Did you mean HHS or CF or health?
Your query hhs or hcfa or health returned 16739 results.
Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Michael B. With her on the brief were Peter D. The district court rested its decision on the ground that the judgment did not require the remedy Heartland seeks a direction that it is entitled to |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
SOFAMOR DANEK GRP V. GAUS CLIFTON R. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Frank M. With him on the brief were Frank W. Altman were on the brief for amici Citizens Against Government Waste. Contend that section 4507 is unconstitutional on a number of grounds. Eliminates the injury that is the basis of plaintiffs' constitutional attack. I Medicare is a comprehensive insurance program designed to provide health insurance benefits for individuals 65 and over. The program is administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Which is not at issue in this case. Which is the focus here. Part B is financed by a combination of government funding and premiums paid by beneficiaries. Are categorically excluded from Medicare coverage. Those that are not categorically ex cluded may only be reimbursed when medically |
||
![]() |
UNITED SR ASSN INC V. SHALALA DONNA Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 97cv03109)
Kent Masterson Brown argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Frank M. With him on the brief were
Frank W. Altman were on the brief for amici Citizens Against Government Waste. Contend that section 4507 is unconstitutional on a number of grounds. Eliminates the injury that is the basis of plaintiffs' constitutional attack.
I
Medicare is a comprehensive insurance program designed to provide health insurance benefits for individuals 65 and over. The program is administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Which is not at issue in this case. Which is the focus here. Part B is financed by a combination of government funding and premiums paid by beneficiaries. See
id. 1395j. Are categorically excluded from Medicare coverage. See id. 1395y(a)(7). |
||
![]() |
TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS CORPORATION OF LOUISIANA V. DONNA E. SHALALA With her on the brief were David W. With him on the brief was Tamara V. Long term care hospitals are one such category. Citing regulations that require new hospitals to have six months of experience before they can qualify as ". The Secretary of HHS took the position that an initial data collection period is statutorily required. We remand the case to permit her to determine whether she wishes to retain the existing regulations knowing that other options are permissible. I Medicare is a federal health insurance program for the aged and disabled that is administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of HHS. Institutional health care providers are reimbursed for their services to eligible patients. Hospitals are reimbursed according to flat rates estab lished in advance for the various categories of patient diag noses (known as ". For the care of patients whose hospitaliza tions are extraordinarily costly or lengthy. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were David W. With him on the brief was Tamara V. Long term care hospitals are one such category. Citing regulations that require new hospitals to have six months of experience before they can qualify as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Sitting by designation. ** This decision was originally issued as an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellants Bullen. Nicholson and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellees Visiting Nurse Association of North Shore. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Medicaid is a joint federal state program designed to afford medical benefits to low income individuals. A State which elects to participate in Medicaid is eligible to receive federal funds only if its State Plan is approved by the Federal Health Care Financing Administration ( |
||
![]() |
00-1121 -- RAMEY V. REINERSTON -- 10/04/2001 As have other courts. That |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who are radiation oncology service providers. The United States had suspended the administrative process pending judicial determination in this case of whether the oncology service providers defrauded HCFA and whether they are entitled to reimbursement. The United States alleges that the defendants claimed reimbursement on bills for radiation oncology services that were neither provided nor ordered by the physician and on bills for unnecessary radiation oncology services. That the defendants misrepresented the medical services rendered in order to obtain both higher and double reimbursements for services. 7 Before this action was commenced. Took the position that the administrative process should be suspended until judgment was reached in this action because the administrative forum was neither intended nor sufficient to deal with cases of Medicare fraud. A step that is a condition precedent to the providers' right to challenge HCFA's position through the administrative process. The United States also took this position before the district court ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We repeat below a helpful overview of the Medicare program to set the scene before exploring the procedural and substantive facts of this case.1 The Medicare program is codified in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. These insurance carriers are called Fiscal Intermediaries ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Will &. Emery were on brief. This timely appeal ensued.
| ||
![]() |
02-6142 -- BARTLETT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER V. THOMPSON -- 10/20/2003 This litigation was successful. The Plaintiff Hospitals in this case sought to have cost reports from the early 1990s reopened and adjusted to reflect the new interpretation. Their requests were denied because of Ruling 97 2's instruction that reports could not be reopened with respect to the DSH reimbursement. The Secretary argues there is no other jurisdictional basis to hear these claims. Primarily contending that the district court should also have found federal question jurisdiction. Because we find that the Secretary did not owe any clear. We REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs and its denial of summary judgment to the Secretary because we determine that Plaintiffs cannot prevail as a matter of law on any of their claims.
Plaintiffs are or operate Oklahoma for profit. Is the agency of HHS responsible for administering the Medicare program. Some of the hospital services provided by Plaintiffs are covered by Medicare. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The sole issue in this appeal is the meaning of the word |
||
![]() |
MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER V. TOMMY G. THOMPSON Argued the cause for appellee. | ||
![]() |
NATIONAL COAL ASSOC. V. CHATER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
NATIONAL COAL ASSOC. V. CHATER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were David W. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff appellants Monmouth Medical Center and Staten Island University Hospital are acute care facilities that receive payments under Medicare Part A for services to Medicare beneficiaries. Are eligible for |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Holding that the suit was barred by the Act's jurisdictional bar (31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A)) and. I The University Park Hospital ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Robert D. With him on the briefs were Peter D. Elizabeth's was not entitled to an exemption from limitations on Medicare reimbursements to a new skilled nursing facility ( |
||
![]() |
TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HEALTHCORP V. TOMMY THOMPSON Ar gued the cause for appellant. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were David W. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. With her on the brief was Harry R. These costs include Medicare's share of a provider's deprecia tion expenses and capital losses.2 The regulations use the |
||
![]() |
BROOKS V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
PER CURIAM:
The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants is AFFIRMED based upon the holding and rationale contained in Part III.A of the district court's September 22. A copy of which is attached as Appendix A hereto. We have no occasion to reach the remaining issues addressed in other parts of that order and imply no view concerning any of them. AFFIRMED. ATTACHMENT
APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE # 31) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's motion for instructions and an Order directed to Plaintiff's counsel (DE # 46) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant New York Life's combined motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (DE # 47) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's corrected motion for more definite statement and for RICO case statement (DE # 56) is DENIED AS MOOT. |
||
![]() |
BROOKS V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
PER CURIAM:
The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendants is AFFIRMED based upon the holding and rationale contained in Part III.A of the district court's September 22. A copy of which is attached as Appendix A hereto. We have no occasion to reach the remaining issues addressed in other parts of that order and imply no view concerning any of them. AFFIRMED. ATTACHMENT
APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE # 31) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's motion for instructions and an Order directed to Plaintiff's counsel (DE # 46) is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant New York Life's combined motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (DE # 47) is GRANTED. Defendant New York Life's corrected motion for more definite statement and for RICO case statement (DE # 56) is DENIED AS MOOT. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER After it was bought by Deerbrook Pavilion. That doing so was a violation of due process. We must assume all of the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and affirm only if it is clear that no relief can be granted based on those allegations. The facility had numerous violations of basic sanitary standards and was also cited for neglect to the residents' basic needs. The facility was brought into substantial compliance. There were $419. That corporation was dissolved. Deerbrook then filed a complaint in district court asserting that HCFA did not have the authority to impose successor liability and that collection of CMPs against it would violate due process. The federal defendants responded that unpaid CMPs Deerbrook represents that it is a separate entity from the original operator of the nursing home that accrued the CMPs. For purposes of a motion to dismiss we must take the allegations of Deerbrook's complaint to be true. 31 |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Fairfax Nursing Home is a skilled nursing facility participating in Medicare and Medicaid. Fairfax was assessed a civil monetary penalty ( |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429) BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins. Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments. Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429) BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins. Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments. Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Including: The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issues The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Francis's HB SNF is relevant for purposes of this appeal. Francis's HB SNF is to rehabilitate. A patient's total costs are less than they would be at other facilities. Closer analysis reveals that the PRM rule is not analogous to the two tier system. An HB SNF that spends $100 to provide routine services and anywhere from $1 to $20 on atypical services will receive no reimbursement at all for its atypical service costs. These expenditures are arbitrarily deemed to be 100% inefficient or. Are subjected to a 100% |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Yale successfully argued that the denial of the claims on the categorical ground of FDA classification was predicated on a rule altering the previous Medicare practice of conducting device by device review of safety and efficacy. That the rule change was improperly adopted. We agree with the district court that the new rule is unenforceable because the Secretary did not satisfactorily explain his reasons for its promulgation. Which at the time of the events at issue was administered by the Health Care Financing Administration ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Anna Marie Bowling Irrevocable Trust Page 2 The district court found that Spectrum's lien on the proceeds of a malpractice settlement was valid and enforceable. Therefore is invalid. Spectrum argues that the issue of the validity of the lien is precluded by two prior state court judgments approving the malpractice settlement. We conclude that the issue is not precluded by either of the state court judgments. That the lien on the settlement is prohibited by federal and state Medicaid law. I. BACKGROUND The material facts in this case are undisputed. Bowling has little or no control of her limbs and is unable to speak. Spectrum is the parent company of a group of providers of sub acute rehabilitation and nursing services. Bowling was admitted to GVHC in December 1998. The total customary cost of Spectrum's services provided to Bowling during the time she resided at GVHC was $639. The 1 It is unclear from the record how Bowling's co payments factor into the shortfall. Spectrum states that its total customary cost was $639. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Francis Medical Center (SFMC) is a provider of health care services covered under Part A of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Which is commonly known as the Medicare Act. Medicare providers were reimbursed for the |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. (1/28/2003, NO. 01-14291) We held that an insurance company occupying the role of |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. (1/28/2003, NO. 01-14291) We held that an insurance company occupying the role of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We held that an insurance company occupying the role of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were John M. Hospitals unhappy with their fiscal intermediary's award have 180 days to appeal to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Medicare patients are often responsible for both deductible and coinsurance payments for hospital care. The government We affirm in will reimburse hospitals if they have made reasonable collection efforts. 42 C.F.R. § 413.80(e). The 42 U.S.C. § is considered the decision of the Secretary. 1395oo(f)(1). 42 C.F.R. § 405.1877. involves a decision by the Secretary to disallow a reimbursement for 1983 Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota was the intermediary used by the Secretary provider may seek judicial review under most circumstances. Federal jurisdiction in this case also is based on the Administrative Procedure Act. 000 in payments. some of the services listed in the request were not eligible Blue for As Cross did a full field audit of the request in early 1985 and found that reimbursement under Medicare.1 It reduced the claimed amount accordingly and then issued a notice of program reimbursement in September 1985. debts. Blue Cross was auditing HCMC's 1985 reimbursement request. The intermediary was concentrating on reviewing the bad debt collection policies of providers. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal by defendant Robert U. Syme was convicted on several counts of wire fraud. Syme's corporate co defendants were convicted on all counts and are not involved in this appeal. When the claim should have been billed at the (lower) Delaware or Maryland rates. (2) falsely representing that ambulance transport was medically necessary. (4) providing false information about the type of treatment that the patient being transported was going to receive. The principal challenge is that the indictment alleged and the District Court instructed the jury on a theory of fraud that is invalid as a matter of law. Syme 2 contends that the government's theory that he committed fraud by misrepresenting that Pennsylvania was the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Gray LLP was on brief. Were on brief. Or reasonably should have known. That the tests were not reasonable and necessary for diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury of Medicare beneficiaries. Are the exclusive avenue for recovery by the United States of Medicare overpayments. The question presented is whether the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Medicare Act explicitly or implicitly repeals the grant of federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 or displaces the underlying common law causes of action over which § 1345 gives federal courts jurisdiction. Medicare is a federally subsidized health insurance program for the elderly and certain disabled individuals. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We are presented with two questions: (1) whether the Hospital is entitled to judicial review and (2) whether. If judicial review is available. We conclude that the Hospital is entitled to judicial review. I. The Hospital is a Medicare provider. (The appeal document was a request for a hearing before the Board. The letter said that preliminary position papers were due by November 1. The failure was due to internal confusion at the Hospital in the wake of a corporate acquisition. Which occurred after the appeal was filed but before the position papers were due. Was initially responsible for handling the appeal. The Board concluded that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: We are again confronted1 with the failure of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: We are again confronted1 with the failure of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We hold that 42 C.F.R. § 413.30(e) is ambiguous. Because the Secretary's interpretation that Providence is not entitled to a new provider exemption due to its acquisition of pre existing bed rights from Summitview Manor (Summitview) is reasonable. It is therefore entitled to deference. Washington closely monitors geographical planning areas in the state in order to determine which areas are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We conclude that the dismissal was in error. Historical Background The underlying case is result of an order by the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation. Sitting by designation. 2 * details of the underlying claims are not of significance to the disposition of the appeal before us. It is enough to observe that. Or fear that they will contract. Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Co. 3 After the modifications were publicized to class members. After the settlement was restructured to take account of Dow Corning's bankruptcy filing. The participating implant manufacturers are referred to collectively as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellee Health and Human Services. Appellants1 are suppliers of DME located in Puerto Rico. Because the material facts were not in dispute. The case was submitted on cross motions for summary judgment. That: (1) the regulations issued by the Secretary and his agents for determining the amount of payments for DME were interpretive rules. Appellants have appealed these district court rulings. Appellants are: La Casa del Convaleciente. The Medicare program is divided into two major components. Part B is a federally subsidized. Payments for DME purchases or leases were calculated based upon lump sum purchases. The carrier was delegated the task of determining which of the three reimbursement methods would be more economical and practical. The payment basis is |
||
![]() |
EDWARDS V. SHALALA This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > I. The facts of this case are straightforward. The HCFA is a division under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. HHS issued a notice that two accounting positions within HCFA were open. Both positions were one grade level higher than Edwards' current grade. Applied for both positions but was denied [1986 events]. Edwards initiated this action alleging discrimination for both the 1986 and 1990 events pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] pertaining to actions against the federal government. | ||
![]() |
EDWARDS V. SHALALA This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > I. The facts of this case are straightforward. The HCFA is a division under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. HHS issued a notice that two accounting positions within HCFA were open. Both positions were one grade level higher than Edwards' current grade. Applied for both positions but was denied [1986 events]. Edwards initiated this action alleging discrimination for both the 1986 and 1990 events pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] pertaining to actions against the federal government. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Secretary for Health and Human Services moved for partial summary judgment on the basis that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. When there are multiple claims or multiple parties involved. Rule 54(b) allows the court to enter final judgment as to one or more of the claims or parties on an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. The judgment is immediately appealable. Here Edwards immediately appealed the district court's judgment that one of his claims involving events from 1986 was time barred. 1 * I. The facts of this case are straightforward. The HCFA is a division under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. HHS issued a notice that two accounting positions within HCFA were open. Both positions were one grade level higher than Edwards' current grade. Applied for both positions but was denied [1986 events]. Edwards initiated this action alleging discrimination for both the 1986 and 1990 events pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] pertaining to actions against the federal government.2 29 U.S.C. § 633a.3 There are two routes a person may take when they choose to pursue an age discrimination claim against the government. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Frank W. The statute provides for a disproportionate share adjustment for any hospital that is located in an urban area. The change to the present wording was made by a 1987 amendment. The single issue is whether the 30% set forth in the provision is a percentage of all net inpatient care revenues or whether it is a percentage of net inpatient revenues excluding revenues from Medicare and Medicaid. The question is whether the antecedent of |
||
![]() |
N BROWARD HOSP DIST V. SHALALA DONNA E. With her on the briefs were Frank W. the statute provides for a disproportionate share adjustment for any hospital that
is located in an urban area. 158. The change to the present wording was made by a 1987 amendment. See The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA). The single issue is whether the 30% set forth in the provision is a percentage of all net inpatient care revenues or whether it is a percentage of net inpatient revenues excluding revenues from Medicare and Medicaid. The question is whether the antecedent of |
||
![]() |
TALLAHASSEE MEM'L REG'L MED. CTR. V. COOK This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
PER CURIAM:
This is a Boren Amendment challenge under 42 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
TALLAHASSEE MEM'L REG'L MED. CTR. V. COOK This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
PER CURIAM:
This is a Boren Amendment challenge under 42 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Sought and were denied M edicaid benefits because their assets exceed a level qualifying them for Medicaid eligibility. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to Medicaid benefits depends on how we view certain private trusts they established for the community spouse's benefit. Are designed to provide a stream of annuity payments to the community spouse for the duration of his or her life. New Jersey did not consider the corpus of these CSATs as |
||
![]() |
02-8096 -- HIGH COUNTRY HOME HEALTH INC. V. THOMPSON -- 03/03/2004 Circuit Judge. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court held that the Secretary's interpretation of the governing statute and regulations was unreasonable and granted summary judgment to ACMC. Which cautions that agency decisions may only be set aside if they are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was E. Green was on the brief for amici curiae American Medical Association et al. in support of appellant. With her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is standing to challenge a regulatory safe harbor where the direct cause of injury is the independent action of a third party. The same issue was before this court in National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Though the factual context there was very different. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Laura J. With him on the brief were Stephen A. Until it is exhausted. (as a result of a federal regulatory process that we will soon describe) all offer at least 365 days of post Medicare hospital benefits. While the Medicare reimbursement rates of most hospitals are governed by the so called Prospective Payment System. The patient's liability is the bedrock without patient responsibility. There is no insurer responsibili ty. Insurer liability is often less than all of the primary obligor's. Provisions for deductibles and co insurance are common. No such limita tions are before us. Under which providers are eligible for Medicare reimbursement only if they execute a contract with the Secretary of Health and Human Services agreeing. Not to charge ... any individual or any other person for items or services for which such individual is entitled to have payment made under this subchapter. The most obvious difficulty with this provision as support for Physicians Mutual is that it appears to have nothing to do with charges for post Medicare services. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Buckwalter) At issue is an acute care hospital's reimbursement from Medicare for graduate medical training. 2004 ) Mercy Catholic Medical Center is an acute care hospital located in Philadelphia. We will reverse and remand. Is the largest public program financing health care services for the aged and disabled. Hospitals that provide services to Medicare patients are reimbursed for their expenses under Title XVII of the Social Security Act (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was not negligent in providing medical services to plaintiff in the course of three surgical operations and did not breach his duty of informed consent. Appeals from 2 the district court's final judgment entered against her on her derivative claim for loss of consortium.1 We will affirm the district court in all respects. Clifford's preliminary assessment was that plaintiff had diverticulitis. He was discharged from the hospital on July 27. All evidence and inferences therefrom are taken in the light most favorable to defendant. Plaintiff was hospitalized for more than one month. Dwyer concluded that the stoma was constricting and additional surgery would be necessary. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered serious physical and psychological injuries and was left with an undesired. Defendant opposed this motion on the grounds that disclosure of this information was prohibited under the Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982 (the Act). Dwyer was the subject of a PRO inquiry after Dwyer's colleague. The magistrate judge held that the documents requested were |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 reimbursement for charges covering in home physical therapy services in excess of the cost limits created by the Secretary on the grounds that the cost limits were outdated and thus contrary to the Secretary's regulations. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1). Jurisdiction on appeal is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. 42 C.F.R. § 413.20(b).3 A provider is entitled to recover the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Are acute care hospitals and participating Medicare providers located in southwestern Michigan. Plaintiffs are non profit. Both plaintiffs are parties to a Medicare participation agreement with defendant. Medicare beneficiaries are responsible for paying a portion of the cost of hospital services in the form of deductibles and coinsurance. 42 C.F.R. §§ 409.80 409.83. Whereby hospital operating costs are reimbursed on a per discharge basis through prospectively fixed rates that are based upon the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Filed suit seeking to have declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is one of statutory interpretation. The question is whether the Provider Reimbursement Review Board has jurisdiction over a Medicare provider's appeal of a cost that was allowable under the Medicare regulations. Which have decided it. Indicating that providers who bypass an exhaustion requirement or fail to request reimbursement for all costs to which they are entitled under applicable rules may stand on different ground). 2 Compare St. Board . . . if (1) such provider (A)(i) is dissatisfied with a final determination of . . . its fiscal intermediary . . . as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider . . . the amount in controversy is $10. It has discretion under § 1395oo(d)4 to decide whether to order reimbursement of a cost or expense that was incurred within the period for which the cost report was filed. Even though that particular expense was not expressly claimed or explicitly considered by the intermediary. As well as on Loma Linda's cross appeal which in the main raises issues on which federal jurisdiction is lacking. |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. WHITESIDE (3/22/2002, NO. 99-15197) We reverse the defendants' convictions and sentences in light of the government's failure to prove that the alleged statements were knowingly and willfully false. Overview of Programs
| ||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. WHITESIDE (3/22/2002, NO. 99-15197) We reverse the defendants' convictions and sentences in light of the government's failure to prove that the alleged statements were knowingly and willfully false. Overview of Programs
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We reverse the defendants' convictions and sentences in light of the government's failure to prove that the alleged statements were knowingly and willfully false. Overview of Programs Medicare is a federal health insurance program designed to provide medical services. We will discuss the Medicare program. A hospital that elects to participate in the Medicare Part A program is known as a provider. The cost reports include a certification that each cost report filed is true. Are capital related costs. These costs are more financially beneficial to the provider. The FI is responsible for reviewing the cost reports and processing payment of claims. Both the FI and the provider have a three year period in which to reopen a cost report in order to make changes. Fawcett was BAMI's second largest hospital. Bachner was unsure when PRC discovered the mistake. PRC worried about amending the 1986 cost report because it was likely to expose the mistake in the 1985 cost report in which Fawcett had claimed the interest as 100% capital related. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellants. Anne Robbins and Palmer & Dodge LLP were on brief for appellees. Holding that HCFAR 96 1 was a substantive. The court also found that the equipment in dispute was not |
||
![]() |
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE V. USA With him on the brief were Michael W. Of counsel on the brief was John B. With him on the brief was David M. Based upon its conclusion that Medicare was a secondary payer and that New York Life was responsible as the primary payer. Paid for services without regard to whether they were also covered by an employer group health plan. These amendments are known as the ". They are codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395y. It is the ". It is the ". 73 (5th Cir. 1993).
