requirement and, on remand to HHS, must be given an opportunity to satisfy it. The second issued on appeal concerned cancer hospitals' outpatient costs where appellant contended that HHS misapplied the statutory formula that provided hospitals a fraction of their reasonable costs and undercompensated appellant. The court rejected appellant's arguments and affirmed summary judgment in favor of HHS.

Appellant, a medicare provider, appealed its notice of program reimbursement for the fiscal year ending in 2001 to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ("Board"), which dismissed the appeal because appellant missed its deadline to file a preliminary position paper. After the Board denied appellant's motion for reinstatement of its appeal, appellant filed the current action and subsequently appealed from the district court's order granting summary judgment for appellee. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the Board's Instructions requiring dismissal of claims due to failure to timely submit preliminary position papers did not violate the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395, and the Board's dismissal of appellant's claim was neither arbitrary or capricious.

Under Medicaid, the federal government reimburses between 50% and 83% of state costs for patient care for eligible low-income individuals, including developmentally-disabled individuals receiving care in home- and community-based settings.42 U.S.C.1396n(c). In 2001 Pennsylvania obtained a waiver that authorized reimbursement of state expenses for "habilitation services" for developmentally-disabled individuals. Until 2006, Pennsylvania did not seek reimbursement for occupancy costs for Medicaid recipients living in nonprofit and county facilities, but paid for room and board using state funds and the residents' Supplemental Security Income. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services rejected the state's 2006 claim that more than 54 percent of the occupancy costs were for reimbursable habilitation services. The appeals board and district court upheld the denial. The Third Circuit affirmed, based on the plain meaining of the statutory exclusion of costs for "room and board," and noting consistent interpretation of the statute