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER As is required by 42 U.S.C.A. § 292f(g) (West 2003). The parties agree that the facts of this case are undisputed. Smitley was 47 years old. Positions in The Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation did not participate in the adversary proceeding because ECMC is its successor in interest. 2 The record indicates that Smitley paid approximately $10. Smitley's wife was 45 years old. The children have health insurance through the State. Smitley and his wife do not have health insurance. Smitley stated the following basis for his |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (2) Bondy's retaliation claim was barred by res judicata in that Bondy previously sued Group Health Association unsuccessfully in connection with the same termination of employment. The assets of Group Health Association were transferred through various transactions to Consumer Health Foundation. Nor ha[d] he identified what those claims are. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Dep't of Health & Human Servs. have been substantially noncompliant with the standards of care in the Medicare regulations. Arguing that the Department's immediate jeopardy findings were not supported by substantial evidence. BNH is a skilled nursing facility participating in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Assesses compliance through surveys that are typically conducted by state agencies.1 In June 2001. The scope and severity of each deficiency is determined in accordance with the factors set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 488.404(b): the severity determination ranges from |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is an action seeking an injunction against a planned Medicare audit of New Jersey teaching hospitals by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. The District Court held that it did not have standing to consider plaintiffs' claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. We will affirm. Plaintiffs contend defendant's planned audit of their billing records would use an improper standard and should be enjoined.1 The Medicare program is the responsibility of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The program is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Plaintiffs are the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and two corporations associated with it: the Cooper Health System. The claims of all parties are based on the proposed audit of the university's teaching hospitals. 4 the carriers handle the billing and payment. They have initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with the statutes and regulations governing Medicare billing of individually billable services.2 Medicare payments to healthcare providers fall under two categories. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Citizens allege that the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Were on the briefs for the State Petitioners in 97 1440 and 97 1441. Kaplan on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenor Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for Amicus Curiae Congressman Tom Bliley in 97 1441. With them on the briefs were David H. With him on the briefs was David S. With him on the briefs were Harold P. Edgar on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Orrin Hatch in 97 1440. Numerous petitions for review have been filed for each rule. That EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Recla mation Fund. We agree with petitioners that EPA's choice of PM10 as the indicator for coarse particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious. Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and PM are reason able. |
||
![]() |
LOIS DELONG V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Argued for respondent. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Which was a Medicare provider operating under fiscal intermediary Blue Cross of California. I. Because this case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Among the services covered under Medicare are home health services. Blue Cross of California is such a fiscal intermediary. Gary and Verlene Kaiser (along with the other individual plaintiffs in this lawsuit1) were shareholders of Community Home Health (CHH). Since almost all of its patients were Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries. CHH was highly dependent on the payments it received from the government through Blue Cross of California. The government was its primary source of revenue. Were made in installments based on estimates of CHH's volume of business. These regulations were issued on January 2 and March 31. CHH was notified that its ERP request was denied and told that 100% of its future Medicare payments would be withheld until the entire overpayment was recouped. This recoupment was proposed without issuance of a Notice of Program Reimbursement (NPR). |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the information upon which Feingold based his suit was publicly disclosed and he was not the original source of that information. Inc. are companies that contracted with the Healthcare Financing Administration (HCFA) to approve or disapprove healthcare equipment providers' claims for reimbursement under Medicare. Appellant Richard Feingold is familiar with the approval process because he recently worked for a medical supply company and was involved in two other successful qui tam suits involving improper Medicare reimbursements. Adult diapers were an item for which Medicare would not provide reimbursement. Feingold suspected that Appellees recklessly approved claims for diapers that were disguised as being for other. The district court determined that the five categories of documents were publicly disclosed and that Appellees were entitled to summary judgment because Feingold ran afoul of the FCA's prohibition of suits based on publicly disclosed |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all of BP Care's claims and therefore should not have reached the due process issue. Barbara Parke became insolvent and was unable to continue lease payments. It was able to continue operating the nursing home without interruption. The name of this arm of the Department of Health and Human Services changed from Health Care Financing Administration to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while the CMP proceeding was pending. Ordering that CMS |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Inc. (collectively the health care agencies will be referred to as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Confers a private right on individuals enforceable under § 1983 and (2) the State's single source contract violates the freedom of choice provision because incontinence products are not |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Patrick Burkett. On the brief were Peter D. Plaintiff Appellant Laura Wilson is the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband. Wilson's estate services that were paid for by Medicare. brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital and two doctors. She contended that the government's claim against her husband's estate was improper and therefore constituted an illegal exaction. Wilson's claim1 arose under the Medicare statutes and because jurisdiction over such a claim is vested exclusively in federal district court. Some background will help the reader to understand the issue in this case. Medicare is a system of federally funded heath insurance for the aged. It is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All statutory references are to the 2000 version of the United States Code. 3 For convenience. Medicare paid for medical services without regard to whether they were also covered by an employer group health plan. Which were designed to make Medicare a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Leonard Friedman is appealing the district court's decision dismissing his case for mootness. Friedman's period of exclusion was to end when either Massachusetts or New York reinstated his license. 2 At Friedman's request. Friedman says that HHS is reasonably likely to exclude him again since California revoked his medical license in 1990 and that any future exclusion by HHS would likely evade judicial review because it would lapse before the court could render a decision. Friedman argues that his exclusion has continuing collateral consequences that will 2. Because his motion was filed within the time limit for filing motions under Fed. Challenged the legal correctness of the court's decision that his action was moot. That the dismissal of his action for mootness is properly before us. Other arguments he makes are without merit. Friedman claims that his request for declaratory relief is not moot. It does not seem at all likely that HHS will exclude Friedman on the basis of California's revocation of his medical license. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Are reserved to the States respectively. |
||
![]() |
01-9013 -- IHC HEALTH PLAN, INC V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/09/2003 Will &. We have jurisdiction to review the Tax Court's decision under 26 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Changes in the hospital's case mix index that would otherwise have subjected the provider to a TEFRA penalty. The Secretary's decision to deny it an incentive payment is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1251. Payment to providers of services is commonly carried out by fiscal intermediaries pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. The fiscal intermediary is Blue Cross of California. Reimbursement for hospital services to Medicare beneficiaries was based on the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was violating provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Changes in the hospital's case mix index that would otherwise have subjected the provider to a TEFRA penalty. The Secretary's decision to deny it an incentive payment is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1251. Payment to providers of services is commonly carried out by fiscal intermediaries pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. The fiscal intermediary is Blue Cross of California. Reimbursement for hospital services to Medicare beneficiaries was based on the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellant.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for the United States. I. Because Randlett's claims were resolved against her on summary judgment. She applied for a promotion to a GS 13 position in Denver but was denied promotion in favor of another candidate. She was terminated. Alleging discrimination based on gender and national origin (she is white and of European descent). Finding that the record showed |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Allen V. With her on the brief were Frank W. Were on the brief for appellee Paul Offner. Enrollment in Part A is automatic. Part B is voluntary. Doctors and other health care providers are not required to service Medicaid patients. State Medicaid rates for any given service are almost always lower than the |
||
![]() |
MCCREARY MAURICE V. OFFNER, PAUL Jr. argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Allen V. With her on the brief were Frank W. Were on the brief for appellee Paul Offner.
Before: Wald. Enrollment in Part A is automatic. Part B is voluntary. Doctors and other health care providers are not required to service Medicaid patients. 1396o. State Medicaid rates for any given service are almost always lower than the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Irma Alexander ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The specific question we address is whether an Indian tribe may administer TANF. Welfare oversight and funding were centralized in the hands of the federal government from the mid 1930s to the late 1970s.1 During the 1980s. TANF was intended |
||
![]() |
01-3185 -- STERNBERG V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- 08/13/2002 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Concerned that |
||
![]() |
STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL V. TOMMY THOMPSON Ar gued the cause for appellees. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief was Scott R. We conclude that HHS erroneously determined that it was without discretion to permit those expenditures. Which was an individual entitlement program. The amount of a state's TANF grant is based on the amount of the reim bursement paid to the state under AFDC during an historical base period. A state may spend its grant |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Believing that the written record was sufficient to adjudicate the matter. It was thus improper not to hold an in person evidentiary hearing. Is periodically surveyed by the CMS in order to assure compliance with Medicare and Medicaid regulations. Were observed lying on their beds without these protectors. Crestview failed to ensure that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Are sought for use in the forthcoming trial in the Southern District of New York of a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Hammond is one of the plaintiffs in that suit and will also be testifying as an expert witness. The district court held that the production of the records is barred by regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Or implementation specifications that are more stringent than the requirements. A standard is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER In view of the pressures of time discussed later in the opinion. * This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. Are sought for use in the forthcoming trial in the Southern District of New York of a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Hammond is one of the plaintiffs in that suit and will also be testifying as an expert witness. The district court held that the production of the records is barred by regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Or implementation specifications that are more stringent than the requirements. A standard is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the ruling of the district court. Which is incorporated into the Social Security Act as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We hold that OPA is entitled to such access and information pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act. The Act was commonly referred to by the acronym |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER (App. 16a) The dispute that remains is over the interest on the debt. Which was significantly higher than the rate usually charged by federal agencies to states. Claiming primarily: (a) that HHS's use of the private consumer rate was not only arbitrary and capricious but inconsistent with the common law and (b) that HHS did not follow the proper procedures in enacting its interest rate regulation. Were to be charged a rate of interest based on the prevailing private consumer rates. Op. at 2) HHS's action was in response to congressional enactment of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER P.A. was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. HHS had denied Pine Tree's MUP application after applying criteria and standards that were issued by HHS in June 1995 ( |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. SUBA (1/9/1998, NO. 95-9408) Managed Risk were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit offenses against the United States. Kelly was convicted of four additional counts of mail fraud (Counts 112 115). 30 32). | ||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. SUBA (1/9/1998, NO. 95-9408) Managed Risk were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit offenses against the United States. Kelly was convicted of four additional counts of mail fraud (Counts 112 115). 30 32). | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 2 1 the complaint was filed under seal and served upon the United States. Relator's case subsequently was transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee. Claiming that he was entitled to a relator's share of the settlement proceeds. An order to this effect was entered on the same day. The other listed defendants in the original complaint were Forstmann Little & Co. (a privately owned compa ny that wholly owns CHS ). Which is one of several hospitals owned by CHS. CHS was approached by the government about possible upcoding at two different CHS hospitals. OIG HHS simultaneously worked with the Department of Justice ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ( |
||
![]() |
00-9529 -- ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE -- 08/28/2002 |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The defendant hospitals are Unity Hospital. Also named as defendants are hospital employees John Murphy and Allina Health System Corp. Which is an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Act was commonly referred to by the acronym |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER AS SHE IS THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Cole and Smith & Duggan were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. This is an administrative review proceeding by which ABCD seeks to overturn the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
MICHAEL H. HOLLAND V. NATIONAL MINING ASSN Argued the cause for federal appellant. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the briefs was Margaret S. With him on the briefs were John Townsend Rich. Including with respect to coal operators who were not parties in the Eleventh Circuit litigation. Appellant Commissioner contends that the agency's nation wide implementation of the revised interpretation of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Appellants claim that the Secretary's waiver was invalid and improper. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the matter is plenary. STATUTORY BACKGROUND AFDC is a joint federal and state program established under Title IV A of the Social Security Act. To needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living . . . . |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Rosenthal P.C. were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Participating hospitals which retain ownership of the capital assets used to provide services to their Medicare recipients are entitled to periodic reimbursement for estimated actual depreciation on those assets. A hospital which has closed would be eligible for further depreciation reimburse ments from HHS on a Medicare related capital asset which was sold within one year after its closure for less than its depreciated basis. HHS regulations allowed hospitals forty five days after their withdrawal from the Medicare program to submit a The HHS depreciation methodology is similar to that utilized for federal tax purposes. Since HHS already would have reimbursed the hospital $40. Were the asset to sell for only $500. The HHS regulations likewise allow hospitals a three year period within which to reopen and amend a final cost report which was timely filed. The Trustee obtained two extensions of the forty five day filing deadline from the bankruptcy court and the Hospital's final cost report was submitted to HHS within the extended deadline. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. Ahlborn was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 2. Ahlborn was paid $550. This was a lump sum settlement that did not allocate Ahlborn's recovery among her various claims. The State was not a party to the settlement. The parties have entered into a stipulation regarding damages. Whereby the State will recover $215. Is a fair representation of the percentage of the settlement constituting payment by the tortfeasor for past medical care. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Medicaid program was established in 1965 by Title XIX of the Social Security Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Kathy S. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief was Benjamin W. Sr. were on the brief for amici curiae for U.S. Its substantive claims at least the ones making it to the appeal are that the amendment's alleged vagueness violates the First Amendment. The Secretary of Health and Human Services |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That was certified to receive Medicare and Medicaid funds. All such facilities are subject to annual state surveys to determine if they comply with the Medicare and Medicaid participation requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 1395i 3(g). HHS notified Hermina that the facility was out of compliance with the Medicare and Medicaid participation requirements at the immediate jeopardy level. The date the survey was completed. Immediate jeopardy is the most serious violation category. 42 C.F.R. § 488.408. The ALJ found that there was no evidence to show that Hermina had made such efforts. That is. Or is likely to cause. Sea Island contends that HHS is bound by its own internal policy set out in its State Operations Manual § 3010. HHS maintains that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Which is at issue in this appeal. The Premier Participants were rewarded if they purchased Zimmer's products in sufficient numbers to increase Zimmer's market share. Among these rewards was a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was William D. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Because the record contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the agency's stated reason for selecting a white person was pretext for racial discrimination. Cones received uniformly excellent evaluations and applied for several pro motions but was never selected. Dissolving the Office of Management and Acquisition where Cones was working and dividing its functions between two newly created entities. Was given responsibility for day to day physical operations of HHS. Tompkins detailed Cones to serve as * Circuit Judge Ginsburg was present for oral argument but took no part in either the consideration or the decision of this case. Although the new position was rated GS 15 and Cones was still a GS 14. ASMB was operating under an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is |
||
![]() |
02-7015 -- DAUGHERTY V. THOMPSON -- 03/18/2003 Circuit Judge.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Russoniello and | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Walker is a qui tam relator. Walker contends that the district court erred in limiting the scope of information discoverable in the case to that information relevant to the time period during which she was employed by LFM as a nurse practitioner. I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Medicare Program is a system of health insurance administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. CMS was formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare Part B claims is made through CMS. These insurance carriers are known as Fiscal Intermediaries. When a healthcare service is rendered to a patient covered by Medicare Part B. Among these manuals are the Medicare Carrier's Manual. Of LFM's patients are covered by Medicare Part B. These claims are made on HCFA 1500 forms in electronic 3 form. FECA AND BLACK LUNG) I certify that the services shown on this form were medically indicated and necessary for the health of the patient and were personally furnished by me or were furnished incident to my professional service by my employee under my immediate personal supervision. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for the United States. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is a consolidated appeal. Challenging the TennCare program's handling of their applications for coverage under the program when Plaintiffs were denied coverage. Plaintiffs Ooten and Hyslope requested and were granted permission to intervene in the action in 1998 and 2000. The TennCare program is a federal waiver plan under the Medicaid Act approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1315. TennCare coverage is extended to three groups of individuals: (1) existing Medicaid beneficiaries and those who meet Medicaid's financial and/or medical eligibility requirements. 1993 . . . did not have coverage under an individual health insurance policy or who did not have (either directly or through a family member) coverage under. The TennCare regulations define uninsurable persons as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER All Medicare eligible costs incurred by a provider hospital were reimbursed on a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Patric Hooper. With him on the brief were David S. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Because we agree with the district court that the Secretary's application of regulations was reasonable and the Secretary's decision was supported by the record. The statutory distinction between a generic hospital ( |
||
![]() |
P.I.A. MICHIGAN CITY INCORPORATED V. TOMMY THOMPSON Neustadter argued the cause for appellant. | ||
![]() |
UNIV MED CTR SO NV V. SHALALA DONNA E. With him on the brief were Frank W. Anderson was on the brief for amicus curiae National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems.
Before: Silberman. Concerned that many federally funded hospital facilities serving low income patients were incurring high prices for drugs. Section 340B requires a manufacturer of |
||
![]() |
O:\OPN\KATE\NEBRASKA V. HHS\NEBRASKA V. HHS.V12.FINAL.WPD With her on the briefs were Peter D. With her on the brief was Jon C. The amount of money a State may receive under Title IV B is capped. A question that arises when a State prepares its CAP is how it should allocate expenditures that benefit more than one federal program. We are told. Is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER He was required to |
||
![]() |
01-6291 -- STATE OF OKLAHOMA V. U.S. -- 06/12/2002 Oklahoma and its various state agencies are entitled to reimbursement for the federal government's proportionate share of salaries and fringe benefits attributable to federal work being performed by state employees as long as the costs of implementing federal programs are legitimate. Because an understanding of the underlying facts is essential for the proper disposition of this appeal. The amount of the benefit allowance is set by statute. The employee is charged the difference. The unspent amount is forwarded to the employee as gross income. With respect to health care coverage. Employees have three basic choices. The State then forwards the appropriate monies to the various providers as directed by the employee. OSEEGIB is a creation of Oklahoma statute. OSEEGIB is a state run. State employees are just one group of employees eligible for coverage through OSEEGIB. Other groups are also eligible for health care coverage with OSEEGIB. Premiums from employees that elect OSEEGIB as their healthcare provider are deposited into the OSEEGIB reserve fund. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will affirm. Intermediaries contract with the Secretary to determine the amounts due and are bound by the Secretary's regulations and interpretive rules. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Frank W. Anderson was on the brief for amicus curiae National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems. Concerned that many federally funded hospital facilities serving low income patients were incurring high prices for drugs. Section 340B requires a manufacturer of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Ralph Bain was to become her immediate MACKEY v. Bain was appointed a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER For herself and all other persons from whom Defendant has or will demand. We have before us a litigant who contends that she should be allowed to circumvent the administrative remedies available to her not because resort to them would be futile. Her position is that the likelihood she says it is a near certainty that she would succeed in the administrative appeals process should excuse her from having to resort to it. Believing that what this litigant fears is one of the principal reasons for and benefits of the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted. Was injured by an elevator door at the Tuscaloosa County Courthouse in Tuscaloosa. Is likely to require continued treatment for them. Have been paid by Medicare. The United States Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)1 sent her a letter informing her that it was statutorily subrogated to her right of recovery against the elevator company. Telling him that he was required to send HCFA a copy of his representation agreement with Cochran. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Abbott were on brief. Were on brief. Circuit Judge | ||
![]() |
01-4228 -- LEFLER V. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF UTAH, INC. -- 08/14/2003 We affirm. Factual Background United is licensed in Utah. Employees contributed to the premiums. United was a fiduciary | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This decision was originally issued as an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman | 02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E | 08 13 2003 |
| In re: Will C. Cohen | 03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM | 07 08 2004 | |
| In re: Will C. | |||
![]() |
PUB CTZN HLTH RSRCH V. FDA With
her on the briefs were Wilma A. With her on the brief was Brian Wolfman. Powell was on the brief for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Before: Ginsburg. Public Citizen argued that the documents could not be withheld under that exemption and that in any event disclosure was required under 21 U.S.C. 355(l). Human) tests showing that the drug is safe and effective. See 21 U.S.C. 355(a). Arguing that although a search of its database identified 230 INDs for which the agency had received safety reports and which were either withdrawn. It could not
without an unduly burdensome manual search of each file determine which of these were discontinued |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Jerome Wayne Johnson | 03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM | 07 12 2004 |
| In re: Will C. Bowman | 02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E | 08 13 2003 | |
| In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. | |||
![]() |
00-1405A -- ALLCARE HOME HEALTH, INC. V. SHALALA -- 12/14/2001 The motion is granted. The order and judgment filed on December 14. Shall be published. The published opinion is attached to this order. Entered for the Court
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Singh was convicted of health care fraud. Structure of the Practice Singh was a physician. The Practice was located on the first floor of Albany Memorial Hospital ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Inc. were on brief. Were on brief. Plaintiffs suffer from acquired brain disorders and have the option to receive medical care for that condition under the Medicaid program. The difficulty is that there are more people who want to be in the model program than there is room in the program.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Quill was on the brief for amici curiae Public Health Scientists in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Acted without sufficient epidemiological evidence that dioxin is a known human carcinogen. Although we reject the Secre tary's arguments that the manufacturer lacks standing and that the upgrade decision is unreviewable. The list is * Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. prepared biennially by the Department's National Toxicology Program ( |
||
![]() |
JIM J. TOZZI V. US DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Quill was on the brief for amici curiae Public Health Scientists in support of appellants. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Military officers are exempt from antidiscrimination laws. Every federal appellate court to do so has concluded that uniformed members of the military are not |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Wilma A. With her on the brief was Brian Wolfman. Powell was on the brief for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Public Citizen argued that the documents could not be withheld under that exemption and that in any event disclosure was required under 21 U.S.C. s 355(l). Human) tests showing that the drug is safe and effective. Arguing that although a search of its database identified 230 INDs for which the agency had received safety reports and which were either withdrawn. It could not without an unduly burdensome manual search of each file determine which of these were discontinued |
||
![]() |
PATEL V. THOMPSON (1/31/2003, NO. 02-14821) That the two aggravating factors relied upon by the HHS had an impermissible retroactive effect and thus should not have been utilized to exclude him beyond the mandatory five year exclusion period provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1320a 7(c)(3)(B). Holding that the district court properly determined that the suspension by the HHS is remedial and not subject to retroactive application restrictions established by law.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have observed that |
||
![]() |
PATEL V. THOMPSON (1/31/2003, NO. 02-14821) That the two aggravating factors relied upon by the HHS had an impermissible retroactive effect and thus should not have been utilized to exclude him beyond the mandatory five year exclusion period provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1320a 7(c)(3)(B). Holding that the district court properly determined that the suspension by the HHS is remedial and not subject to retroactive application restrictions established by law.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Waiving review of all other violations for which civil penalties were imposed. Which was sustained by an administrative law judge for the HHS Departmental Appeals Board and then upheld by an appellate panel of the Appeals Board. 2004* This decision was originally issued as an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a skilled nursing facility located in Vandalia. Its participation in Medicare is governed by sections 1819 and 1866 of the Social Security Act and by federal regulations at 42 C.F.R. To insure that the facility is in compliance with program requirements. At which time Petitioner was found not to be in substantial compliance with several of the federal requirements for nursing homes. At the heart of this appeal are several allegations by three different residents of sexual abuse by members of Petitioner's staff. No such report was ever located. Resident 6 was not examined by her physician. The authorities were not notified. Although an internal incident report was generated. Resident 6 was finally examined by her physician and a pediatric gynecologist on March 29 and 30. Resident 124 was a 37 year old woman diagnosed with. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 2003 is amended as follows: Insert at Slip. Judges McKeown and Rawlinson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge KONG v. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. 2004 in which to file a reply brief is GRANTED. The district court held that these amendments were not an establishment of religion. SCULLY 1739 (1) The term |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court held that these amendments were not an establishment of religion. The cross referenced section x(ss)(1) reads in relevant part as follows: Religious nonmedical health care institution (1) The term |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who was then ten years old. Becker ultimately concluded that the allegation was unfounded. Lopez noted that J.B.'s eyes and lips were bruised and swollen. Suggested that those injuries may have been self inflicted. Kilpatrick submitted medical evidence that J.B. was prone to over dramatizing events to receive attention from Ronda and that J.B. had engaged in self abuse in the past. J.B. was returned to Ronda. Ronda and Kilpatrick made comments critical of King and HHS that were published in a series of newspaper articles appearing in the Omaha World Herald and the Scottsbluff Star Herald in the spring of 2003. The context of King's statement to Ronda indicated that it was likely made to explain the consequences of testifying falsely regarding known abuse. Finding that King's conduct in the J.B. case was proper and that her comment to Ronda was not inappropriate. The discovery process was slow. There was no judicial substantiation of the allegations. |
||
![]() |
PHARM RSRCH MFTR V. THOMPSON, TOMMY G. Snyder argued the cause for appellant. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will refer to Defendants collectively as DMAS. 1 HCMF CORPORATION v. Reasoning that the claim HCMF sought to add to its complaint was indistinct from its original claim. Thus the amendment was futile. We nevertheless agree with the district court that the amendment was futile. The construction of the nursing homes was financed by bonds authorized by Industrial Development Authorities (IDA). The FHA mortgages have a slightly higher interest rate than the IDA bonds. Medicaid is a joint federal state program under which federal funds are made available to states that provide medical services to eligible recipients. The federal Medicaid requirement relevant here was contained in the Boren Amendment: Each state was required to assure the federal government that under its Medicaid program the state reimbursed nursing facilities at rates that were |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant was born in Italy in 1941 and attended school there through the fifth or sixth grade. The thrust of her argument is that the ALJ misread or ignored key medical findings. With the result that the assessments of various physicians were improperly discredited. With the further result that her complaints of 2 pain were improperly discounted. Our attention will be directed principally to the evidence concerning her complaints of pain. Because disability benefits under the SSI program are available only from the date of a claimant's application. The notes from these visits are cursory. The complaints were varied and for the most part minor. Physical examination was reported as being within normal limits. Claimant was prescribed pain medication continuously throughout this period at first Norgesic Forte. There was a full range of motion in all joints. Range of motion was diminished in the neck in all directions. Neurological findings were normal. Claimant stated that her arthritis was a long standing condition which affected her feet. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The removal of Nebraska from further HHS was previously known as the Nebraska Department of Heath. The department is referred to as HHS throughout this opinion. 21 supervision of the licensing process and appointment of a third party to exercise supervision. This appeal by Nebraska is from a preliminary injunction issued by the district court2 which enjoined the state parties from continuing with the administrative proceeding related to denial of the license for the disposal facility.3 We affirm. Which was passed as original legislation by each of the states and by Congress. Also pending in this court are appeals by Nebraska. The state selected as the host for a disposal site is required |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Leavitt is substituted for his predecessor. The Administrator rejected the proposed amendment on two alternative grounds: (1) that it was inconsistent with the statutory requirement of efficiency. We conclude that the Administrator's interpretations of the statute and regulation were permissible and deny the petition for review. 13030 ALASKA DEP'T OF HEALTH v. A. BACKGROUND Statutory Framework Medicaid is a cooperative federal state program through which the federal government reimburses states for certain medical expenses incurred on behalf of needy persons. Participation by states is voluntary. Have approved. Was 57.58%. The state is responsible for the balance. The tribal facilities at issue in this case are unique. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(b).1 There are seven such facilities one in Anchorage and six in rural areas. Care and services available under the plan . . . as may be necessary to safeguard against unnecessary utilization of such care and services and to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency. |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. LAB. CORP. OF AM., INC. (5/9/2002, NO. 01-13312) LabCorp is an Atlanta based company that performs medical testing services nationwide and specializes in providing testing on a contract basis to long term care facilities ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Louis (HDC) was the designated Head Start agency for St. ACF notified HDC that it was disallowing $83. Concluding that the Board's decision |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. LAB. CORP. OF AM., INC. (5/9/2002, NO. 01-13312) LabCorp is an Atlanta based company that performs medical testing services nationwide and specializes in providing testing on a contract basis to long term care facilities ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 2005 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson is. Leavitt is. Circuit Judge: The New York City Empowerment Zone was created pursuant to a Congressional act and was awarded $100 million in federal block grants to foster the revitalization of economically distressed areas. Cannot go forward until a Section 106 review of the project is conducted. We hold that because all approval and funding decisions as to 2 the East River Plaza project are made at the state and local level. Section 106 which is triggered only when a federal agency has jurisdiction or licensing authority over the project at issue is inapplicable here. (B) describes the process by which the affected community is a full partner in the process of developing and implementing the plan and the extent to which local institutions and organizations have contributed to the planning process. Private resources that will be available in the nominated area and the private/public partnerships to be used. Including the extent to which poor persons and families will be empowered to become economically self sufficient. |
||
![]() |
99-1226 -- WELLS V. SHALALA -- 09/21/2000 Affirm. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER A. The Parties Plaintiff Tai Kwan Cureton is an African American who graduated from Simon Gratz High School in Philadelphia in June 1996 ranking 27th in a class of 305 students. Cureton was a member of the track team and earned both academic and athletic honors as a high school student. The SAT is a nationally recognized standardized test. Have emphasized the SAT in this action so we discuss only that test. 5 Plaintiff Leatrice Shaw is an African American who also graduated from Simon Gratz High School and was ranked 5th in a class of 305 students. Shaw was a member of the track team and earned both academic and athletic honors and was selected for membership in the National Honor Society. She was unable to compete on the track team during her freshman year because of the NCAA regulations at issue here. Plaintiffs Andrea Gardner and Alexander Wesby are African American student athletes who exceeded the NCAA minimum GPA requirement for freshman year athletic participation. Though they originally were not parties. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction because. We would have had jurisdiction of that review proceeding. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a 7a(e). 2 No. 06 3521 The first subsection of section 504(a) provides that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 352 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2003).1 The law applied is well understood the statute of limitations begins to run when a person knows. A complication arises when the injury caused is a disease that develops over time. Answers are discerned under the so called By happenstance two of the three panel members in DeBiec sit on this case as well. 3 1 |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Parties NJHA is a non profit association representing seventy one of the eighty four hospitals in New Jersey that receive Medicaid reimbursement from the State of New Jersey. The defendants in this action are William Waldman. The defendants have been sued in their official capacities. DHS is the state agency responsible for New Jersey's Medicaid Program. The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services is the office within DHS that administers the program. The defendants will be referred to as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Part of which is still pending. Were eligible for Hawaii's QUEST medical coverage. Have concluded after bench trials with awards of compensatory damages and are the subject of the current consolidated appeal. CHANDLER 13123 conclusion that the class plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages. We hold that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Group members also had to have an income no greater than 100% of the federal poverty level and assets not in excess of $2. The State extended medical and dental benefits to a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Darrel J. With him on the brief were Susan R. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief for amicus curiae State of Maine in support of appellee. Pharmaceutical manufacturers challenge the De partment of Health and Human Service's approval of a Ver mont demonstration project requiring the manufacturers to rebate a portion of the price of drugs purchased directly by certain individuals who are not otherwise covered by the state's Medicaid program. Because no Medicaid funds are expended under the Vermont demonstration project and thus no Medic aid savings produced by the required rebates. Medicaid services are provided pursuant to plans developed by the states and approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 42 U.S.C. s 1396a(a) (b). Permits the federal gov ernment to reimburse states only for drugs purchased from manufacturers who have agreed to pay statutorily specified rebates. Section 1396r 8 provides that rebate agreements shall require manu facturers to pay rebates on drugs for which |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER LLP was on brief. Including questions about the extent to which the EEOC's informal interpretations of the borrowed definitions are binding in the FMLA context.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Burka was a pro se attorney litigant and there fore was not eligible for attorney's fees under FOIA. The district court held that the informa tion sought by Burka was exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 5 and therefore granted HHS's motion for summary judgment. The case was remanded to the district court to consider the request. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Pro Se Attorneys Are Not Entitled to Attorney's Fees Under the Fee Shifting Provisions of FOIA Burka is seeking an award of attorney's fees for his work in this case. HHS responds that Burka is not eligible for an award because the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Kay v. Whether or not they are attorneys. A litigant must first establish eligibility by showing that the lawsuit was reasonably necessary and the litigation substantially caused the requested records to be released. A litigant must show that it is entitled to fees under four criteria that the court weighs in determining whether attorney's fees are appropriate: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and MODIFIED in part. Leavitt is. The New York City MSA was slightly expanded and now includes certain additional hospitals in northern New Jersey. Because the New Jersey hospitals' wages are somewhat lower. Plaintiffs allege they will receive $812 million less in reimbursements over the next ten years than they would have under their former wage adjustment. Plaintiffs argue both that the use of MSAs as proxies for |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Hammond argues that summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was entitled to damages or other relief under the False Claims Act. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following statement of facts is drawn from the district court order and the record on appeal. Was employed as Medical Director of Northland from October 1994 to September 1996. Hammond became concerned that Northland was improperly billing day Hammond also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend her complaint to include a claim for punitive damages. Even if this matter were properly on appeal before this court. Northland's billing practices were not corrected. After purportedly conducting her own inquiries into the billing practices of other local mental health facilities to determine if Northland's billings were in compliance with Medicare requirements. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant.
| ||
![]() |
ANDERSON V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. I This litigation is before this court for the third time. Argued that the information was confidential and should not be released. Shortly before the district court was to conduct an in camera inspection of the remaining disputed documents. Was no longer asserting a claim of confidentiality. Plaintiff was concerned. The district court assured plaintiff that she could still pursue her fee application even if the merits of the case were dismissed as moot and specifically reserved the fee issue in its final order on the merits. We stated that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Leavitt has been appointed United States Secretary of Health and Human Services and is substituted as appellee under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 1 St. DRG Payments and Bundling Medicare is health insurance funded by the federal government for the aged and disabled. The reimbursement rates were set according to historic costs in a given region and applied on a prospective basis to the hospitals during the upcoming fiscal year. These new payments were made according to patients' diagnoses. Treating hospitals would get a payment that was tied to the patient's diagnosis related group (DRG). Posed significant problems to hospitals that had followed a practice of having ancillary providers furnish services and seek reimbursement from Medicare separately because their accounting and billing systems would have to be changed. Which was later included in the U.S. The part B payments to the ancillary providers were not calculated according to the patient's DRG. Those payments were calculated on a reasonable cost basis. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for Athalie Lamore. Plaintiffs appellants are disabled veterans or dependents of deceased veterans who receive Aid and Attendance benefits from the Veterans Administration pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1502(b). Each plaintiff requested and received a fair hearing regarding the effect of the change in policy on the payments each was required to make towards his or her own care. Which are considered to be income for purposes of eligibility whether counted or plaintiffs. Or local government program for medical or remedial care or social services which are not considered to be income for purposes of eligibility. Fuoroli stated that HCFA's position on VA A and A payments was clarified in proposed rules in the Federal Register . . . . Pertaining to what is income. Which are not considered to be income for purposes of eligibility. A person shall be considered to be in need of a regular aid and attendance if such person is (1) a patient in a nursing home or (2) 5 addition. Plaintiffs are recipients of Medicaid under the Home and Community Based Medicaid Waiver provisions of the Medicaid Program. 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. |
||
![]() |
00-1405 -- ALLCARE HOME HEALTH, INC. V. SHALALA -- 12/14/2001 Inc. is a for profit home health agency that provides home health services to Medicare beneficiaries and others in the greater Denver area. HCFA contracts with private insurance companies known as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Walters is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Asa Hutchinson is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). ***John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered to protect First Amendment rights. Where the basis for the government's action is solely the physician's professional |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was L. With him on the brief were Frank W. The information on which it is based. The parties agree that this documentation policy is an interpretive rule. We are allowing providers to furnish documentation from cost reporting periods subse quent to the base period in support of the allocation of physician compensation costs in the GME based peri od.... It is only in the absence of base period docu mentation that subsequent documentation should be con sidered as a proxy for base period documentation.... 55 Fed. If such records are also unavailable. The interpretive rule states as follows: |
||
![]() |
PRESBY MED CTR V. SHALALA DONNA E. With her on the briefs was L. With him on the brief were
Frank W. the information on which it is based. The parties agree that this documentation policy is an interpretive rule. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
The interpretive rule provides the following |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Peter D. Hib vaccinations were normal.2 Id. Pafford was seen by Dr. As was the case throughout her early childhood years. Schmidt concluded that Pafford was showing normal growth and development without any unusual medical problems. Pafford was taken to a 2 DPT is an older version of the DTaP vaccination. Noted that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER It is ORDERED that the petition be granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. ``We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and enter judgment for PhRMA.'' Insert in lieu thereof: The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of an appropriate judgment by the District Court. 2 Delete the last clause of the last paragraph of the opinion. The judgment of the District Court is hereby reversed and the case remanded for entry of an appropriate judgment. McGrail Deputy Clerk Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. With him on the briefs were Jeffrey Pariser and Darrel J. Samp were on the brief for amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were G. Michael Schuster were on the brief for amicus curiae American Association of Retired Persons. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Which is located in New Brunswick. There is a procedure under Medicare for reclassification of a hospital into an adjacent metropolitan statistical area (MSA) so that the hospital can use that MSA's higher reimbursement rate. One of those criteria is that the average hourly wage of the hospital seeking reclassification must be 84% of that of the hospitals in the area to which it seeks reclassification. It sought to have the average 2 hourly wage of the New York City hospitals reduced by interpreting a statutory provision to require inclusion of the average hourly wage of the hospitals located in Orange County. It was unsuccessful in this attempt. As will soon be seen. The statutory issues presented by this appeal are much more complex than suggested by this simplified introduction. B. Provider Payment System Most health care providers which have entered into provider agreements with the Secretary. Are reimbursed through the Prospective Payment System (PPS). The payment rates for the upcoming federal fiscal year (FFY) for each DRG are published in the Federal Register. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellee. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: This is a consolidated appeal brought by Medicare service providers against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
99-9535 -- SOUTH VALLEY HEALTH CARE CENTER V. HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION -- 09/11/2000 The penalty was levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (Administration) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court determined that the risk benefit analysis employed by the FDA to support an EDS ban was contrary to the intent of Congress and that the FDA had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that EDS pose an unreasonable risk of illness or injury at 10 milligrams ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is substituted as the defendant in lieu of the named defendant. Eric was no longer eligible to participate in that program. Illinois has a separate program providing at home care for adults who would otherwise have to be cared for in institutions. Funding under that program is capped at a level that is insufficient to pay for the extent of private duty nursing that Eric would need in order to remain at home. In that Illinois is refusing to provide the medical services that Eric requires in order to remain in the most community integrated setting appropriate for his needs. Which is his home. Reasoning that the ADA claim against the Director was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that the Rehabilitation Act claim failed as a matter of law because in home nursing care is not a service that Illinois currently provides to any adult individual. I. As this case was resolved on the basis of the pleadings. Eric was diagnosed with medulloblastoma. Medical treatment have impaired Eric's physical and mental functions and left him medically fragile. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Leavitt is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: As we are often called to do. Appeal the adverse grant of summary judgment in their challenge to the Secretary of Health and Human Services's ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Page 5. Were on brief for third party defendant appellant Louis W. Were on brief for plaintiffs appellees. At issue is the application of two distinct provisions of the Social Security Act. Or sister is living in the same home as the dependent child. The household includes both at least one child common to the two parents and at least one child who is the stepchild of the principal earner. Because they are deprived of parental support due to the continuous absence from the home. Who is living with his father. (2) who is (A) under the age of eighteen. Neither the principal earner nor the child[ren] common to both parents are included in the family filing unit. As well.4 Such inclusion is required because the child[ren] are considered dependent under a separate provision of the statute. 1986) (on two step process whereby application of family filing rule must precede determination of need). 4 4 parent who is the principal earner.5 According to the Secretary's interpretation of the family filing rule. |
||
![]() |
B & G ENTERPRISES, LTD V. U.S. With him on the brief was John M. With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel was Katherine M. Of counsel on the brief was Karen Wagner. Of counsel was Patricia Kaeding. Ha[ve] in effect a law providing that it is unlawful for any manufacturer. HHS was instructed to reduce that state |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellants.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The ALJ made an alternative finding that claimant was not disabled at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. Concluded: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the briefs were David H. The more they were reimbursed. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This appeal is from a judgment of the district court affirming a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES V. SHALALA DONNA With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the briefs were David H. The more they were reimbursed. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Each of the deaths was traceable to Chronic Beryllium Disease ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Jeffrey Pariser and Darrel J. Samp were on the brief for amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were G. Michael Schuster were on the brief for amicus curiae Ameri can Association of Retired Persons. Which is funded in part by manufacturer rebates and in part by a 2% state subsidy. PhRMA claims that the Maine program mirrors a demonstration project that was imple mented by the State of Vermont. The record shows that Maine's initial version of the disput ed demonstration program was explicitly patterned after Ver mont's program. This modification was never approved by the Secre tary. The only program from Maine that the Secretary has endorsed is one identical to the Vermont program that was found unlawful by the court in PhRMA I. We have no need to consider questions about the extent to which the Secretary has authority to |
||
![]() |
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA V. TOMMY THOMSON Jr. argued the cause for appellant. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs are providers of medical services to Medi Cal recipients. The California Department of Health Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 1. Id. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court read that decision as creating a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We conclude that the proper legal standards were employed and that there was substantial evidence to support the decision to impose a civil monetary penalty under 42 C.F.R. § 483.20(k)(3)(i) (2001). Omni Manor is a long term care facility in Ohio that participates in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs under a provider agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc (2001). Facilities that contract with the Secretary of Health and Human Services are periodically inspected by state health agencies to ensure compliance with federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395aa. The Ohio Department of Health ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with |
||
![]() |
MERIDEN COMMTY AGCY V. SHALALA DONNA E. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This appeal is from a judgment of the district court affirming a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER When appellant's insured status expired.1 The current application was denied. So was not under a disability as defined in the Act. An appeal was taken to the district court. Where a magistrate judge concluded that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Objections to the magistrate's report were rejected by the district court judge in a lengthy opinion. The earlier applications were denied on September 30. The denial was affirmed by the Appeals Council. No further appeal was taken. The ALJ found that in combination appellant's conditions were severe. Were found to prevent him from returning to his past relevant work as a truck driver. Our standard of review is whether the Secretary's findings are supported by |
||
![]() |
DOE V. CHILES (2/26/1998, NO. 96-5144) The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with |
||
![]() |
DOE V. CHILES (2/26/1998, NO. 96-5144) The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Sanctuary at Whispering Meadows is a nursing facility that participates in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. A survey conducted on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) determined that Whispering Meadows was not in substantial compliance with Medicare regulations regarding the prevention and treatment of pressure sores. Who concluded that the facility was not in compliance with the regulations and that the amount of the penalty was Whispering Meadows v. The Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) affirmed the judgment of the ALJ in a thorough and well reasoned opinion that was supported by substantial evidence. To ensure that they are in substantial compliance with all federal requirements for skilled nursing facilities. These surveys are generally conducted by the health departments of the various states on behalf of CMS. Whispering Meadows was found to be out of compliance with 42 C.F.R. § 483.25(c)(1). Which requires participating facilities to ensure that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Vicki Gottlich and Patricia B. Michael Schuster were on the brief for amicus curiae American Association of Retired Persons in support of appellees. The plaintiffs have over the course of the litigation invoked two statutory bases for relief. About 20% have opted to have the Social Security Administration ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint alleging that he was the victim of defamation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred by ordering the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) and the Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care (AFMC) to publish to Medicaid service beneficiaries and providers the identity of physician reviewers who make decisions to approve or deny medical care to Medicaid eligible children. Because the district court's order is at odds with the relevant Medicaid regulations. We reverse. 3 BACKGROUND The general background to this case is detailed in our prior decisions in Pediatric Specialty Care. The plaintiffs are applicants for Medicaid services. ADHS) to disclose to Medicaid service recipients and providers the names of the physician reviewers who made determinations regarding whether and to what extent children were eligible for treatment. Holding that such disclosure was prohibited by applicable Medicaid Act provisions and regulations. The district court informed the parties that it was reconsidering its earlier decision and solicited letter briefs on the matter. |
||
![]() |
FLORIDA ASS'N OF MED. EQUIP. DEALERS V. APFEL (11/5/1999, NO. 99-11177) Those who wished to sell such items to the government were required to compete by submitting bids. Suppliers whose bids failed to meet competitive price and quality standards were precluded from providing these items under Medicare. Was convened. The NTEP met three times for this purpose and was not expected to. FAMED claimed that the NTEP was an |
||
![]() |
FLORIDA ASS'N OF MED. EQUIP. DEALERS V. APFEL (11/5/1999, NO. 99-11177) Those who wished to sell such items to the government were required to compete by submitting bids. Suppliers whose bids failed to meet competitive price and quality standards were precluded from providing these items under Medicare. Was convened. The NTEP met three times for this purpose and was not expected to. FAMED claimed that the NTEP was an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER It was determined that Chyrl was in need of further psychiatric evaluation. Chyrl was assessed by several members of the Hospital staff. Chyrl was evaluated by Leonard Kemp. Kemp was charged with assessing and making recommendations of psychiatric referrals. Was deeply agitated. Was |
||
![]() |
SYBLE M. VAUGHN V. PRINCIPI With him on the brief were Robert D. Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were Donald E. Et al. With her on the brief was Brian Wolfman. Also on the brief were Barton F. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2000). The Veterans Court denied their applications on the ground that neither was a prevailing party. Vaughn appealed the denial to the Veterans Court. While her appeal was pending. Unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who concluded that Perez was not entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Perez argues mainly that the Secretary's decision is not supported by sufficient evidence. Alleging that he suffered from a disability dating back to a time when he was within the Act's coverage. Perez's application was denied both initially and on reconsideration by the Social Security Administration. The case was then considered de novo by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). That the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence. II II Medical Evidence Medical Evidence The medical evidence in the record establishes that Perez was hospitalized on January 2. He was then fifty four years of age. He was released from the hospital on January 11. The discharge diagnosis was cardiac arrhythmia. The prognosis was guarded. He was still complaining of disabling chest pain. III III Standard of Review Standard of Review It is not our function to ascertain de novo whether a person claiming an entitlement to social security benefits is in fact disabled. |
||
![]() |
02-5192 -- FISHER V. OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY -- 07/15/2003 Are violating federal law by the manner in which they operate their HCBS program. Imposition of the five prescription cap will force them out of their communities and into nursing homes in order to obtain the care that is medically necessary. Because they are not presently institutionalized and face no risk of institutionalization. Because we conclude that the plaintiffs may have a meritorious ADA claim. Reverse and remand for further consideration.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Casey now concedes that a portion of one claim is barred by Garcetti. Casey that her staff had begun to uncover evidence that as many as 50% of the families enrolled in the District's Head Start program appeared to have incomes that were too high for them to qualify for participation. She was told variously not to worry about it. The United States Department of Health & Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER ORDER The government's petition for rehearing is granted. Is withdrawn. Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. 3496 I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge We are asked to decide if the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER ORDER The government's petition for rehearing is granted. Is withdrawn. Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A |
||
![]() |
JODY P. LUKE V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES For respondent. With her on the brief were Robert D. Which held that he is not entitled to the special retirement benefits provided to law enforcement officers under 5 U.S.C. § . An agency within the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ). He is covered by the Federal Employee Retirement System ( FERS ). On August 25. Luke was assigned to the Investigations Section of the NIH police. At the hearing. As there were rarely any violent crimes or robberies on the NIH campus. Mr. That he was called into work after his shift about once or twice per month. Luke is authorized to carry a firearm and receives regular training on firearm use. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Remand to the district court for its consideration of whether the statutory penalty and the treble damages awarded are unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment. 3496 I. The Medicare Program is administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Which is not at issue here. Medicare Part B is a federally subsidized. Reimbursement for Medicare claims is made by the United States through HCFA. The Medicare fiscal intermediary involved in this case was Blue Shield of California. By a qualified employee of a physician or physician directed clinic (whose services are rendered `incident to' a physician's services). A |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Which is known as TennCare. Which have been approved by the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). Reducing or suspending the TennCare coverage of members of the plaintiff class who are enrolled in the TennCare program. TennCare is the State of Tennessee's federally approved Medicaid demonstration project. Tennessee's Medicaid program is the nation's most generous. Which is to say a State's provision of Medicaid benefits that federal law does not require participating States to provide. All three of the notices have been written in a way that ensures they are comprehensible to individuals who have a sixth grade reading level. Each TennCare recipient who has not been identified by the State as eligible to receive benefits under another Medicaid category and who is therefore scheduled for disenrollment will receive a 14 page RFI packet. The RFI informs beneficiaries that their eligibility category for TennCare is ending and that they may continue to receive benefits only if they qualify for an open Medicaid category. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 166 |
||
![]() |
01-3368 -- CASAD V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- 08/29/2002 Casad was created during peer review of a training grant application submitted to the National Institute on Aging (NIA). The group first decides whether the application is deemed worthy of funding under NIH selection criteria. A copy of the summary statement is sent to the principal investigator of the proposed research so that the investigator may submit rebuttal comments. For approved grant applications with direct costs exceeding $50. The summary statement is sent to the next stage of the review process |
||
![]() |
MICHAEL J. BROWN V. DEPT. OF THE NAVY With him on the brief were Mark D. With her on the brief were David W. Of counsel was Maj. Brown was removed from his civilian position with the Marine Corps. That the penalty of removal was unjustified. Brown was removed from his position based on the charge that he had engaged in ". Brown while the major was deployed overseas.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The background facts are thoroughly detailed in the decisions below. Adjustments were made in her work duties to accommodate her new mobility limitations. At the time the treating orthopedist noted that as a result of her fractures her feet were significantly deformed. A similar subtalor fusion was performed on her right foot. It is not disputed that claimant relies on a cane. Complains of chronic lower back pain. 2 There were two hearings before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on claimant's application for disability benefits. Claimant was represented by the same counsel at both hearings. A decision denying benefits after the first hearing was vacated by the Appeals Council. Because he violated an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant was 37 years old on the date of alleged onset. There have been two evidentiary hearings in this case. The case was remanded to the ALJ for further consideration in light of this court's previous decisions. 7 (1st Cir. 1988) (a 2 lay fact finder is not qualified to determine functional capacity solely on the basis of bare medical findings). We are met at the outset with an argument from the Secretary that the appeal should be dismissed because appellant allegedly failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's report in the district court. We thus have no reason to consider the Secretary's belated procedural challenge here. Appellant's argument on the merits is confined to a single issue: whether the ALJ correctly determined on remand that appellant is capable of performing sedentary work. On this review our task is to determine whether the Secretary's findings are supported by |
||
![]() |
SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSP. V. SHALALA This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 1995 is amended as follows: On Page 5. Was found to have been disabled since April 30. The 1984 claim was filed without the assistance of counsel and Gilbert failed to pursue the denial past the reconsideration stage. Which was deemed administratively final. 108 (1977).2 Gilbert's motion for summary judgment was also denied. Our review of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is de novo. Reopening decisions are a matter of agency discretion and generally are not 1. There is no authority for a de facto reopening |
||
![]() |
SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSP. V. SHALALA This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Cornish learned that the adulteration finding was based upon Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memoranda issued to drug testing laboratories and medical review officers ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Martha B. Of counsel was Joyce G. Also of counsel were David M. II A We generally have jurisdiction over appeals from the MSPB under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). We do have jurisdiction over appeals raising only timeliness issues of such cases. Parties proceeding with a mixed case appeal to the MSPB have thirty days from 2006 3281 4 the Board's final decision to petition the EEOC for consideration or to file a civil action in the district court. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.157. It stated that her option was to either appeal to the EEOC's OFO or file in a district court. Rather than that her option under applicable regulations was to appeal to the MSPB or file in a district court. 2004 that her two options were to appeal to the EEOC's OFO or to file an action in district court. She should have known enough to ignore that notice and hearken back to the MSPB administrative judge's notice two years earlier. Is arbitrary. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. Victoria Pulos with whom Deborah Schachter and New Hampshire Legal Assistance were on brief for appellees. This is a class action challenging as arbitrary and capricious an Aid to Families With Dependent Children ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is the subrogee/assignee of a Medicare supplemental insurance contract between National States Insurance Company ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. Because we conclude that the special master appears to have applied an incorrect legal standard requiring Walther to eliminate other possible causes of her injury we vacate the decision and remand for a determination under the correct standard. Sitting by designation. * BACKGROUND Walther was a captain in the United States Army at the time of the events in question. ADEM is a neurological disorder caused by damage to the myelin sheath (fatty covering) insulating the nerve cells in the brain. Walther was placed on the Army's temporary disability retired list on May 22. The government's primary contention was that Walther did not suffer from ADEM. The government There are two forms of the vaccine. It was not caused by the Td vaccine. Opined that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER That the First Amendment was not violated because the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public forum and because SEPTA acted reasonably in removing the posters. We have determined that SEPTA intended to create a designated public forum. I. Background SEPTA is an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Petitioner Lakeridge Villa Health Center ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With whom Jack Comart and Pine Tree Legal Assistance were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief for State of Maine. BACKGROUND AFDC is a voluntary. A dollar is subtracted from the family's basic AFDC grant for every dollar of supplemental income received. This phenomenon is known as |
||
![]() |
01-7092 -- U.S. V. JONES -- 04/24/2002 We discern three points of error that Jones raises in his appeal: (1) that the investigation was not |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Some background concerning that program is necessary in order to understand the context of this appeal. The Medicare program is a federallysubsidized health insurance program primarily for elderly and disabled individuals. Which is a hospital insurance program that covered payments for the costs of inpatient hospital services. Much of the administration of Part A is handled by private contractors. The costs of educational activities and of inpatient hospital services were reimbursed by Medicare based upon a provider's reasonable costs. Whereby hospitals were paid a standardized rate based on the diagnostic classification for the services rendered. Costs incurred in connection with graduate medical education ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 1 were engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy with medical doctors and medical associations whose purpose was to harm chiropractors. Claiming that Trigon and the medical doctors and associations were engaged in a conspiracy that used Trigon's reimbursement policies and treatment guidelines to limit severely the flow of insurance dollars to chiropractors and steer those monies toward medical doctors. Trigon Healthcare was recently purchased by Anthem Healthcare. Trigon is a for profit. These healthcare benefit plans list the benefits and services covered by Trigon under the plan and describe any services that are excluded from the plan or are the subject of coverage limitations. Trigon creates this network of healthcare providers by entering into contracts with providers who are willing to abide by Trigon's terms and conditions. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The medical evidence in the record are thoroughly detailed in the district court's opinion. The alleged onset of her disability was not triggered by any sudden event. Kyphosis is defined as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge. 3 This case arises out of the five state Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact (the Compact) and was last before the court on Nebraska's appeal from a preliminary injunction in favor of the Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Commission (the Commission). 1863 (1986) (reprinting the Compact which is cited in this opinion by article). The state selected to host a disposal facility is 4 required |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Arroyo Alejandro was on consolidated brief for appellant Waldemar Pé. With whom | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant's impairments are severe and prevent her from performing her past work as a cook. BACKGROUND Claimant was born in 1944 and has a ninth grade education. Claimant was granted disability benefits by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Retirement Systems Administration. The ALJ concluded that claimant was not entitled to disability benefits. The ALJ modified his original findings and concluded that claimant's RFC |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Walker was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The sole issue on appeal is whether the oath administered to appellant during the course of the fraud investigation conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER For most of that time Meyers was an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This case is here on a petition for review of a decision of the Departmental Appeals Board. Is a long term care facility that participates in the federal Medicare and Ohio Medicaid programs. We are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the agency's findings. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER (Norwest) appeals from the district court's2 decision that the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) is entitled to satisfaction of its existing Medicaid assistance liens prior to. The sole question before the lower court was the timing of the payment of the lien. When a special needs trust is created. I. In 1993 the Medicaid Act was amended to provide for the creation of supplemental or special needs trusts (SNT). 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). Will The Honorable H. Norwest is the trustee of two SNTs created pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). The beneficiaries of the trusts are Sonya Lotzer and Bobbi Lerud. The DHS is the state agency charged with administering the Medicaid program. Medical assistance payments were made on behalf of both women under the Medicaid program. Each woman was required to assign to the State of Minnesota |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Charset=utf 8 |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER At issue is the Secretary's obligation to reimburse the Providers for bad debts arising from the failure of Medicare Part B participants to make coinsurance 3868 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL v. Medi Cal was liable for particular coinsurance or deductible payments under the applicable law. After the system was designed. We will reverse the summary judgment entered by the district court in favor of the Providers and remand with instructions that summary judgment be entered in favor of the Secretary. Is the component of the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program for the Secretary. CMS is headed by the Administrator. Medicare is divided into two parts. Everyone who is eligible for Social Security benefits is also eligible for Part A benefits. Reimbursement for outpatient hospital services provided to Part B enrollees is handled by private insurance companies. Cost shifting occurs in the following two ways: (1) the necessary costs of delivering health care to Medicare enrollees are borne by individuals who are not Medicare recipients. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER As there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary's decision. Twice concluded that she was not disabled at Step 5 of the familiar sequential analytic process. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f). In his first decision the ALJ found that appellant retained a functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work which was not significantly compromised by her nonexertional limitations. The denial of benefits was directed by application of the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs are a class of mentally retarded adults in need of medical services from an intermediate care facility for persons with mental retardation ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Lois J. Lovvorn were on the brief for intervenor/appellees. Nash were on the brief for amicus curiae County of San Bernardino. Ward Valley is a 1.7 square mile plot of the Mojave Desert located just off I 40. Only US Ecology is before this court. The current posture of the case bars this court from reaching the merits of the claims that were before the District Court. This is so because appellant US Ecology. Does not have standing to contest the Federal Government's refusal to transfer the Ward Valley land to the State of California. Even were we to disagree with the District Court and find that Secretary Babbitt improperly rescinded the Record of Decision. Appellant has no grounds upon which to claim that California will follow these courses. Appellant could not make any concrete assertions on these scores even were the Federal Government to now propose to transfer the Ward Valley land to the state. California is responsible for develop ing and operating the group's first such regional facility. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Teaching hospitals are entitled to reimbursement for the indirect cost of operating a medical residency program. This |
||
![]() |
PAINTER V. SHALALA Is composed of two parts A and B. Is funded from social security taxes. Which is at issue in this case. Is a voluntary program that provides Medicare beneficiaries with supplemental medical insurance benefits for physicians' and other health care services. Funding for Part B is derived from monthly premiums paid by beneficiaries. HHS is responsible for administering the program. The payment amount for Part B claims was the lesser of (1) the physician's actual charge. The payment amount is calculated by multiplying three factors: (1) the relative value for the service. The three factors utilized in determining the payment amount are all established by the Secretary. Only the conversion factor is at issue in this case. The Secretary was directed by Congress. In what is referred to by the parties as the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The record is replete with specific evidence supporting each care deficiency finding upheld by the ALJ and DAB. Ivy Woods points to F Tag 164 where a surveyor observed that Ivy Woods failed to cover a resident receiving personal care while the door was open. The surveyor testified that the resident's head is supposed to be placed on the bottom end. The resident complained they were placing her on the bed incorrectly. Resident 40 told the aides her broken leg hurt and cried until the shower was over. The aides ignored Resident 40's complaints and complained they had urine on their uniforms from Resident 40's leaking catheter as if Resident 40 were not in the room. It would need to violate |
||
![]() |
SUEL THOMAS J. V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES With her on the brief were Helene M. David Suel was born on June 8. Appeared normal until he was approaching five months old. Until he was sleeping twenty hours a day. The child was demonstrating measurable seizure activity. David Suel was admitted to the Minneapolis Children s Medical Center on November . While research regarding the relationship between TS and DPT vaccine is ongoing. Some things are not controverted. TS is an inherited genetic disorder. Special Master Millman held the Vaccine Act s presumption of causation did not apply to significant aggravation and was thus of no benefit to the Suels in meeting their burden. Judge Merow held that once the petitioners had proven the seizure disorder was within the presumptive three day period under the Table. It was the Secretary who must prove that TS alone caused the seizure disorder. The respondent did not show by the preponderance of the evidence that the seizure onset would have occurred at the age of five months solely because of the TS. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the statute on the ground that it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Which establishes the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. Background CHMS is the health care model that Arkansas currently uses to provide early intervention diagnostic and therapy services to Medicaid eligible children between the ages of six months and six years in order to help make them ready for school. It is designed to serve children who |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who was diagnosed with incurable melanoma cancer. The complaint was amended two times to correct deficiencies and to allege that the NIH failed to obtain JoAnn Goodman's informed consent. We have jurisdiction and we affirm. Was diagnosed with advanced melanoma in her scalp. The cancer was excised. JoAnn Goodman's prognosis was poor. The study was conceived and directed by the NIH's Dr. The first 17 patients in the study were treated with these agents. At which time the focus of the study was to determine the maximum safe tolerable dose of TNF. That dose was determined to be 1.0 milligrams per kilogram. JoAnn Goodman and her father in law traveled from Washington state to Maryland to discuss with NIH doctors whether JoAnn Goodman was eligible to participate in the ILP study. A copy of the consent form was given to her and it was explained. JoAnn Goodman's treating physician noted in his chart that: [JoAnn Goodman] is not able to work. That it may have only a small chance of helping her. JoAnn Goodman returned to the NIH where she was prepared for her ILP surgery. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Murphy was on the brief for appellant. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Brown was admitted to the Fairfax Hospital emergency room for a perforated sigmoid colon and significant sepsis. Brown informed the intermediary that she had decided to |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Michael Chertoff. This responsibility is assigned to the Attorney General in consulta tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The proponents of this view argue that the federal courts are overburdened. We have little doubt that this case would have been better brought in an Indiana state court. It was the appellee that chose to file its complaint in federal court and it was that complaint which sought novel remedies. Although we are not fans of delay. It is with limited sympathy that ultimately we must certify several of the questions raised in this appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. DFS purchased |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Calhoon was charged in a 14 count indictment with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3741(a) and affirm. Georgia and composed of both was medical/surgical psychiatric hospitals. To audit cost reports to determine the amount of reimbursement to which the provider of Medicare insured services is entitled. Some costs included in a cost report are clearly identifiable as either reimbursable or nonreimbursable. Other costs are subject to dispute. hospital to preserve its right to In order for the provider challenge any potential disallowance of an item of cost or part thereof. The This is referred to as filing |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Hays was fired by St. A qui tam action is one in which a private plaintiff sues on behalf of the government under a statute that awards part of any penalty recovered to the plaintiff and the remainder to the government. 2 1 Defendants appeal the qui tam portion of the judgment. We conclude that the DHS audit reports were relevant public disclosures of the allegations underlying the qui tam claims. That Hays was an original source of only one of those disclosures. The public disclosure bar at issue was part of the 1986 FCA amendments. These extensive amendments were intended to encourage private enforcement suits by legitimate whistleblowers while barring suits by opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs who base their claims on matters that have been publicly disclosed by others. Defense counsel suggested that the appeal includes the question whether defendants are entitled to a new trial on the retaliation claims. That question was not included in their statement of the issues. Nor was it argued in their briefs. |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. CALHOON This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. CALHOON This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER No. 01 3315 This is the second time that Stein's claim for benefits. When the mine was closed and abandoned. He filed for black lung benefits after his respiratory ailments became so debilitating that he was unable to continue working as a carpenter. Noting that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will refer to Walley as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant was born in 1951 and attended school through the ninth grade. Was released the following day in improved condition. The ALJ was plainly warranted in finding that claimant's leg condition imposed no functional restrictions during the relevant period. The evidence of a disabling back or neck condition through December 1986 is even scantier. She is said to have developed lumbar pain while lifting material at work. She is said to have strained her back in another work accident. There is medical confirmation. Occurred after the expiration of claimant's insured status. 3 conditions affecting both her back and neck.2 Yet the ALJ was warranted in finding that these impairments. The thoracic spine was normal. Physical therapy was recommended. Some limitation of motion was found. The diagnoses were (1) chronic cervical syndrome with left C5 and C6 radiculopathy. The neurologist indicated that claimant was unable to engage in gainful activities and that her prognosis in this regard was very poor. 4 treatment remained sporadic until 1990. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Which was adopted by the district court. She argues that the Secretary's finding that claimant's disability does not preclude her from performing her past relevant work as a receptionist is not supported by substantial evidence. I. Substantial Evidence Even where the record is capable of supporting more than one conclusion. We will affirm the Secretary's determination when |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Ledbetter were on brief. Ltd. were on brief. Physical skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships. Are invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of professional sports. The highway of opportunity runs in both directions. 1The individual defendants are. Each is sued in his official capacity. We discuss this appeal as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Offering students the opportunity to partake of sports that are not financially self sustaining. Brown will never be confused with Notre Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Women are a relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past. Respectively. 3 The absence of women's athletics at Brown was. Brown promptly upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. Was in a financial bind. Many schools with varsity squads are reluctant to compete against club teams. 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX suit). |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The pseudonyms were as follows: Victoria Smyth. Required that an applicant for welfare in Virginia either identify the father of any child for whom aid was requested or. The plaintiffs asserted that they were unable to identify the fathers of their children4 as required by the policy. The federal AFDC program was replaced. The program will be referred to hereinafter as TANF. 4 Smyth stated that she could not identify any of several men who might be the father of her child to Virginia DSS officials. Both men were proven not to be the father of her child by subsequent blood tests. RIVERO unless the Commissioner had substantial evidence the attestation was false. That the plaintiffs were thus likely to succeed on the merits.5 The preliminary injunction entered by the court prohibited the Commissioner from denying welfare benefits to the plaintiffs |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER One for breach of contract and one for violating the Illinois (continued...) 2 No. 05 3476 mined that Caremark was not an ERISA fiduciary and therefore granted Caremark's motion to dismiss. One of the benefits provided is prescription drug coverage which entitles the union members to obtain brand name or generic prescription drugs for a small copayment. One of the nation's largest Pharmaceutical Benefit Management ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on the briefs. Brown were on the brief. Because we agree that the District of Columbia's interpreta tion of the law is contrary to its plain meaning. The program is jointly funded by the Federal and State governments and is administered by the States pursu ant to federal guidelines. A State must have its own Medicaid plan approved by the Health Care Financing Administration ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Webber was on the briefs. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: The ten appellants in this case provide outpatient kidney dialysis services to patients who are suffering from end stage renal disease. They dispute the amount of money to which they are entitled from the Secretary of Health and Human Services as reimburse ment for medical services rendered under the Medicare pro gram. The appellants challenge (1) the Secre tary's decision that the merger of their parent company with another corporation was a related party transaction. Such that certain costs associated with the merger were not reimbursa ble under Medicare. Which they claim is inconsistent with the statutory requirement that Medicare reimburse each dialysis provider in a prospectively set amount. We agree with the district court that the merger was a related party transaction. Whether the regulation is based upon a reasonable interpreta tion of the Medicare statute. I. Background Under the Medicare program the Secretary reimburses providers of ESRD dialysis services at 80% of a prospectively set rate and the Medicare beneficiary is responsible for the remaining 20% as a co payment. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. He alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race. The following facts are treated as undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. DeNovellis is a white male of Italian descent. He was sixty six years old at the time he filed this action in 1994. Which was part of HHS. DeNovellis's position was eliminated in an agency reorganization that occurred in the spring of 1991. Was the Regional Administrator (RA) of HDS. Williams was a black male of the age of fifty five when this action was filed. There were racial tensions in the office. There were also ethnic and race related comments around the office that Williams condoned. Why don't you have your people (Mafia) in the North End take care of them. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from a district court judgment affirming a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying appellant's claim for disability benefits. The claim was filed more than twenty one years after the alleged onset of appellant's disability due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident shortly before the expiration of his insured status. The application was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. Were on brief. She was sentenced to twenty seven months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release and was ordered to pay $100. Claiming that it was improperly enhanced under sections 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) (more than minimal planning) and 3B1.1(c) (aggravating role) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) and that she was erroneously ordered to pay restitution without regard to her ability to pay.1 We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Bapack was the co owner of Urgent Home Health Care Services. She was responsible for billing Medicaid for the services the Corpora tion provided. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. She alleges that defendants Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Prince George's County Department of Social Services (collectively |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Ronald N. With her on the brief were Frank W. It would have qualified for reclassification as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER A committee of unsecured creditors is challenging the District Court's order allowing Charter to assume and assign certain executory contracts involving Medicare and the sale of some of Charter's hospitals. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. We will provide only a brief summary of those facts at the outset and will incorporate additional facts as they are relevant to our discussion of the issues. These sales were conditioned upon the assumption and assignment. The Settlement Agreement was approved by the District Court. The $7 million was paid to HHS. The Medicare Provider Agreements were assumed and assigned. Whether the District Court erred when it approved a settlement agreement between the Debtors and the United States because it did not have sufficient information to make an independent determination about the settlement. Claiming that this appeal is moot under 11 U.S.C. 363(m) and the doctrine of equitable. We do not reach Appellant's issues because this appeal is statutorily moot under 11 U.S.C. 363(m). |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We hold that the effective date determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the DAB applied the appropriate regulations. legal standard under the relevant statutes and We further hold that an evidentiary hearing would We therefore AFFIRM the summary judgment. I have been futile. Which is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Osenbrock contends that the administrative law judge's ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Shaw & Griffith was on brief. Fox was on brief. O'Neil were on brief. American legal institutions have begun over time to view cities with a certain constitutionally based suspicion. The upshot of the Monell decision is that a municipality is a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER * The Clerk of the Court is requested to modify the official caption to reflect the correct spelling of defendant appellant Marybeth McCaffrey's name. [and] . . . why the parties are unwilling to make the loan negotiable. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Osenbrock contends that the administrative law judge's ( |
||
![]() |
ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. SHALALA DONNA E. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER After a hearing at which appellant was represented by counsel. Did not indicate that these conditions were as severe as appellant claimed. The ALJ concluded that appellant was capable of performing her past relevant work as a photo supply sales clerk or customer service representative. The Secretary found that appellant was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER * The Clerk of the Court is requested to modify the official caption to reflect the correct spelling of defendant appellant Marybeth McCaffrey's name. [and] . . . why the parties are unwilling to make the loan negotiable. |
||
![]() |
LAKE MEDICAL CENTER V. TOMMY THOMPSON Argued the cause for appellee. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's determination that claimant was not disabled when his insured status expired. We have considered all of claimant's arguments and. Claimant argues that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert was defective because it did not include a non exertional impairment that the ALJ ultimately found the claimant to possess. The |
||
![]() |
SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598) The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Commissioner concluded that claimant was not disabled.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. Background Claimant is a fifty one year old divorced male with a ninth grade education. Is able to groom himself. He testified that his low back pain is a result of a 1994 automobile accident. Claimant filed a new claim for benefits which was denied both initially and upon reconsideration. A hearing was held on September 26. A subsequent ALJ is bound by the findings of a previous ALJ |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
00-2136 -- JOSEPH V. INGRAM -- 08/22/2001 Stable families. Three years after the suit was filed and certified as a class action. The first decree was vacated and replaced with a second decree in September 1998. The Department countered with a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the suit is barred by New Mexico's sovereign immunity and that the district court should abstain from hearing the case pursuant to Younger v. The Department cross appeals the district court's rejection of its Eleventh Amendment argument. We conclude that Appellants' claims under the Social Security Act are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Appellants' constitutional claims are barred by the Younger . The background to this appeal is relatively straightforward. The district court approved the settlement and entered a consent decree ( |
||
![]() |
SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598) The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 1994 is amended as follows: On cover sheet. Parrilla's application was filed on February 14. The ALJ found that Parrilla was not disabled on or before September 30. Who is in his late 50s. Was employed as a construction worker. The medical records are extensive. He has been treated with a variety of medications but there have been continuing episodes of high blood pressure. There were few indications of any symptoms related to either high blood pressure or the medication for it. The diagnosis was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We reverse in part and remand to the district court with instructions that the remaining claims be dismissed on the ground that they are time barred. See id. § The appellant hospitals (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Wheeler & Dittmar were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The question in this appeal is CYR. The RIIIFA requires all insurers licensed in Rhode Island to make pro rata monetary contributions to the Fund to meet certain types of insurance claims lodged against licensed Rhode Island insurers which have become insolvent. The Fund is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were David W. It also claims that the District Court erred in denying its motion to amend its complaint to include claims that the USDA's new rule both is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Consti tution's Interstate Commerce Clause. We hold that the District Court properly concluded that USDA was not required to engage in notice and comment rulemaking. I. BACKGROUND Appellee Daniel Glickman is the Secretary of the USDA. The USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. Claimant's attempts to obtain disability benefits have ensued long after her insured status expired on June 30. Her claim was denied at the initial level of administrative review by notice dated January 13. No further review was sought. The cited medical impairment and the claimed onset date were the same as those alleged earlier. After her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. He determined that the claim was barred on res judicata grounds. The district court issued a detailed decision explaining that subject matter jurisdiction was ordinarily lacking in this context. The court observed that judicial review of a denial reached without a hearing was unavailable whether such denial was based on administrative res judicata or involved a decision not to reopen. Yet claimant's only allegation to this effect was that invocation of res judicata violated due process where the first claim had been dismissed without a hearing a contention the court properly deemed meritless. The court went on to observe that a separate constitutional claim might be stated were claimant able to demonstrate that. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER South Carolina challenges the district court finding that Congress acted within its Spending Clause authority when it conditioned States' receipt of federal funds under the child support enforcement program and the TANF program on compliance with the requirement that States develop and maintain automated child support enforcement systems and that such a condition was not so coercive as to violate the Tenth Amendment. THOMPSON 3 erred when it found that the Secretary did not have the discretion to amend the statutory penalty structure for a State's noncompliance with the child support systems requirements. States must have an approved state plan for child and spousal support that meets all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 654. Among the prerequisites for approval of a Title IV D Plan are the requirements that the State establish and operate an automated data processing and information retrieval system. A State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program's requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. |
||
![]() |
NATIONAL MULTI HOUSING COUNCIL V. EPA Riley was on brief. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. FACTS FACTS As the facts relevant to the merits of this case are set forth fully in the district court opinion. We will recount only those facts pertinent to the issue of appellate jurisdiction. Plaintiffs claimed that they were denied coverage for durable medical equipment under Medicare Part B in violation of statutory and constitutional law.2 The complaint indicated plaintiffs' intent to seek class certification. The Department of Health and Human Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Riley was on brief. Were on brief. Whether or not the source of the lead is lead based paint. Is contrary to the Congress's intent in enacting Title X and is arbitrary and capricious.2 We reject the petitioners' challenge for the reasons set forth below. 1 The legislation was enacted as Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. 106 Stat. 3672 (1992). 2 The petitioners also assert the regardless of source interpreta tion violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend ment to the United States Constitution but this argument is waived I. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellees. * Of the District of Massachusetts. We review whether the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs six inmates who are committed as sexually dangerous persons1 at the Treatment Center for sexually dangerous persons at the Massachusetts Correctional Institute in Bridgewater (the Treatment Center) were not |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Harriet S. Circuit Judge: At issue is the valuation of hospital assets for purposes of reimbursement under the Medicare statute. Medicare providers such as Nu Med are entitled with certain limitations not relevant here to compensation for |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge This is a suit seeking declaratory 1 and injunctive relief compelling the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh to comply with regulations the Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Our task here is to determine whether appellants may properly maintain a suit to enforce the HUD regulations. There are certainly steps HUD itself can and should take to effect compliance. The District Court partially dismissed a p p e llants' com plaint because it determined that they did not have a private right of action to enforce the HUD regulations. We will affirm the denial of a right of action to enforce the regulations. I. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is commonly referred to as the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Martha B. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Shawn S. Their separate appeals were consolidated before this court because there is a common issue among them. Because Tunik's case is moot. I. BACKGROUND Tunik was an Administrative Law Judge ( |
||
![]() |
STIGILE ARTHUR W. V. CLINTON, WILLIAM J. |
||
![]() |
ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. SHALALA DONNA |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Alleging that he was denied employment at the Food and Drug Administration's National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) because of his race. Is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 1 court2 granted HHS's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. We agree with the district court that there was no basis to equitably toll the deadline for filing a complaint. 797 98 (8th Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling is inappropriate when plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable diligence). We would agree with the district court's alternative conclusion that summary judgment was proper because Wright did not produce any admissible evidence establishing that NCTR's legitimate. Reviewed all of the applications and determined Wright did not qualify for the position was a pretext for racial discrimination. 910 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming grant of summary judgment where plaintiff offered no probative evidence that reason for termination was pretext for race discrimination). |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will only call a charge an Allen charge when the court directed the minority jurors to reconsider their views in light 2 counts against the three defendants: the Podlasecks. We will REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.2 I. David Podlaseck was president of EMB. Was EMB's primary salesman. Was its treasurer and office manager. Were also indicted by the grand jury. The defendants were charged with: one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. We will refer to charges as the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant is a married. 38 year old mother of two who was employed as a bank teller and loan clerk until December 1987. Such that her ability to perform the full range of sedentary work was not significantly compromised. Claimant now argues that such findings were unsupported by substantial evidence and. That it was error not to hear from a vocational expert. Both episodes were successfully treated over a period of days. She has suffered from chronic venous insufficiency with recurrent edema3 and pain (consistent with a post phlebitic syndrome) for which medication and the use of elastic socks have been prescribed. Munoz) specifically reported that she was capable of sedentary activity. Much of the other evidence was to the same effect. Thrombophlebitis is the inflammation of a vein associated with blood clot formation. 3. Edema is the accumulation of excessive fluid in cells or tissues. 3 as being within normal limits. We think the ALJ was warranted in finding that the functional restrictions imposed by claimant's remaining ailments were minimal. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Before a draft of this opinion was circulated. The opinion is consistent with the views Judge Kelly expressed during the panel's conference following submission on September 24. Farrell was employed by HHS as a Children and Family Program Specialist. He was terminated on March 26. The district court concluded that Farrell failed to establish a prima facie case of a Rehabilitation Act violation because he could not refute HHS's substantial evidence that his cognitive impairments were so severe that no accommodations. Would have made him qualified to perform the essential functions of his job. Farrell argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Farrell made a facial showing that a reasonable accommodation was possible through the reports of a neurologist and his ergonomics expert and the deposition testimony of Farrell and his wife. We agree with the district court that this evidence was speculative and did not overcome the government's overwhelming evidence that Farrell's brain damage left him without the cognitive ability to perform his analytical and consultative job duties. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER KMS was a licensed Medicare provider of ambulance services and contracted with Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The Medicare program would compensate KMS if the transportation of the Medicare beneficiary is medically necessary (i.e. The claims submitted by KMS for transportation of dialysis patients were false because those claims represented that these trips were medically necessary. That thirteen out of the fourteen dialysis patients transported by KMS were not compensable. Murray further testified that Barfoot showed him an anonymous note advising Medicare that KMS was transporting dialysis patients. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant Victoria Manso Pizarro was fifty eight years old when she applied for social security insurance benefits on September 5. The Secretary's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. There is substantial record evidence that claimant met her initial burden to provide enough information about the activities her usual work required and how those activities were compromised by her functional inability to perform that work. At step four the initial burden is on the claimant to show that she can no longer perform her former work because of her impairments. The ALJ is entitled to credit a claimant's own description of her former job duties and functional limitations. Instead should have obtained an RFC assessment by a physician. Is not qualified to interpret raw data in a medical record. An expert's RFC evaluation is ordinarily essential unless the extent of functional loss. The question whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that claimant retains the functional capacity to do medium level work and otherwise perform her prior vocational activities depends on a qualitative assessment of the medical evidence that was before the ALJ. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Appellant acknowledges that the sole issue involved in the instant appeal was addressed by this court in Rodriguez v. Noting that four circuit courts have reached a contrary conclusion. Yet it is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Lois J. With her on the brief were Gary J. Marzulla were on the brief for amici curiae City of Colorado Springs. Were on the brief for amici curiae State of New Mexico. Section 301(a) of the Act provides that the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER That Ohio's first attempt to restrict partial birth abortions violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The issue on appeal is whether a board of education exceeded its authority by implementing a consensual program to distribute condoms in public schools in order to prevent disease. We will affirm. HIV infection are epidemic among school age youth . . . . Have an obligation to promote a healthy lifestyle for all adolescents. |
||
![]() |
WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the district court's order dismissing the complaint on the ground that appellants have not alleged an injury to business or property cognizable under RICO. Appellants instituted this purported class action on behalf of themselves and all members of a class 4 consisting |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We conclude that the only appropriate remedy is to enjoin enforcement of the Act and we now affirm the district court's grant of a permanent injunction. Background Post First Trimester Abortion Methods The vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed during the first trimester.1 Approximately ten percent The first trimester lasts until the thirteenth or fourteenth week of pregnancy. GONZALES of abortions are performed during the second trimester. Only about one percent are performed after the twentieth week from the woman's last menstrual period ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Boldens were indicted in December of 1997 by a grand jury in Asheville. A superseding indictment was returned in October of 1998.1 The indictment alleged that. On which the Boldens were tried. This fraud scheme was carried out through their operation of Emerald Health CareTaylorsville ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER In March 1999 fenfluramine was formally listed as a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER P.L.L.C. was on brief for appellant.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Richard S. With him on the brief was Steven E. Of counsel was Henri Frederic Hibon. 496 because these patents were licensed to Cambridge under a cross licensing agreement. All of which are assigned to Institut Pasteur. Are directed to structural components of and methods of detecting the presence of two types of Human Immunodeficiency Virus ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The date Patilla was last insured. The ALJ did not find Patilla to be a credible witness |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Firehock was on the briefs. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the brief. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who were employed by the California Department of Health Services ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Asserting that they are entitled to the benefit of the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Allou Health argues that: (1) the district court erred in holding that parol evidence was admissible to explain the contract at issue. (2) evidence admitted was hearsay and should have been excluded. (3) the award of damages was excessive. (4) an exhibit not listed in the pre trial order was improperly admitted into evidence. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notices of appeal were timely filed pursuant to Fed. Is a developer of websites where customers can purchase products over the Internet. Which site was named The Fragrance Counter. Allou Health had a website on America On Line for which it was paying twelve percent of revenue. In this letter Brown stated that ACTONet's proposal |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Hafetz were on brief. Kornspan were on brief. Were on brief. They argue that there was a constructive amendment of the indictment. That there was insufficient evidence to convict them. That the jury instructions were defective. We affirm.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure |
||
![]() |
00-1385 -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS SERVICES CORPORATION V. OWENS -- 04/17/2002 Circuit Judge.
| ||
![]() |
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., V. EPA Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97 1440 and 97 1441. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Which is owned by Capital Health Systems. We hold that John Hancock is not responsible either for Capital Health's inaccurate representations made to its employees or for any additional recovery under John Hancock's clearly stated policy. We further hold that Capital Health is liable under the alternative theories of breach of fiduciary duty and equitable estoppel. I. The historical facts of this case are not in dispute. Up to the amount they were currently receiving. Curcio was not a member of this group.[fn2] One year later Capital Health wanted to extend to all employees the opportunity to purchase the same supplemental coverage from John Hancock as offered to the frozen group. The presentations clearly represented to the employees that this option was available |
||
![]() |
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., V. EPA Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97 1440 and 97 1441. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Com pany and American Road and Transportation Builders Associ ation in 97 1440 and 97 1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Fox were on the brief for inter venors Massachusetts. Are requisite to protect the public health. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Com pany and American Road and Transportation Builders Associ ation in 97 1440 and 97 1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Fox were on the brief for inter venors Massachusetts. Are requisite to protect the public health. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER AT&T contends that it did not violate the FMLA because the illness for which Miller sought FMLA leave an episode of the flu was not a serious health condition as defined by the Act and implementing regulations. That if Miller's flu was a serious health condition under the applicable regulations. Those regulations are contrary to congressional intent and are therefore invalid. AT&T claims that the award should have been limited by after acquired evidence and Miller's failure to mitigate her damages.1 We conclude that none of AT&T's challenges warrants reversal. There is no reason to disturb the award of attorneys' fees. 2 An |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing. We hold that the district court's primary holding was error. I. Until 2000 most first trimester abortions in this country were surgical abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or curettage. This approval was based on clinical trials which involved the oral ingestion of 600 mg of mifepristone followed two days later by the oral ingestion of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.1 Upon examining the results of these trials. The FDA concluded that this regimen was a safe and effective method of medical abortion when employed up through forty nine days' gestation. The FDA labeling and approval letter indicated that the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone orally followed by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally two days later and that mifepristone was not to be administered after forty nine days' gestation. This is a widely employed practice known as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We hold that the district court's primary holding was error. I. Until 2000 most first trimester abortions in this country were surgical abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or curettage. This approval was based on clinical trials which involved the oral ingestion of 600 mg of mifepristone followed two days later by the oral ingestion of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.1 Upon examining the results of these trials. The FDA concluded that this regimen was a safe and effective method of medical abortion when employed up through forty nine days' gestation. The FDA labeling and approval letter indicated that the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone orally followed by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally two days later and that mifepristone was not to be administered after forty nine days' gestation. This is a widely employed practice known as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge The central question presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether the District Court properly certified the underlying consolidated matters as class actions. We will vacate the Certification Order and remand the case to the District Court.1 Health Net also argues: (1) that as a substantive matter. The District Court should have parsed the issues presented in the case and designated some for class treatment and some for individual treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c)(4)(A). (3) that the District Court improperly made a class wide merits determination by finding that exhaustion of administrative remedies was futile as to the entire class. Such that its Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis was fatally flawed. Because we conclude that analysis of these questions is best conducted with 6 1 I. Health Net of New Jersey is a New Jersey health benefit plan that provides medical benefits to members. Its corporate parent is Health Net of the Northeast. Inc. is the ultimate corporate parent of both companies. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER These motions were premised on plaintiffs' lack of standing and defendants' qualified immunity and were made by public officer defendants in their individual capacities. Which was to be held June 78. Field Day was constrained by the provisions of New 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 York's Mass Gathering Law. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o) (providing that the Mass Gathering Law is to apply to gatherings that are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER End page heading. > | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The petition for review is therefore denied. There is an exception from FERC jurisdiction. (2) |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Only men's programs were considered for cuts. Plaintiffs argue that the elimination of the men's wrestling program was a clear example of sex discrimination. Continuing to fund the team would have discriminated against women. Plaintiffs counter that budgetary considerations were not a factor in the University's decision because a private donor had offered to fund the wrestling program. So the team would not have used resources that otherwise would have been available to female athletes. Which is designed to encourage. The University's goal of gender balance is illegitimate. United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. 2 2 and women have an equal interest in participating in University sports. An assumption which they contend is not borne out by the evidence. The percentage of the student body that was male with the percentage of athletes that was male and the resources made available to male athletes. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the University on August 22. Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and. |
||
![]() |
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. GALE NORTON | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The specific question before us is whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Andrea Lindner was demoted from her position as a local manager for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after her performance slipped and she encountered a series of problems with employees and supervisors. Lindner claimed that she was treated irrationally because of her disability in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The facts supporting Lindner's cronyism protest occurred nearly two years before she was demoted a substantial gap in time that defeats the inference that Lindner was punished because of her speech. Lindner alleged that her property interest in her employment was taken from her without adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. She was afforded an opportunity to respond by meeting with her supervisor. We believe that Lindner received all the process she was constitutionally due. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Social security disability benefits are designed for disabled workers. This extension of the normal program for disabled 2 No. 02 4219 adults can be defended as a realistic recognition that having a disabled child will often limit the amount of productive work that the parents can do and that the limitation is a particular hardship to families that have limited financial means. This defense of disability benefits for the disabled children of the poor is at best conjectural. About all that is clear is that since disabled children generally do not have a work history. The structure of the disability program for them is necessarily different from that for adults. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Lawrence R. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Judge) as sentenced John Canova to a one year term of probation after a jury trial at which defendant was found guilty of various substantive and conspiratorial crimes relating to his involvement in a multi million dollar Medicare fraud. Its request for de novo review of the district court's departure decision pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) is now foreclosed by United States v. We conclude that there was such an error in the district court's calculation of the loss amount relevant to the fraud guideline. Was charged in a six count indictment with (1) conspiring to defraud the United States from October 1999 through October 2001 by making false statements to Medicare agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 1999 letter to Medicare that Raytel was in compliance with Medicare specifications for testing pacemakers when he knew that it was not. By directing Raytel's Connecticut employees falsely to represent that Raytel was in full compliance with government testing specifications. |
||
![]() |
00-6090 -- BRYAN V. MULLIN -- 07/21/2003 INTRODUCTION Robert Leroy Bryan was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree malice murder and sentenced to death. See Bryan v. (3) counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because counsel failed to present mental health evidence. (4) he was incompetent to stand trial. A panel of this court unanimously concluded that Bryan was not entitled to relief on his evidence sufficiency. Was almost entirely circumstantial. A potted plant was also found at Inabel's home. A pillowcase was duct taped over her head. There was a single set of vehicle tracks present at the scene. The tracks matched the tread pattern of the right rear tire on Bryan's rental car. Authorities searched the property where Inabel's body was found because. Like that on the property where Inabel's body was discovered. Fibers lining the trunk were similar to those on Inabel's clothes and tape found on or near her body. Police located additional evidence in Bryan's bedroom tying Bryan to the murder.
|
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Will & Emery. I A McKenzie and PeaceHealth are the only two providers of hospital care in Lane County. That the relevant market in this case is the market for primary and secondary acute care hospital services in Lane County. Primary and secondary acute care hospital services are common medical services like setting a broken bone and performing a tonsillectomy. McKenzie's sole endeavor is McKenzie Willamette Hospital. The largest of PeaceHealth's three facilities is Sacred Heart Hospital. It is necessary to appreciate the structure of the market in which this case arises. The market for hospital services and medical care is complex. Insurers are usually commercial health insurance companies that seek to buy medical services from hospitals on the best terms possible. The price agreed upon is often referred to as a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thorson1 on her claim under the Family and Gemini states in its brief that Thorson indicated at trial a preference for the surname Rindels (she married and changed her name after suit was filed). Uses the name under which the case was filed (Thorson). We will refer to the plaintiff as Thorson. 2 1 Medical Leave Act of 1993. Acceptable absenteeism at Gemini was limited to five percent of an employee's scheduled work hours in a rolling twelve month period. Those employees with excessive absenteeism (greater than five percent) were subject to termination. She was absent from work on Thursday and Friday. The test results were normal. Thorson worked that week but was terminated on February 18 for absenteeism exceeding five percent of her scheduled work hours during the previous twelve months. An eligible employee is entitled to twelve weeks of unpaid leave during any twelve month period for any of several reasons. The employee is entitled to be restored to her job (or to an equivalent position) upon her return to work after taking FMLA leave. |
||
![]() |
AMER LEGION V. DERWINSKI EDWARD J. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. III. The notice requirement is waived if (a) The attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor's death and there is insufficient time to provide required notice. Or (b) The person or persons who are entitled to notice certify in writing that they have been notified. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We are called upon to address the applicability of the ADEA when an employer offers its Medicare eligible retirees health insurance coverage allegedly inferior to the coverage offered to retired employees not eligible for Medicare. Accordingly will reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. Would remain eligible only if they fell into one of four groups: employees unable to continue their employment due to a disability and who otherwise were eligible for a disability retirement pension. The plaintiff class in this action is composed of retirees who are aged 65 or older and thus eligible for Medicare who remain eligible for retiree health coverage under these restrictions. Pressure to reduce costs was enhanced when Highmark announced that it would increase the County's premiums for medical insurance coverage by an average of 48%. The district court described SecurityBlue as follows: SecurityBlue is a coordinated health care plan provided through Keystone Health Plan West. SecurityBlue is available to persons who have Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and who live in the SecurityBlue `service area' [which includes most of western Pennsylvania]. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER S 669 is thus unconstitutional as applied to the facts of her case. We note that we are the first court to address the constitutionality of this statute as an exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Will affirm. I. The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be briefly recounted. Whited was responsible for receiving payment from Center patients. It was common practice for patients to pay by endorsing a check from their insurance provider. Whited was charged by indictment of one count of theft or embezzlement in connection with health care. The term |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He would not have found probable cause and issued the warrants. The government appeals contending (1) that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. The warrants were supported by probable cause. Because we find no clear error in fact finding and agree with the magistrate judge who originally issued the warrants that as redacted they are not supported by probable cause. Both of whom were part of a joint statefederal task force. Was also identified in the Master Affidavit as having participated in the investigation. The Master Affidavit asserted that there was probable cause to believe that criminal fraud had been committed at the eight Home Health locations. Which were executed on January 19. Approximately 5 million documents were seized. The Master Affidavit was unsealed and examined by Home Health and its attorneys. The motion was assigned to Magistrate Judge Denson. Arguing that Home Health had not established that the Master Affidavit would be insufficient to show probable cause if the alleged falsehoods and omissions were corrected. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 02 3623 v. > . None of which was for diabetes. He did not mention that his absence was in any way related to his diabetic condition. This suspension triggered plaintiff's termination because it was his third attendance related suspension within five years. Plaintiff was terminated. Mentioned that his March 31st absence was due to his diabetes. Stating that the absence was due to an extended episode of diabetes related hypoglycemia. Plaintiff further testified that he was. Tha t this apparent misrepresentation by plaintiff was not a factor in its decision to terminate plaintiff. It is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendant improperly terminated plaintiff under the A DA or the FM LA in the first instance. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER On the ground that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over Health Net. HNL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Net. That no valid basis existed to vacate the award. 2 Health Net of California is. The request was submitted to Health Net as plan administrator. Health Net determined that no medical benefits were available for Katie's jawbone reconstructive surgery. Health Net reminded Carter that his sole recourse was arbitration of his claim through the American Arbitration Association (AAA). HNL was dismissed without prejudice. Over its protests that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will vacate 2. This case was referred by the district court to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The report and recommendation was adopted by the district court. Victorelli was employed as a Central Service Technician by Shadyside Hospital in Pittsburgh. She was terminated from her employment with Shadyside following a request for sick leave on July 29. Lattanzio was unable to speak with Victorelli at that time and suggested she call again at approximately 1:30 p.m. Adoki's opinion was that Victorelli was suffering from a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND HMOP is a health maintenance organization ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will vacate | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The sole issue we address in this appeal is whether the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act. HMO/NJ argues that the premium assessments under the Reform Act are preempted by FEHBA because they will increase the cost of individual health care benefits to federal employees. Benefits which are payable from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Fund. Will reverse the district court's order on the issue of FEHBA preemption. (Individual health care coverage is coverage offered by an insurance company or health maintenance organization directly to an individual and his or her family. Who often do not have the option of purchasing employer based or group health coverage). Carriers were required to start offering the five plans on August 1. The central component of the Reform Act is the requirement that all carriers in the state pay an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Monroe Counties ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were not included in the earlier EAJA award. 16 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam): |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We reverse the district court's decision to dismiss Lee's case with prejudice because we conclude that Lee should have been granted leave to amend his federal FCA and federal |
||
![]() |
VICTORIA L. BREEN V. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Hague argued the cause for appellant. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The IGRA allows tribes to operate casinos on their reservations or on lands held in trust for their benefit by the Secretary of the Interior ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Then promptly moved to dismiss the action on the basis that Cedars Sinai's claims were preempted. Finding that Cedars Sinai's claims were preempted by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Police officers and firefighters who were subject to the age restriction filed two suits asserting in relevant part that the reinstated mandatory retirement program amounted to subterfuge to evade the purposes of the ADEA. Although the text of the City's ordinance indicated that the City was reestablishing a mandatory retirement age in furtherance of public safety. The court subsequently certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether there is any evidence through which a plaintiff might prove that a mandatory retirement program. We conclude that the particular Nos. 02 2587 & 02 2588 3 theory of subterfuge that the plaintiffs pursue in this case is not viable. As it was originally enacted in 1967. See Lake Country (continued...) 4 Nos. 02 2587 & 02 2588 hiring and retirement ages for police officers and firefighters were now vulnerable to challenge. Only if it could be shown that age was a bona fide occupational qualification for these positions would the rules survive scrutiny under the ADEA. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was Paul J. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Shepard were on the brief for appellees Population Council. The agency would therefore have a nearly impregnable defensive position save for the fact that the statute places the burden |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Appellant claims that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commissioner failed to supply a complete administrative record to the district court. I. Appellant was born on December 8. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Which was conducted before Administrative Law Judge ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We reverse the district court's decision to dismiss Lee's case with prejudice because we conclude that Lee should have been granted leave to amend his federal FCA and federal |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Theodore Whitehouse and Joseph G. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Brought this suit alleging that she was discharged from her job in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Would have been able to perform her work with a reasonable accommodation. The district court granted summary judg ment against Breen on the ground that no reasonable accom modation would have enabled her to perform the essential functions of her position. Because we find that there are genuine issues of material fact as to Breen's ability to per form with an accommodation. The facts are as follows. Breen developed a backlog of filing that she was unable to reduce in a timely fashion to the growing dissatisfaction of her employer. Most relevant here were Dr. The psychiatrist stated that Breen |
||
![]() |
01-1418 -- AGUILAR V. BASIN RESOURCES INC. -- 09/18/2002 INTRODUCTION Appellees are the International Union. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Powers contends that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. I. Deborah Powers was born on February 15. Was forty nine at the time of her hearing before the ALJ. Powers is also a frequent smoker who smokes ten cigarettes every day. Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. Which was held on November 20. She was required to lift bundles weighing upwards of fifty pounds. Which is at the center of this dispute: Q: Assume I were to find the Claimant was limited to a range of light work. She would have limitations on the utilization of her neck and upper back to the degree that she would need a job that didn't require frequent turning of the hand of the head. She was talking about. Assume I were to add to the last hypothetical that the Claimant would not be able to sit or stand in total any more than a total of four hours in a regular eight hour workday. He testified that there are approximately 800 such jobs in the region where the claimant lives and about 357. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On page 28. 1995 is corrected as follows: On the cover sheet. Will & Emery were on brief. Attorney General of Massachusetts was on brief. United States Environmental Protection Agency were on brief. Turns largely on the question of whether FFC is a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Section 666 of Title 18 is a broad statute designed to protect the financial integrity of programs 5694 UNITED STATES v. 000.1 The only significant legal question before us is whether the government was required to prove that the theft had some effect on a program receiving federal funds. Whether this federal nexus is required is an open question in this circuit. Assuming there is such a requirement. It was more than satisfied here. Cabrera was the Secretary of Finance for the Commonwealth. It was his job to account for the receipt and disbursement of all Commonwealth funds from federal or Commonwealth sources. Any requirement of a federal nexus was clearly met. 1 18 U.S.C. § 666 provides in material part as follows: Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds (a) Whoever. Property that (i) is valued at $5. (ii) is owned by. Or is under the care. Or both. (b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization. The Secretary is the highest position in the Department of Finance. |
||
![]() |
VENCOR HOSPITALS V. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF R.I. (3/8/1999, NO. 96-5105) Because we are uncertain exactly which documents comprise the contract. Are not renewed each benefit period). He is not eligible for Medicare hospitalization benefits until the beginning of a new benefit period. In response to this and other limits on Medicare coverage. Butler and Esposito were both admitted to Vencor Hospital in Ft. Was paid for by BCBS under the Medigap policy). Vencor's costs during this period were reimbursed by Medicare. Were therefore greatly in excess of the amount Vencor had previously been receiving as cost reimbursement from Medicare. After Butler and Esposito finished their hospital stays. Butler's and Esposito's Medigap policy provided for coverage as follows: |
||
![]() |
VENCOR HOSPITALS V. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF R.I. (3/8/1999, NO. 96-5105) Because we are uncertain exactly which documents comprise the contract. Are not renewed each benefit period). He is not eligible for Medicare hospitalization benefits until the beginning of a new benefit period. In response to this and other limits on Medicare coverage. Butler and Esposito were both admitted to Vencor Hospital in Ft. Was paid for by BCBS under the Medigap policy). Vencor's costs during this period were reimbursed by Medicare. Were therefore greatly in excess of the amount Vencor had previously been receiving as cost reimbursement from Medicare. After Butler and Esposito finished their hospital stays. Butler's and Esposito's Medigap policy provided for coverage as follows: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We are asked to examine the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6360. That is because the consent decree that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5. Is no longer in effect. 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent decree is an inappropriate remedy for past civil contempt). 10 Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment. The medical services provisions were in effect until January 5. The date on which the court's final judgment was entered. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district 1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. When it became apparent that more time was necessary. The court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. MORGAN 6339 scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: 10912 HALLETT v. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judg1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. 10914 HALLETT v. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Venue was proper in the Western District of Michigan under the FCA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Summary judgment is proper where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The central issue is whether the evidence presents sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER LLP was on brief. Singh could not establish before a reasonable jury that Blue Cross was not entitled to HCQIA immunity. Since we are reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment. Singh is a physician specializing in internal medicine. Singh |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Environmental Protection Agency ( |
||
![]() |
01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003 Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents.
| ||
![]() |
CHILES V. CERIDIAN CORP. The word defendents' is misspelled and should read defendants'. The issues presented are whether the plaintiffs have vested rights to company paid health insurance as long as they remain disabled and. The district court found that these benefits were not vested and that the employer properly exercised its right to discontinue paying the premiums. Our inquiry is guided by these documents and federal ERISA law. Our jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. 1291. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are former employees of Imprimis. Which we are told describe in language comprehensible to the average participant the terms and conditions of the plan. Plaintiffs had all been deemed disabled and were receiving long term disability benefits under the Control Data Long Term Disability Plan ( |
||
![]() |
AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146) The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute ( |
||
![]() |
AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146) The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 1991 is amended as follows: On page 23. Insert |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Two cases are before us. Case No. 99 5662 is a petition for review of a July 29. Case No. 00 3302 is also a petition for review. This time of a Statement of Work Grace was required to submit under the EPA's July 29 Order. The petitions were consolidated by order of this Court on July 6. The Dye Plant is one of two water treatment plants owned and operated by the Lansing Board of Water & Light (the |
||
![]() |
ETHYL CORP V. EPA |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellant. Denied they were personally liable for these corporate debts. Background Defendant Appellee Green & Freedman Baking Company ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Reasoning that the funds' injuries were too remote from. We hold that because the hospitals' damages are too speculative and their injuries are too remote from the tobacco companies' alleged wrongdoing. Proximate cause is lacking. Thus the hospitals do not have standing to sue. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellants are sixteen charitable not for profit Pennsylvania hospitals (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Judge) that the defendants are jointly and severally liable. Arguing that FACE is a violation of Congress's authority under the U.S. We conclude that damages under FACE are properly awarded jointly and severally among defendants and that FACE is constitutional. Were an ongoing threat to the Metropolitan Medical Associates ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The gravamen of its complaint was that the managed health care organizations impaired the quality of health care provided by psychiatrists to their patients by refusing to authorize necessary psychiatric treatment. The principal issue on appeal is whether the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society has properly pleaded associational and third party standing. P. 12(b)(6) was premature. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1. SS 1001 1461.2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. The case was removed from state court under ERISA's civil enforcement provision. To discern which claims are preempted. |
||
![]() |
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241) Circuit Judge:
| ||
![]() |
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241) Circuit Judge:
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who at the time of his discharge was also insured under a group health plan sponsored by his wife's employer. Was not entitled to take advantage of the continuation coverage mandated by COBRA. Who was substituted as plaintiff upon James Geissal's death. James was a beneficiary under a plan provided by his wife's employer. James stated that he was unhappy about the circumstances surrounding his termination and even requested. James ultimately declined to |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Dennis Faulkner was designated plan trustee (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction restraining efforts by Detroit Diesel Corporation to require retired employees to make premium contributions in order to maintain their current health care coverage. Sitting by designation. reasoning is flawed. The preliminary injunction is affirmed. The agreements were reached by Detroit Diesel with the employees' collective bargaining unit. Its annual premium contributions were. Any |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is hereby amended as follows: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Argue that the District Court should have remanded their claims to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Maintain that the District Court should have dismissed the claims entirely. As they depend on state law that is expressly preempted by ERISA § 514. The insurance providers argue that the District Court should have dismissed the claims because the state law decision on which they rely. Jurisdiction is proper in the District Court. The underlying claims are preempted by ERISA and must be dismissed. Benjamin Edmondson (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were Thomas F. Bernard and Jeremy Kyle Kinner were on the brief of amici curiae Indigenous Environmental Network. With him on the brief were Thomas L. With him on the briefs were Alan F. Nick Goldstein were on the brief of industry intervenors in support of respondent. Henderson were on the brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent. Wolff were on the brief of amicus curiae John D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are twelve states. They are opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as respondent. The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor 5 vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and that. Have jurisdiction over citizen suits to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary acts or duties. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). We have jurisdiction only if EPA thereby engaged in |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER On the brief were James P. Of counsel was Peter L. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Alex Azar. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that Telecare was liable as a secondary payer. Medicare was enacted in 1965 as Title 18 of the Social Security Act. Congress provided that where beneficiaries are covered for medical expenses by both a group health plan and Medicare. This provision is known as the Medicare Secondary Payer ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Provide bottled water to anyone in this area whose groundwater fails to meet these standards until the groundwater is found to be without contaminants. Trinity's land is composed of a top layer of saprolite a soft. The migratory path for water in the lower aquifer is. Although there is a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER John Will Ongman. Which was both the administrator and the funding source of the plan. We have returned to first principles. As we will explain below. This case requires us to consider how a court is to review an ERISA plan administrator's decision when the procedure that produced the decision did not follow all statutory requirements. For the reasons that we will develop. The administrator is not. Only life insurance is at issue in this appeal. The life insurance policy under the plan was originally issued by Home Life Financial Assurance Company. Alta is the successor in interest to Home Life's rights and responsibilities. The insured may request what is commonly referred to as a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We find that her loss amount was erroneously calculated at sentencing. We also find that her loss amount was erroneously calculated at sentencing. Was the other 50% owner of Ocean. Santos was a codefendant at trial. Was acquitted pursuant to a motion under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Carlos Gonzalez was the other 50% owner at United and was convicted at trial along with Guerra. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Ocean dealt in Durable Medical Equipment ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 000 and punitive damages against CMS totaling $1.5 million were awarded. The judge also specifically found that the trial testimony |
||
![]() |
N:\DOCS\CATHY\05-1565,1566 CHRONISTER V. UNUM OPN CIRC 3.20.WPD Chronister was injured in a car accident in 1995. Baptist Health's plan was insured by a group insurance policy from Unum. Unum determined that Chronister was entitled to long term disability benefits effective October 16. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 21 Chronister's disability benefits on the basis of a policy provision that limited benefits to twenty four months if the disability was primarily based on self reported symptoms (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Alberto Gonzales is automatically substituted for his predecessor. An official caption containing a complete list of parties is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Court determined the law was unconstitutional because it did not contain an exception to preserve the health of the mother. The Court determined the law was worded so broadly it covered the vast majority of late term abortions and thus imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion itself. The entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother. Any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother. For the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus. Id. § 1531(b)(1). 3 The Act contains an exception allowing the performance of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Certain fiduciaries who obtain legal advice in the execution of their fiduciary obligations are precluded from asserting the attorney client privilege against their beneficiaries. We have not yet had the opportunity to decide whether the rule should apply within our circuit. Even if we were to adopt the fiduciary exception. We will vacate the order of the District Court requiring the production of otherwise privileged attorney client communications. HN NJ is a 5 subsidiary of Health Net of the Northeast. (HNI) is the corporate parent not only of HN NJ and HN NE but also of other subsidiary insurance companies that provide medical benefits to participants in benefit plans established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Although certain policy formulation and administrative services are shared among the Health Net companies. A subsidiary is responsible for deciding claims in accordance with these policies and for paying claims to participants from the subsidiary's assets. The subsidiary will process the claim and. |
||
![]() |
USED EQUIP SALES INC V. DOT |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is the first time we have had occasion to construe the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. JDHP is a qualified health maintenance organization. Each of these hospitals is a member of the Highland Wellmont Health Network. If policies and procedures are inconsistent with this provision. Which includes but is not limited to authorization of coverage for medical services and the determination of availability and extent of coverage for services provided to a particular Member. The question for the arbitrator will be whether the decision being arbitrated should be set aside because the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees. The expenses associated with the arbitration will be shared equally by both parties. The arbitrator shall have no authority to award exemplary or punitive damages. The 2001 Contract was signed by Wellmont on January 24. The term of the 2001 Contract for Medicare + Choice Product (which includes the services subject to the billing dispute in this case) was made retroactive to October 23. Which JDHP believed was inappropriate because. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Duncan were on brief. Circuit Judge. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Coughlin claims that the loan was secured by both his cash and Marine Bank's first priority interest in Health Management's accounts receivable. 2 No. 06 1805 that the loan was not secured by Health Management's accounts receivable. The term |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Mary's proffered reason for his termination was pretextual. Although he was also able to At oral argument. We will refer to Hurlbert in the present tense. 2 1 employ his paramedic skills as needed. Hurlbert was promoted to a supervisory position that involved the maintenance of St. Hurlbert was required to ensure that EMS units were adequately staffed during his shift. He was released by his cardiologist. Hurlbert was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Among the medications he was prescribed was Paxil. The oversight of EMS was transferred from vice president Marilyn Hill to executive It is uncontroverted that Hurlbert remained on Paxil up through the time he filed suit in August of 2003. That his dosage was increased at one point. 3 2 director Bonnie Butler. Should have been terminated by Sparky Wilson. Butler decided to have Hurlbert undergo a competency evaluation.4 Around that time Hurlbert also learned that his mother would have to undergo open heart surgery. Butler testified in her deposition that she was concerned the father of the child with the seizure disorder might bring a lawsuit against St. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief forappellants. The two issues raised bythis appeal are: (1) whether the action below is a classaction. We hold that this suit is aclass action and that the provisions of the stipulation do notapply at the other institution.SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ISSUES In 1974 Roberto Navarro Ayala ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who is African American and a long time employee of the appellee employer. Alleges that she was denied the opportunity. To compete for promotion to a position for which she was better qualified than the Caucasian employee who was promoted. The district court concluded appellant had failed to show that the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination and awarded summary judgment to the No. 04 4160 Hill v. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Patricia Hill was hired by the Youngstown Hospital Association. Defendant Forum Health is the parent corporation of WRCS.1 Upon obtaining her Associate's Degree in Nursing at Youngstown State University. Plaintiff Hill was hired by WRCS as a registered nurse in 1974. She was designated Technical Director of the PVDC. It was in this capacity that Hill continued to work until her employment was terminated on October 25. The difficulties that eventually led to plaintiff's termination after some 34 years of employment appear to have been precipitated by the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Appellants are three groups of plaintiffs whose separate actions were consolidated by the district court because they all claimed they were harmed by exposure to toxic wastes appellee. The third group are persons. The primary relief all parties seek is medical monitoring. Which was entered following orders granting the Army's motions for summary judgment. We will affirm the orders of the district court with respect to all appellants except the Elliotts. The only plaintiffs who have been able to produce evidence of actual harm by medical evidence showing the Elliott children are suffering from conditions that require medical attention beyond the medical services everyone in the general population should have. NCAD's Use of the Land as a Landfill The New Cumberland Army Depot is located just east of the Harrisburg Airport on about 974 acres of land. The former landfill is bordered by a railroad embankment and the Susquehanna River to the north and by Marsh Run Creek ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is a cross appeal from an order of summary judgment approving the termination of plaintiff's health care benefits. We will vacate and remand to the District Court for further development of plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim. Was employed as a dentist by KidsPeace Corporation. Post developed severe joint problems and was ultimately diagnosed with irreversible arthritis. The KidsPeace Health Care Plan provides that termination is one of the five enumerated ways an employee. The Plan provides: Coverage under this Plan for you and your covered dependents will terminate on the earliest of the following dates: 1. The last day of the month in which an employee is terminated. 2 2. 3. 4. 5. Except if an employee is not working because of an approved leave of absence. Coverage will be continued during that time until discontinued by the Employer. (emphasis added). Employment with KidsPeace will be terminated. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Dinwiddie from further violating FACE and from engaging in a number of other activities whenever she is within 500 feet of a facility that provides reproductive health services. We affirm the District Court's holding that FACE is constitutional and that Mrs. I. Regina Rene Dinwiddie is an opponent of abortion who. A clinic where abortions are performed. Intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been. A physician who is the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood. Gunn [a physician who was killed in 1993 by an opponent of abortion] . . .. He is not in the world anymore . . .. Includes the building or structure in which the facility is located. (2) Interfere with. You have not seen violence yet until you see what we do to you. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Midland required Lenco to have all cash coming in to Lenco first available to Midland through what amounted to a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Surgery is sufficient to present a fact question regarding whether Caldwell's son's illness and disability qualifies as a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The word |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Seeking primarily reimbursement of monies paid to Prudential pursuant to a subrogation term in its policy that was issued as an employee benefit plan. Singh's complaint alleged that the subrogation term was illegal under the provisions of the Maryland Health Maintenance Organization Act (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Presiding *Lawrence Wasden is substituted for his predecessor. We conclude that the statute's definition of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. David was not admitted to Eufaula until He was fifteen years almost a year later. Although he was resuscitated. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we will refer to Dr. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction. The Court extended the Estelle analysis holding that the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the state to provide involuntarily committed mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their |
||
![]() |
97-6226 -- DEBOARD V. SUNSHINE MINING AND REFINING CO. -- 05/02/2000 Circuit Judges.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Bobo's motion to dismiss the indictment because the conduct alleged in the indictment was legally insufficient to support Dr. That the district court was biased against him and denied him a fair trial. That the district court's instruction on |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
97-6226 -- DEBOARD V. SUNSHINE MINING AND REFINING CO. -- 04/05/2000 Plaintiffs have filed two cross appeals challenging various aspects of the district court's judgment. Knox Van Hoy are former employees of Woods Petroleum Corporation (Woods). As part of the merger (which was described in the record as more akin to a hostile takeover). 1985. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who was suffering from end stage renal disease. Peter Lucia's left kidney was therefore air lifted to a hospital in Miami. Where Colavito was waiting for its implantation. While Colavito was being prepared for surgery. Discovered that Lucia's left kidney was irreparably damaged by aneurysms and therefore unfit for implantation. He was told that it had already been delivered to and implanted in another patient. Have also brought suit against a variety of persons and entities in New York State court alleging fraud. Concluding that his remaining claims were barred by a common law public policy against recognizing property rights in human corpses. We think that New York public policy respecting organ donations is more likely to be properly determined by reference to its current relevant statutory law than common law principles. Because Colavito's claims raise novel questions of statutory interpretation that have not yet been addressed by the New York courts. We will certify the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Do the applicable provisions of the New York Public Health Law vest the intended recipient of a directed organ donation with rights that can be vindicated in a private party's lawsuit sounding in the common law tort of conversion or through a 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 private right of action derived from the New York Public Health Law? (2) Does New York Public Health Law immunize either (3) If a donee can negligent or grossly negligent misconduct? bring a private action to enforce the rights referred to in question 1. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Moorer was the only administrator in the Baptist system who had responsibilities for two hospitals. His job duties were divided among several people. She asked Moorer for |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Linda Freilich is a physician. Freilich's complaint is an attempt to have a federal court supervise what amounts to little more than a physician hospital dispute over hospital policies and the expenditure of hospital resources. Linda Freilich is a Board Certified Internist and Nephrologist who maintained unrestricted hospital privileges at defendant Harford Memorial Hospital (HMH). HMH Medical Staff Bylaws provide that HMH will consider in the reappointment process |
||
![]() |
00-3348 -- CONNER V. SALINA REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER INC. -- 02/12/2003 Conner's federal and supplemental state law claims were dismissed. BACKGROUND SRHC is a privately owned Kansas corporation. SRHC notified Conner that his application for reappointment to the medical staff was denied. After exhausting all administrative remedies. Conner asserted that as health care providers are heavily regulated under Kansas law. Conner's due process claim rested on his assertion that he was deprived of protected property interests without due process of law. This deprivation was specifically manifested in an October 1995 administrative suspension which prevented him from performing certain medical procedures. Conner's freedom of speech claim was based on his argument that his suspension and application denial were meted out in retaliation for complaints he had made in relation to the quality of patient care at SRHC. SRHC asserted that it was a privately owned hospital corporation and. The district court found that the language of section 65 4929(b) was written to protect qualified health care providers against antitrust liability and noted that there were different analyses to determine the existence of the state action immunity doctrine for protection from antitrust liability as compared with the analysis to establish state action for purposes of section 1983. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The evidence shows that the College president had a list of available positions she offered to help Hall obtain if Hall would have agreed to resign her position as a Student Services Specialist. Hall declined this reasonable accommodation and was terminated. The judgment of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. I. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With her on the brief were Peter D. The appeal was submitted after oral argument on December 8. Because Texas Health's suit against OPM is governed exclusively by the dispute resolution scheme set forth in the Contract Disputes Act. The FEHBA contract is governed by the CDA. The interim compensation rates represent a contractor's estimate of the amounts it will charge a similarly sized subscriber group. If the interim compensation rates were lower than the rates actually charged to the similarly sized subscriber group. The interim compensation rates were higher than the rates actually charged to the similarly sized subscriber group. Clause 3.2(b)(6) of the FEHBA contract mirrors the language of the Final Year Regulation and specifically provides: In the event this contract is not renewed. The rationale behind this regulation and the corresponding contract provision is that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER At the time that this first CBA was negotiated. Aircraft was a division of Loral and as a consequence. Employees of both entities were covered by the In its January 1996 Order. The NLRB determined not only that Loral and Aircraft had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) as a result of their unilateral changes in health care plans but also found that Aircraft was guilty of separate violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) arising out of its failure/refusal to arbitrate certain grievances. The failure to arbitrate portion of the NLRB's Order is not challenged by Aircraft. That portion of the Order will be summarily enforced. Cir. 1997) (Board's findings that are not challenged on appeal are entitled to summary enforcement). 1 4 Loral Defense Systems. Aircraft was severed from Loral and became an independent corporate entity. The 1988 collective bargaining agreement covering Loral and Aircraft employees was to expire by its own terms on August 10. The Board issued an order determining that the single collective bargaining unit was no longer appropriate in light of the new organizational structure of the companies and. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Katherine E. With him on the brief were John C. I Hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) are facilities such as incinerators. Is a trade association that includes manufacturers of Portland cement that utilize hazardous waste as an alternative fuel in some of their kilns. A permit program in which permitting authorities either EPA or states that have hazardous waste 3 programs authorized by the agency apply those national standards to particular facilities. The national standards applicable to the petitioner are authorized by RCRA § 3004. The burning of hazardous waste is considered |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER As follows: On page 14 the first sentence of the dissent is corrected to read: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thereby extinguishing Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.1 Plaintiffs at pertinent times were tenants of boardinghouses inspected by public health officials and secured by Seattle police. Lee at pertinent times were employees of the Seattle King County Department of Public Health. Defendant Kerlikowske was Chief of Police for the City of Seattle during the events underlying this case. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the search underlying this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to prevail on the undisputed facts. We agree that the material facts are not in dispute. We consider the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs to the extent there is any factual dispute. Plaintiffs were detained by the Seattle police unreasonably and thus unconstitutionally. Plaintiffs argue that if they are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who are qualified for and wish to be placed in a community care setting.1 They seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to remedy what they claim are violations of their federal statutory rights to a more accelerated program of deinstitutionalization. The issue raised is significant as it implicates the extent to which the state may rely on general cost concerns to avoid its statutory responsibility to eliminate disabilities discrimination. Are: 1) confined in the Regional Forensic Unit and Juvenile Forensic Unit. 2) are involuntarily committed . . . . 3) have criminal charges pending who have been found to be incompetent to stand trial. Or 4) otherwise are subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We are convened to review a decision of the district court holding two statutes one enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina and the other enacted by the Congress of the United States to be unconstitutional. 1 is violative of the First Amendment on its face and as applied. In pertinent part: (a) No person shall obstruct or block another person's access to or egress from a health care facility or from the common areas of the real property upon which the facility is located in a manner that deprives or delays the person from obtaining or providing health care services in the facility. .... (e) This section shall not prohibit any person from engaging in lawful speech or picketing which does not impede or deny another person's access to health care services or to a health care facility or interfere with the delivery of health care services within a health care facility. John Bradley are North Carolina residents who oppose abortion for moral. Their opposition has motivated them to engage in demonstrations outside facilities in North Carolina where abortions are performed. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The declaration that Citizens is first in priority for the payment of medical expenses incurred as a result The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster. The holding of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this ruling. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in this case are undisputed. Jacqueline Bradshaw ( |
||
![]() |
JANE L. V. BANGERTER We are called upon to determine the legal vitality of several provisions of Utah's 1991 abortion law against the backdrop of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Recognizing that their legislation was a facial attack on prevailing Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. We are satisfied that any jurisdictional problems have been corrected and that appellate jurisdiction is present. Casey was argued April 22. Were unconstitutional. Section 302(3): Post 20 Week Abortion Ban The district court's first task after Casey was to determine the constitutionality of section 302 of the Act.3 The court held 3 Utah Code Ann. 76 7 302. The abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. (b) the pregnancy is the result of rape or rape of a child. That was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (c) the pregnancy is the result of incest. The incident was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (e). (4) The name of a victim reported pursuant to Subsection (b) or (c) is confidential and may not be revealed by law enforcement or any other party except upon approval of the victim. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order The class also includes children at imminent risk of foster care placement. 1 3392 KATIE A. v. A class of children who were in Los Angeles County foster care or at risk of being placed into foster care (Katie A. The complaint alleged that the class was entitled to and had not received |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Appellant West Virginia appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States on its claim that West Virginia tax statute 11 27 is preempted by 5 U.S.C. § 8909(f). Whose provisions are now codified in Title 5 of the United States Code in sections 8901 et seq. Who are required to calculate a percentage of their receipts in each taxed category of services. Is preempted by section 8909(f) because providers can. West Virginia argues that section 8909(f) of Title 5 cannot preempt 11 27 because 11 27 is not a tax on the Carriers. Whether the economic pass through effect with which 11 27 may burden the Carriers constitutes indirect imposition of a tax on the Carriers can be resolved only by first determining what an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Christine L. With her on the brief were Lois J. Bieke were on the brief for intervenor Appalachian Power Company. Are requisite to protect the public health. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We hold that the Government did not establish the elements of health care fraud in violation of § 1347(2) and we will reverse Jones' 2 conviction and vacate her sentence. She was stationed at the front of the clinic. Roberto noticed that there was a discrepancy between the amount indicated as received on the sign in sheets and the computer records and the amount listed as deposited on the deposit slips. She found that they occurred on the majority of the days on which Jones worked alone and did not occur when Jones was absent from work. Despite the fact that their joint gross income from 2001 to 2003 was less than $40. Jones was indicted on one count of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347(2). Jones argues that the Government did not establish the elements of health care fraud in violation of § 1347(2) because the purported theft was not committed in connection with the delivery or payment of health care benefits. Because Progressive was not a health care benefit provider. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review The record does not indicate Jones and her husband's joint gross income in 2004. 4 3 Jones' claim that the Government did not establish the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1347(2). |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Department of Veterans Affairs ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Abatie was employed by the Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The purpose of the Act was to prohibit the practice colloquially referred to as partial birth abortion. A perinate is defined by the Act as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Opinion filed 9/19/02 is reinstated. Opinion filed 9/19/02 is vacated. That it is void for vagueness. Was summarized more fully in Bryant I. A regulated abortion clinic is defined as |
||
![]() |
01-4001 -- MACARTHUR V. SAN JUAN COUNTY -- 10/07/2002 Circuit Judge.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We consider whether health care providers are entitled to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal appropriations rider enacted to protect their interests. UNITED STATES 6723 services |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is classified under the General Schedule established by 5 U.S.C. §§ 5101 5115 (1994). Positions are classified according to their difficulty and level of responsibility. Pay rates are set accordingly. Are characterized by the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: At page 14687. Replace the sentence |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER A. Rhoads was hired as a financial analyst in September 1987 by Standard Federal Savings Bank ( |
||
![]() |
01-2252 -- HACEESA V. U.S. -- 10/24/2002 Haceesa was sent home that night. He was dead. Only after his death was Haceesa's disease diagnosed correctly: he died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Haceesa was a Navajo Indian. The hospital where he was first seen on April 25 |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 1 upheld the decision of its Administrative Law Judge ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER He was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Postal Workers Union. He was covered by a national collective bargaining agreement between the APWU and the Postal Service known as the National Agreement. Which certified that his absence was due to fatigue. The inclusive dates you were unable to work. Any medicines you are taking. This medical information is to be reviewed by the Postal Medical Officer. No. 03 4204 3 (2) You may be required to be examined by the Postal Medical Officer after your documentation is reviewed. The bill for this release for work exam will be paid by the Postal Service. She concluded that the information was insufficient to clear him for duty. A medical officer or contract physician evaluates the medical report and makes a medical assessment as to your ability to return to work before you are allowed to return. Were insufficient to clear him for duty because they did not describe the nature of treatment he received or list any medications he was taking. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Although under certain circumstances concerns about federal question jurisdiction will preclude federal courts from hearing a case where there is no federal private right of action. The following facts formed the basis of the lawsuit: Smart is the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Rez were on brief. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER At issue is a regulation that would exempt from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by |
||
![]() |
CYPRUS EMERALD RESOURCES CORP. V. FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Was on brief. Such violation is of such nature as could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard. Designation of a violation as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Lila Creech was enrolled in an employee benefit plan sponsored by her employer. Creech had to show that her condition prevented her from working at any other occupation for which she was qualified. Finding that Creech's experience qualified her for several jobs that were consistent with her medical limitations. Claiming the discontinuation Cubital tunnel syndrome is a group of symptoms that develop from the compression of the ulnar nerve within the cubital tunnel at the elbow. Although both Willis and Unum are named defendants. 357 n.1 (6th Cir. 2002) ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Because the record does not support the bankruptcy court's findings that Tirch's ailments preclude her return to work and are likely to persist for a significant portion of the 1 No. 04 3125 In re Tirch Page 2 repayment period. We will REVERSE. At which Tirch was the only witness. This program includes an Income Contingent Repayment ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal of the denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Samatar was found guilty in Ohio state court of possession of cathinone. Samatar was in possession of a shrub known as khat. Samatar has claimed that the state's sole test establishing an element of his crime is invalid. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. We will affirm the district court. From which brownish red stems of vegetation were protruding. He was subsequently arrested. The package was seized and submitted for analysis to the laboratory at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was found to have violated the plaintiffs'. The award of injunctive relief was found to be unnecessary. E. The declaratory judgment relied upon by the panel majority in the instant appeal to support its reasoning and judgment is non existent. F. The Plaintiffs' have failed to prevail on a single cause of action charged in their complaint. G. The district court's sua sponte application of the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER While the statutory and factual background in this appeal is quite complicated. The ultimate issue is relatively straightforward: whether BPA's authority to settle out of power contracts is bound by the power exchange requirements of the Northwest Power Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Our review is de novo. Gear is a graduate of Midwestern University's emergency medicine program and during the relevant time was fulfilling his residency requirements at three Chicago area hospitals: St. Residents are medical school graduates who gain experience by working in hospitals. Residents' services are not reimbursable by Medicare. Who are licensed doctors. Are reimbursable by Medicare. Senior residents are then properly allowed to moonlight as attending physicians. 42 C.F.R. § 415.208. Their services are also reimbursed by Medicare. It is also true that senior residents cannot work as attending physicians during residency hours. The problem Gear highlights is that the two defendants double billed Medicare for the work of residents in their capacity as attending physicians but performed during residency hours. Which provides that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Contending that the Plan's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Wical was covered by the Plan. Wical claimed that he was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER That the Commissioner should have found him to be disabled on the ground that his medical findings were |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Pine Tree Legal Assistance were on brief. Participating retailers accept the stamps as if they were cash. The Secretary of Agriculture is charged with overseeing the federal aspects of the food stamp program. Income was not to include the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER His applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. A hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) was held in November 1994. Newton was 37 years old at the time. Were not highly technical in nature. Stated he was fired because of an eye injury. Which is in the borderline range of mental deficiency. That his reading and arithmetic abilities were at a second grade level. He also alleged difficulties with counting Near the and making change and claimed to have trouble remembering things. end of the hearing. Several medical reports were also introduced into evidence. Stephen Newton was easily able to recall his date of birth. Singley concluded that Newton might have dyslexia and was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claimant was thirty four years of age on the alleged onset date. The no disability finding was affirmed. As of the time she was last insured for disability purposes. We conclude that the ALJ's finding that claimant's mental condition was not severe and did not impose any limitation of function on or before March 31. Is not supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed all the evidence and. I. Our focus is on step four of the Secretary's sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e). The initial burden is on the claimant to show that she can no longer perform her particular former work because of her impairments. The ALJ is entitled to credit claimant's own description of her former job duties and functional limitations. There is substantial evidence that claimant met her initial burden to provide information about the activities her usual work required and her functional inability to perform that work. There is also uncontradicted evidence. That the claimant's mental functioning in the critical period was. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We conclude a remand is required. Claimant was hospitalized for four days with acute pain in the cervical region. She was treated periodically at the State Insurance Fund. The notes are illegible in places. Spasm) of painful conditions were noted. Neprosyn) were prescribed. Spasm was noted. The diagnosis was 2 cervical myositis. Pain medications were refilled. Claimant was recommended to remain resting. Claimant was referred for physiotherapy. Mild to moderate spasm of paravertebral and cervical muscles were noted. After claimant contended that the physical therapy was causing much pain and that her neck had swelled. The next month spasm was again noted along with complaints of stiffness and swelling of the hands. An EMG was recommended. Lumbosacral and cervical pain were recorded as persisting and claimant's prescriptions were refilled. Which were limited by back pain. Lasegue's test and Patrick's test were positive. Tinel's sign was positive at both wrists and Erbs (C6) points. There was diminished sensation at L5 S1. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Barrier is a forty five year old woman with a two year associate degree in early childhood education. She was employed as a weaver with Rospatch Labels. The alleged cause of her disability is a severe asthmatic condition. That she was capable of performing light work with the restriction that she not be exposed to irritants which could exacerbate her asthma. That she was capable of returning to her previous occupation as a teacher's aide. Therefore was not disabled within the meaning of the law to receive disability benefits. We review the Secretary's final decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was 2 applied. Substantial evidence is |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for the United States. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Gomes was found guilty of possessing counterfeit social security cards with intent to purvey them.1 In this appeal. She asserts inter alia that the district court should have entered a judgment of acquittal because the cards in her possession were not sufficiently complete to be considered counterfeit. A package sent from Brazil was examined during a routine customs inspection at Kennedy Airport in New York. The package was addressed to appellant. Inside the package was a gift wrapped box. Inside the box was a book. Inside the book were approximately 500 bogus social security cards. Appellant was stopped and arrested. 1The statute of conviction provides in relevant part: Whoever . . . knowingly possesses a . . . counterfeit social security card with intent to sell . . . shall be guilty of a felony . . . . 42 U.S.C. 408(g)(3)(1988) (current version at 42 U.S.C.A. 408(a)(7)(C)(1991)). 2 After the arrest. Is sufficient to allow a rational jury to find each of the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. |
||
![]() |
00-4037 -- MASSEY V. DEAN -- 02/13/2001 Affirm. Massey was executive director of Ogden Area Community Action Committee. Alleging he was wrongfully terminated without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
00-3000 -- COMMERCE BANK V. CHRYSLER REALTY CORP. -- 03/22/2001 Vacate the award of punitive damages and remand.
| ||
![]() |
00-3000A -- COMMERCE BANK V. CHRYSLER REALTY CORP. -- 03/22/2001 The first sentence of the opinion is corrected to read as follows: Plaintiff appellee Commerce Bank. N.A. ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER LLP were on brief. We affirm.
| ||
![]() |
02-5116 -- OSLIN V. BARNHART -- 07/17/2003 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appellant Robert Oslin appeals from the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of his applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Oslin argues the Commissioner should have given greater weight (1) . |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was denied permission to collect royalties from the publisher of a textbook he wrote on Social Security disability law. Wolfe indicated on the form that his official duties did not relate in any way to the proposed activity except |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. The word |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court held that jurisdiction was not |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs have timely appealed. They apply in situations where the employee contributions are made through payroll deductions. Several former employees have elected to continue coverage under ERISA. The checks arrive at the company at various times of the month and are deposited into the employer's general bank account. We cannot accept the plaintiffs' contention that the contributions are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is a non profit Iowa corporation which operates 16 clinics in Iowa. provide comprehensive family planning and reproductive Its clinics health care services. One of the stated goals of the opposition was to convince state officials to require the plaintiff to comply with state certificate of need procedures before allowing the plaintiffs to construct its proposed clinic. The CON process is a regulatory framework designed to ensure |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Argue that the District Court should have remanded their claims to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Maintain that the District Court should have dismissed the claims entirely. As they depend on state law that is expressly preempted by ERISA § 514. The insurance providers argue that the 4 District Court should have dismissed the claims because the state law decision on which they rely. Jurisdiction is proper in the District Court. The underlying claims are preempted by ERISA and must be dismissed. Benjamin Edmondson (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Except for recipients who are blind. Unless they fall within one of the statutory groups. 2 Plaintiffs have never challenged the statute's elimination of the DME program. Are not limited to: Prosthetics. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court2 granted the motion because it concluded that the Nebraska mental health parity law is preempted by ERISA as to self funded ERISA plans. The district court3 granted the motion and alternatively held that the Nebraska mental health parity law is preempted by ERISA as to Marriott's self funded ERISA plan. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We confront once again the question whether defense counsel's performance during the sentencing phase of a capital trial was so deficient as to violate the defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Appellant Joe Leonard Lambright and his co defendant Robert Smith were convicted of first degree murder. Lambright was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Arizona courts on direct appeal and in state post conviction proceedings. After the case was returned to the panel for resolution of Lambright's remaining claims. Further ruled that even if the performance was deficient. Lambright was not prejudiced thereby. Because we conclude that trial counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Lambright and Smith were traveling across the country with Lambright's girlfriend. Smith complained to Lambright about the fact that he did not have a traveling companion with whom he could engage in sexual relations. Owen died as a result of her injuries.1 After the trio was arrested. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
NAT'L COUNCIL FOR IMPROVED HEALTH V. SHALALA We conclude that plaintiffs do not have standing and therefore reverse the district court's order on standing and vacate the remainder of its decision on the constitutionality of the health claims regulations. The NLEA was passed to |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The principal issue in this case is the meaning of that phrase. Jones was unaware of it. Jones signed an employment agreement that included express language making him an at will employee: The School District and the Employee recognize that the Employee is an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER INTRODUCTION: The revolutionary changes in the health care field over the past decade have spawned many novel market arrangements. Perhaps the most significant development is the ascendency of managed care driven health maintenance organizations ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This appeal is the result of certain Utah optometrists' decade long effort to become panel providers for the largest managed health care company in the state. The Plaintiffs The Plaintiffs are forty nine optometrists who practice along Utah's Wasatch Front and their affiliated professional organizations. Have been permitted under Utah law to perform the full scope of non surgical eye care ( |
||
![]() |
JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563) We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Jr. ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. Such violation is of such nature as could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard. Designation of a violation as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Because damages cannot be awarded in a breach of contract claim in Kentucky if the amount of damages is speculative. Bariatric surgery is an invasive procedure available to some obesity patients where doctors alter the digestive process by closing off parts of the stomach to make it smaller. Network Health Services was to provide a variety of services including: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claiming that they were liable for the health benefits of 11 former miners who retired due to disabilities as well as the health benefits of their dependents. To argue that 26 U.S.C.A. § 9712(d)(4) of the Coal Act was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment as applied to them. Because we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the disabled retirees are eligible beneficiaries under the Coal Act. That the award of attorney's fees was appropriate. There are two groups of Coal Companies involved as defendants. Inc. were signatories to collective bargaining agreements providing health benefits for the retired miners at issue. Panther Branch Coal Company are related to the signatory companies and thus are jointly and severally liable for any amounts required to be paid by the signatory company under the Coal Act. Disputes concerning health care for miners date back to the time early in this century when such care was funded with a prepayment plan through payroll deductions and was supplied by company doctors. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 2000 9:54:01 AM |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Perry argues that the district court erred when it held that he had not given sufficient notice and that his son did not have a serious health condition. I. Perry was employed by defendant as an auto parts counterperson when he sought leave in the summer of 2001 to care for his 13 year old son. Jaguar of Troy No. 02 1816 Victor was certified as |
||
![]() |
JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563) We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the NLRB's finding that four telecommunications workers are skilled maintenance employees. We will therefore deny UPMC's petition for review and grant the NLRB's petition for enforcement of its order. I. UPMC is a private. These four employees work in the Information Services Division at UPMC's Presbyterian complex and have the job title of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Plan is governed by the Wal Mart Stores. |
||
![]() |
KAY COLES JAMES, V. ELISABETH VON ZEMENSZKY Argued for petitioner. | ||
![]() |
DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by Johnson |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER (2) that removal is proper under the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Inc. ( |
||
![]() |
DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by Johnson |
||
![]() |
GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > | ||
![]() |
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD V. NIELSEN This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Although the third issue involves a question of federal law. Its existence in and relevance to this case is entirely dependent upon the answers to the first two issues. Not only is this case fraught with unsettled issues of Alabama law. The decision of those state law issues will affect the insurance rights of more than half of Alabama's population. |
||
![]() |
NAT'L MINING ASSOC. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR (9/4/1998, NO. 98-6159) We vacate the finding.
| ||
![]() |
NAT'L MINING ASSOC. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR (9/4/1998, NO. 98-6159) We vacate the finding.
| ||
![]() |
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD V. NIELSEN This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Although the third issue involves a question of federal law. Its existence in and relevance to this case is entirely dependent upon the answers to the first two issues. Not only is this case fraught with unsettled issues of Alabama law. The decision of those state law issues will affect the insurance rights of more than half of Alabama's population. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER At issue in this § 1983 action is whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to 15 Michigan corrections officers on duty at various points during the isolation. Here is what happened during the last six days of the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility's custody over Jeffrey Clark. Was on |
||
![]() |
GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER In this long running litigation aspects of which have been before this court before appellants. All of whom we will refer to collectively as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Pierre was tried and convicted of the murders in Illinois state court in 1983. Concluding they were not procedurally defaulted. Arguing that his counsel was ineffective at the pleading stage and that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. Pierre will receive a new sentencing hearing.1 For the following reasons. Pierre was involved in a brutal murder for hire scheme in 1982. Just three weeks after he was paroled from prison. Barry Wilson was dating one Jackie Gibons. This is no longer a death penalty case because there is currently no such penalty awaiting the defendant. Wilson's attempt at murder was thwarted when he fell through a window at the Gibons' home and abruptly fled. 000 was discussed). Pierre to her father (Sybil Gibons was not at home). After Benjamin was dead. Jackie told the detective that her father was out and that she would have him return the call when he came home. Pierre was waiting in the hallway and he bludgeoned Sybil Gibons to death. Pierre was to accompany Wilson to dispose of the bodies in Arkansas (or California. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Defenders was on brief. Lougee were on brief. Was better qualified to handle deliveries by HIV positive patients. The baby was delivered there. The gist of her suit is that Dr. Chie denied her treatment solely because she was HIV positive. We hold that the doctor's judgment is to be given deference absent a showing by the plaintiff that the judgment lacked any reasonable medical basis. We affirm. The following facts are undisputed. Vickie Lesley became pregnant in late 1994. The newborn was given AZT syrup. | ||
![]() |
N:\DOCS\MELISSA\06-1706.STANDRIDGE V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.OPN.FINAL2.WPD Provides health care benefits to those of its employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements ( |
||
![]() |
CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265) Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Pruden argues that a critical statement he made to law enforcement agents was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Because it was given the day after he had been read those rights. The Miranda inquiry here requires us to decide not only whether Pruden knew and understood his rights when they were first read to him. Although some twenty hours passed between the time that Pruden was read his rights (and made of an earlier statement. We conclude that Pruden was clearly aware of his rights. There is no evidence in the record that links this condition to any of the enumerated purposes. The District Court granted Pruden's probation officer the discretion to decide whether Pruden would have to undergo mental health counseling. This was 2 an impermissible delegation of the judicial power: while probation officers may have discretion to decide the details of a defendant's mental health treatment. They may not be given the authority to decide whether or not such treatment will be required. We will therefore vacate this condition on supervised release. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER It is not disputed that hexavalent chromium. Which is widely used in various industries and which has been classified as a carcinogen. Can have a deleterious effect on worker health. OSHA agreed that there was clear evidence that exposure to hexavalent chromium at the consensus level can result in excess risk of lung cancer and other chromium related illnesses. Announced that it was initiating a rulemaking that it expected would conclude in 1995. This matter was before us once before. For we concluded that the facts did not yet |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Jay S. Reavis & Pogue were on brief for The Life Insurance Company of North America. Reavis & Pogue were on brief for The Life Insurance Company of North America. That are available through UHS. Two supplemental insurance options are available. That is. It lessens the risk that the LINA premium and the UHS clinic fee will reflect redundant coverage 1Graduate students are not required to pay the UHS clinic fee. Provided they have health insurance coverage that meets URI's requirements. for the same medical procedures.2 As a second option. Students who do not opt out of the LINA |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Died after an emergency room physician at a hospital operated by the Indian Health Service ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER No certificate of appealability on this claim is issued. The appeal as to that issue is dismissed. I. The relevant facts underlying petitioner's conviction for first degree murder and related other crimes are succinctly set forth in the North Carolina Supreme Court's opinion affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal: [A]t around 8:00 a.m. on 27 February 1995. Sandra McGill was sitting in her apartment when she heard a loud explosion coming from the bar counter. Because she was blind. The shot was fired by defendant George Franklin Page. Who was pointing PAGE v. While Swaim and Newsome were proceeding to defendant's building to question the residents. Amos was at the hood of the car when defendant fired another shot that went through the patrol car's back window. Stated that his apartment was surrounded by police officers and that he thought he had shot someone. Defendant was taken into custody shortly thereafter. LEE Petitioner was. Arguing that this type of expert was better equipped than a clinical psychologist to prepare a legal defense. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER After Michael Woods was terminated by DaimlerChrysler Corporation for unexcused absences from work. Contending that Woods had not established a prima facie case under the Act and that his claim was untimely under a clause in their employment agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of DaimlerChrysler. I. In June 1999 Michael Woods was hired as an Industrial Engineering Supervisor at DaimlerChrysler's North Assembly Plant in Fenton. Woods was transferred to a lower ranked leader position in the assembly department and after that to Production Facilitator. The last was Area Manager Sheila Franklin. Sheila Franklin was working with some production facilitators to solve a problem with the assembly line when she noticed that Woods was not on the production floor. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 22 1 employee is not to leave his |
||
![]() |
CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265) Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Debbie Stekloff was employed as a psychiatric nurse for St. Stekloff told her supervisor that she was too upset to perform her work and that she was leaving. It is undisputed that Ms. Stekloff was an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER (5) the Official Committee's motion to intervene should have been allowed. Pinewood is located in Sumter County. Is within 1200 feet of Lake Marion. Safety Kleen was required to apply for a new hazardous waste permit from DHEC. DHEC scheduled a public hearing and solicited comments on whether and under what conditions Safety Kleen was entitled to a final permit to operate Pinewood. It did not specify whether nonhazardous An acre foot is the volume of water necessary to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. It is equal to 43. Safety Kleen agreed not to apply for additional landfill space until Pinewood was within three years of reaching its capacity. Was not binding on either the hearing officer or the DHEC Board. Was prospective only. While Safety Kleen was not pleased with the Board's decision to reject the separate cap for nonhazardous waste. Safety Kleen estimated that Pinewood would have between four and one half to six years of unused space left under the permit. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the state Senate. 2 SAFETY KLEEN. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER At issue in this case is whether certain provisions of Missouri law are preempted by the Employee's Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Arguing that the Missouri provisions could not be enforced because they were preempted by ERISA. I. The Missouri legislation which led to this lawsuit was enacted in 1997. A maintenance prescription is one providing medication to treat a medical condition for a period of greater than 30 days. If any such contract is rejected by any pharmacy provider. 3 unless such limit is applied uniformly to all pharmacy providers in the health maintenance organization's network. Are preempted by ERISA. After discovery was complete. That the existence of ERISA plans is not essential to their operation. It also concluded that the statutes were saved from ERISA preemption because they regulate HMOs which are in the business of insurance. They say that the statutes are within the scope of ERISA preemption because they relate to employee benefit plans since they directly regulate health benefit plans and impact plan structure. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief. Burling were on brief. Flom LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Chief Judge. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Dayton clinic is required to be licensed. WMPC argued that the written transfer agreement requirement was unconstitutional as applied to the Dayton clinic. The case was then transferred to United States District Judge Algenon Marbley. We affirm the district court with respect to its conclusion that WMPC's procedural due process rights were violated. Its director is authorized to establish quality standards. The director promulgated a requirement that ASFs have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. It is solely within the director's discretion as to whether a variance or waiver should be granted. WMPC is owned by Dr. The Dayton clinic is approximately forty five to fifty five miles away from the next closest abortion clinic in Cincinnati. It is also the only clinic in southern Ohio providing abortion services 1 ASFs are free standing facilities where outpatient surgery is routinely performed. He is the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Having now learned from our sister court that a company with less than a 100% interest in a subsidiary does not have a qualified privilege to interfere with the contractual relations of the subsidiary under Tennessee law. IRG was a wholly owned subsidiary of Quorum Health Resources (QHR). Which itself was wholly owned by Quorum Health Group (QHG). That he was terminating his employment with the company. All of which would have allowed him to recover $1. Contends that he should have been permitted to split his remedies and cross appeals from the district court's denial of that request. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER He was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Postal Workers Union. He was covered by a national collective bargaining agreement between the APWU and the Postal Service known as the National Agreement. Which certified that his absence was due to fatigue. The No. 03 4204 3 inclusive dates you were unable to work. Any medicines you are taking. This medical information is to be reviewed by the Postal Medical Officer. (2) You may be required to be examined by the Postal Medical Officer after your documentation is reviewed. The bill for this release for work exam will be paid by the Postal Service. She concluded that the information was insufficient to clear him for duty. A medical officer or contract physician evaluates the medical report and makes a medical assessment as to your ability to return to work before you are allowed to return. Were insufficient to clear him for duty because they did not describe the nature of treatment he received or list any medications he was taking. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER District Judge: This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Appellants1 raise three issues on appeal: 1) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity for the ETS claims. 2) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 1. The appellants are Stanley Taylor (Commissioner of the Department of Correction). All ranks are those held by appellants at the time of filing of the complaint. 2 retaliation and excessive force claims. 3) whether appellants in supervisory positions are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims because they lacked notice of the underlying events. We will affirm the District Court's denial of summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND2 Appellee Roger Atkinson is a blind. Diabetic prisoner who was housed at Delaware's Multi Purpose Criminal Justice Facility ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER At issue is whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We will overrule United States v. I. The material facts are undisputed. The DuPont Newport Superfund Site is an industrial site in Delaware. The site was identified in the early 1980s as a potential threat to human health. It was placed on CERCLA's National Priorities List. The total cost to the government was $1. The District Court held the government's recovery of both |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution ( |
||
![]() |
JIM WALTER RESRC INC V. MSHR |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Defendant appellee Legacy is the non profit corporation that owns this hospital. A hospital employee analyzed Laura Fields' Pap smear and concluded that it was |
||
![]() |
TROY CORP V. BROWNER CAROL M. Marchese were on the briefs.
Cynthia A. Ugol and Karl S. Bourdeau were on the briefs.
Ellen J. Were on the brief.
Before: Ginsburg. The requirements for the report are rather detailed. As to each facility at which the chemicals are manufactured. As to each covered toxic chemical known to be present at the facility:
(i) Whether the toxic chemical at the facility is manu factured. ... there is sufficient evidence to establish any one of the following |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER She argues that she was denied effective assistance of counsel in connection with her decision to plead guilty to making a false statement to obtain federal employee's compensation. We AFFIRM the district court's decision denying Philipose habeas relief. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. When Philipose's doctors determined that she was no longer able to work at all. Philipose began spending time in these establishments. Suspecting that Philipose was performing some duties at her family's stores. Benefits recipients comply with federal regulations requiring them to disclose to the DOL any employment compensation they have received. The agents allegedly said: |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Asserting that the claims against it and related defendants were |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER LLP were on brief. LLP was on brief. The first is whether the health centers serving those populations have enforceable rights to sue. The second is how a federal court hearing such a prospective claim should proceed when parallel litigation is proceeding in a state court. Such parallel suits are not uncommon.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so |
||
![]() |
98-9519 -- UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION -- 06/28/1999 We affirm. The parties have stipulated to certain facts. Universal is a general contractor engaged in the construction business. Universal's field manager and foreman were at the jobsite and in a position to observe the violations. It is not disputed that Zahner created the hazards and only Zahner employees were exposed to the hazards. On October 16. Universal was cited for a serious violation based on the October 6 incidents and a $1. 500 penalty was imposed. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER A number of the sheriff's deputies who were on duty at the Washoe County jail the night Gibson died. That summary judgment was improperly granted on the question whether the County was deliberately indifferent to Gibson's mental illness while he was in custody at the county jail. Review is de novo. To determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Was in the regular care of a psychiatrist. Gibson was entering a manic phase. He was pacing agitatedly through his home. Gibson where he was going. The psychiatrist on call at West Hills in an effort to find Gibson and have him taken to the hospital. Four dispatches were broadcast over the Reno1 and Washoe County police frequencies: On February 1 at 9:33 PM. A notice was broadcast. The broadcast stated that Gibson was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Summary judgment in favor of Philip Morris was granted. B. District Court Proceedings This action was timely and properly removed from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. On grounds that (1) the strict product liability claim was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. (2) the fraudulent concealment claim was preempted by the same federal statute. Evidence was lacking that the decedent would have acted differently if Philip Morris had disclosed material information concerning the health effects of smoking. (3) the fraud claim was not preempted under federal law but evidence was absent that the decedent saw. (4) the conspiracy claim necessarily failed because it was a derivative of other underlying claims. A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit. An issue is genuine if a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the nonmoving party. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER A.M. was physically assaulted by other juvenile residents 2 on numerous occasions. States that A.M . was hit on the back of the head with a ping pong paddle thrown by another resident. A.M. was taken to the hospital for treatment. Other incident reports were completed by the Center's child care workers on an almost daily basis between August 2 and August 16. A.M . was thirteen years old. We will use the same designation. 2 2 1 OPINION OF THE COURT LAY. Alleging they violated his substantive due process rights by failing to protect him from harm while he was detained at the Center. The District Court's order granting summary judgment will be reversed in part and affirmed in part. A.M. was arrested in Lake Township. He was taken to the Center. Was seeing a psychiatrist in the community. The Center's administrators and supervisors were made aware of these facts upon A.M.'s admission to the Center or shortly thereafter. A.M.'s mental and behavioral problems were reflected in his behavior at the Center. A psychiatric evaluation was performed on A.M. by Dr. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact. Analysis regarding Polini's ADA claim is dispositive of her PHRA claim. In this capacity she was required. She was later given the job of |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Matthew S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Lieutenant Marc Rosen. Lewis urges that she was promoted as a matter of law under 10 U.S.C. § 624. Was based on an incorrect interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(1). We hold that Lewis' claim that she was promoted as a matter of law is barred by our decision in Dysart v. That the BCNR's decision denying her request for a correction of her personnel record was based on a proper understanding of 10 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(1). Lewis was an active duty Commander in the Navy Medical Corps. A new sentence was added to section 1094(a)(1). The physician may not provide health care as a physician under this chapter unless the current license is an unrestricted license . . . . |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Petitioner was convicted in Ohio state court of five counts of aggravated murder with two death penalty specifications and five counts of kidnapping. Facts as Recited by the Ohio Supreme Court Lundgren's Background Lundgren was born in Missouri and raised in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were Edward M. With him on the brief was Nathaniel I. Rabinowitz were on the brief for intervenor United Steel. Petitioners contend that MSHA did not have sufficient evidence that DPM presents a risk to miners' health. Petitioners also assert that MSHA unlawfully granted medical evaluation and transfer rights to workers who are required to wear respirators. That MSHA's final implementation timetable was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules. Diesel exhaust is comprised of both gasses and particulate matter. The agency determined that miners were exposed to very high levels of DPM. MSHA concluded that it was necessary to regulate DPM exposure to protect miners from these risks. The agency determined that there was no reliable way to measure DPM directly for compliance purposes. Total carbon was deemed to be a reliable surrogate because there was evidence in the record that TC makes up approximately 80 85% of DPM. That this is a consistent relationship. Those rules were not challenged. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The plaintiffs are seventy nine hospitals and two healthcare corporations (collectively. Hospitals) who contend that the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in setting the thresholds for socalled |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Something is rotten in the Village of Alsip. The Alsip Chief of Police is Kenneth Wood. David Snooks is the department's Field Operations Commander. At the time this suit was filed. They attempted to remove him from his post on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The events overlap in time and we will describe them separately for clarity. We credit McGreal's version of the facts because he is the party opposing judgment. He was on routine patrol late one night in June 1995 when he noticed a number of cars in the parking lot of the Alsip Elk's Club in apparent violation of the local closing time ordinance. The machines themselves are not illegal but using them to gamble is No. 02 3405 3 prohibited. The video poker machines were owned by a company called |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Dissent by Judge Trott *Judge Tashima was randomly selected to replace Judge Bright. Who was a member of the original three judge panel. The only remaining issue on remand is whether Chevron has met the requirements for assertion of the direct threat defense. An examination by Chevron's physician revealed that Echazabal's liver was releasing higher than normal levels of enzymes. Echazabal consulted with his own doctors and was eventually diagnosed with asymptomatic. Informing him that Chevron was withdrawing the job offer based on its determination that Echazabal's liver would be damaged and his health at risk if he worked at the coker unit. It is not surprising that Echazabal 10016 withdrew its job offer. He was no longer able to pay for medical services and was unable to continue with the medical group he had been seeing for his liver condition. ANALYSIS An employer can defend against a disability discrimination claim under the ADA by relying on a qualification standard that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Who are individually named plaintiffs in a suit seeking to require Freedom Forge to continue funding the health benefits plan currently in place for retirees and spouses. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' claim is that Freedom Forge induced them into early retirement with oral assurances that their health insurance benefits would continue essentially unmodified until death. This suit was prompted by Freedom Forge's announcement that it would be switching from a self insured benefits program with no premiums to a managed care system in which retirees would be able to choose among plans. Asserting that they were reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. Faced with a large group of plaintiffs whom the court determines are reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. May grant a preliminary injunction to the entire group of plaintiffs if there is evidence that some. Of the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. While none of the other plaintiffs presented evidence that they were threatened with irreparable harm or were similarly situated to those who testified. |
||
![]() |
SNYDER V. SECRETARY OF HHS |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Coal miners 4 who are now disabled. The main issue in this appeal is whether these miners are eligible to receive health benefits under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit (Coal) Act of 1992. The chief issue before us was addressed in recent decisions of the Fourth and District of Columbia Circuits. The 1947 NBCWA was modified in 1950. Both the 1947 and the 1950 NBCWA's were financed by a per ton levy on coal produced by signatory operators that is. Were subject to the 5 NBCWA. The benefits were subject to cancellation or change depending on the discretionary judgment of the NBCWA's trustees. While the UMWA 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs asserted that the more generous benefits offered as part of the 1993 early retirement program are vested and unalterable. Concluding that plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under either theory. NCR offered the 1993 Enhanced Retirement Program (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER She paid the January 1998 continuation coverage premium to Dakotacare after discovering Sarah was ill. The district court concluded that all of Sarah's state law claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER (HPI) and others were obligated to pay City of Hope for its treatment of Maria D. Diaz was diagnosed with myeloid leukemia in 1992. Diaz was referred by her treating physicians to Memorial Sloane Kettering Hospital in New York City for consultation and further treatment. Diaz was referred by doctors at Memorial Sloane Kettering to City of Hope in Duarte. Diaz was admitted to City of Hope in January 1993. (Triple S) was her primary insurance carrier (offered through her employer) and PCA Health Plan of Puerto Rico (formerly HealthPlus. Inc. or |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We hold that the Ashcroft Directive is unlawful and unenforceable because it violates the plain language of the CSA. The petitions for review are granted. I We have original jurisdiction over |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction over Honeywell's consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. 3 I. The piling of the waste created a land mass (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We are once again called upon to determine whether a lawsuit claiming medical negligence is completely preempted by the civil enforcement provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The District Court having determined that CareFirst is not a member of the class and therefore lacks standing and authority to object to the settlement agreement on its own behalf or to opt out of the Settlement Agreement. All portions of the brief of Linda Cahn except those related to her own claim for attorneys fees were stricken. Only those arguments put forward by the remaining Movants Appellants are considered in this Opinion as to the other issues. 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 amended Settlement Agreement. Assuming either of the preceding questions is answered in the affirmative. Serious questions have been raised as to whether four of the class action representative plaintiffs plan participants and beneficiaries who apparently suffered neither economic nor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Insured plans pay set premiums to an insurance company in exchange for full payment of their members' prescription drugs. Retain for themselves the obligation of paying for the prescription drugs provided to their beneficiaries and participants. 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 medical injuries resulting from the PBM's alleged wrongdoings have Article III standing to assert. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the briefs were filed. With her on the brief was Grant Crandall. We nevertheless conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The Secretary determines that the provi sions of this subsection have been violated. Determines that the provisions of this subsection have not been violated. The complainant shall have the right ... to file an action in his own behalf before the Commission. If the charges are sustained. Their complaints would have to be in writing and hand delivered. The two claims were assigned to an Adminis trative Law Judge ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Novant argues that the documents Virmani seeks to discover are privileged. Virmani is an obstetrician gynecologist who was granted medical staff membership and clinical privileges at Presbyterian Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital Matthews (collectively. Virmani states that this is a known possible complication of the procedure. Which is composed of three physicians. Using a committee comThe hospitals are non parties that are subsidiaries of Novant. Arguing that the peer review materials were privileged under North Carolina law. That the scope of Virmani's discovery requests was overly broad. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge McKnight. R. Evid. 501.3 Whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 is a mixed question of law and fact. Evidentiary privileges |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The principal issue presented in this appeal is whether the evidence presented at trial. Was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to render a verdict in favor of Cooper and against the Lee County. Was insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to render a verdict in his favor. Each Commissioner of Revenue is an independent constitutional officer. See id.1 The salaries of constitutional officers and their staff are paid by each county. Each county is reimbursed for these expenditures by the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the Compensation Board). It is within the constitutional officer's discretion to determine how this money is used. Each county is required to provide group life. Was hired to work full time as a deputy commissioner by the Lee County Commissioner of Revenue. Cooper's position was funded by lump sum money allocated by the Compensation Board to pay temporary employees. At the time he was hired. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district court held all defendants except Columbia Hospital were immune from suit for monetary damages under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was vicariously liable for harassment perpetrated by one of her supervisors. (2) that Health Midwest was liable on a negligence theory because it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action. The central issue on appeal is whether someone in authority at Health Midwest knew about the claim of harassment during the relevant time period. She is therefore entitled to a trial on her vicarious liability and negligence theories. We apply the same standard used by the District Court: whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Is a licensed practical nurse employed by defendant Health Midwest. She was the nurse for Dr. Sims stipulated that she is not seeking recovery for any sexual harassment by Dr. Or was engaged in. Such discussions was Michelle Aman. Aman was a receptionist at MIMA prior to 1994. Was promoted to Front Office Coordinator in January of 1995. Hensley told MIMA employees that because she was supervising three clinics and could be at MIMA only about one day a week. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the congressional appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent and reverse the district court's award of additional funding for contract support costs. 1 Indian tribes are encouraged to take over administration of various programs that the federal government used 1 See 25 U.S.C. § 450 450n (2000). 14679 to administer for their benefit. The tribes get the money that the government would otherwise have used to administer and perform the services. 3 The government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform the programs for less money than the government would have spent. The statute provides that contracts between the government and the tribes for tribal takeover of programs have to include money that shall |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Wilson was severely injured while working at Midway. Wilson was paralyzed and incurred significant and ongoing medical expenses. injuries. Alleging that Wilson's claims were preempted by ERISA. appeals. Holding that Wilson's claims were preempted by ERISA. 2 II. Inc. v. decision on ERISA preemption de novo because it is a question of federal interpretation. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Blue Cross moved for dismissal on the ground that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the civil RICO action was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER If the assigned coal operator is no longer in business. The Commissioner assigned eighty six retired coal miners to the Jericol Mining Company ( |
||
![]() |
WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. That petition is also denied. Other individuals to notify the state government whenever they have |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER File Name: 00a0070p.06 We conclude that the district court was correct in finding that the defendant in this case adequately demonstrated that the plaintiffs were engaged in a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We con 2 No. 06 1013 clude that Burnett has failed to show that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA at the time of his termination. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to Burnett. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The majority opinion which follows was in final form before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in the appeal of Carhart v. Because nothing in that opinion is at odds with this Court's opinion. The District Court found the Act unconstitutional because it: (1) is void for vagueness. We will affirm. Joined what is now a majority of states in enacting a law banning |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the congressional appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent and reverse the district court's award of additional funding for contract support costs. 1 Indian tribes are encouraged to take over administration of various programs that the federal government used 1 See 25 U.S.C. § 450 450n (2000). 14679 to administer for their benefit. The tribes get the money that the government would otherwise have used to administer and perform the services. 3 The government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform the programs for less money than the government would have spent. The statute provides that contracts between the government and the tribes for tribal takeover of programs have to include money that shall |
||
![]() |
QUALMED PLANS FOR HEALTH OF NEW MEXICO, INC., V. U.S. With him on the brief were David M. Assistant Director. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER William Freeman ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Stephen Sugarbaker is a general surgeon who practiced in Jefferson City. Sugarbaker contends that he was the victim of a conspiracy to control the market for medical services in the Jefferson City area. The Executive Committee is responsible for providing recommendations to the SSM Board of Directors regarding medical staff privileges. Sugarbaker was again permitted to present evidence on his own behalf. The Appellate Review Committee reviews |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Companies argue that the Act is unconstitutional as applied to them pursuant to Eastern Enterprises v. We conclude that the assignments are not unconstitutional as applied. It will be helpful to explain the historical background and context of this dispute. I. THE COAL ACT The Coal Act was enacted in 1992 |
||
![]() |
WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Schug noted that Jackson was reporting hallucination. That he was taking Anafranil and Ativan.1 Dr. Diagnosed Jackson as suffering from an emergency medical (as opposed to a psychological or psychiatric) condition. 1 Anafranil is an antidepressant. Ativan is an anti anxiety agent. 4921 Redbud did not offer psychiatric care to its patients. The unwritten policy of the Redbud emergency room was that when a patient presented to the emergency room with psychiatric complaints. The patient would be examined to determine if there were any medical components to his problem. If a medical problem was found. If no medical problem was found. Where he was evaluated by Dennis Skinner. Such as the Anafranil Jackson was known to be taking. His condition to have stabilized. Ollada observed that Jackson was very agitated. Ollada that she believed that her husband was suicidal. Ollada determined that Jackson was suffering from a psychological disorder which caused his agitation. That he was not suffering from any physical disorders. |
||
![]() |
MICHAEL LAMPE V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES On the brief were David . By the time she was five years old. She suffered from frequent seizures and was mentally retarded. We affirm. I
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The funds were intended for payment of health insurance premiums. Whiting was sentenced to 90 months of incarceration. (2) finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Whiting's convictions for conversion. Badger's employees were members of the United Electrical. Badger employees were covered by a United Healthcare insurance policy that was funded in part by employee payroll deductions. Employee contributions were withheld from paychecks and kept in Badger's general operating account until they were used to pay the United Healthcare premium. The company was in financial distress and behind in payments to vendors. Although these funds were deducted. MBA was not an insurance company. Have MBA enroll employees in the plan in groups of one or two. Badger first gave official notice to the employees that the plan was self funded. Although the self funded plan was effective July 1. Due to processing delays medical claims were not presented to Badger for approval until late September 2001. Badger employees were left with $414. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER BACKGROUND TSI is an Alaska corporation that performs asbestosremediation services. The mill had closed in 1993 and was scheduled for demolition. The powerhouse was a large structure. The powerhouse was in a state of disrepair. There were holes of all sizes in the walls and ceiling. TSI's primary contractual responsibility was to remove asbestos insulation on the pipes. The project was stopped. One of the EPA's concerns was that TSI was washing wastewater. Sent a letter to the EPA explaining how TSI was complying with regulatory requirements. The letter stated that it was submitted for settlement purposes. Enclosed with the letter was a statement. Asserting that TSI was not washing wastewater into the powerhouse drains. 6 UNITED STATES v. Before the powerhouse was demolished. The EPA contacted Wade and asked him to take another look at one of the pipes in the powerhouse from which TSI was to have removed asbestos. Stemming from allegations that Rushing solicited employees to sign the false statement that TSI was not washing wastewater into Silver Bay. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Both sides have now appealed. We decline to consider plaintiffs' assertion of a private right of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43) because the arguments now made on appeal by plaintiffs were neither asserted nor addressed below. I. Plaintiff Oklahoma Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (OKAAP) is a non profit professional organization of pediatricians and pediatric specialists. (CAPTC) is a non profit organization located in Tulsa. The individually named plaintiffs are thirteen children and their parents. All of whom have been designated as representatives of the class certified by the district court. Defendants are officials of the State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA). Alleging that defendants' policies and procedures denied or deprived eligible children in the State of Oklahoma of the health and medical care to which they were entitled under federal law. (c) their alleged right pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(30)(A) to have provider reimbursement rates set at a sufficient level to assure Medicaid recipients of equal access to quality health care. |
||
![]() |
WRIGHT V. HANNA STEEL CORP. (10/25/2001, NO. 01-10371) Their two minor children in this ERISA action. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Schug noted that Jackson was reporting hallucination. That he was taking Anafranil and Ativan.1 Dr. Diagnosed Jackson as suffering from an emergency medical (as opposed to a psychological or psychiatric) condition. 1 Anafranil is an antidepressant. Ativan is an anti anxiety agent. 4921 Redbud did not offer psychiatric care to its patients. The unwritten policy of the Redbud emergency room was that when a patient presented to the emergency room with psychiatric complaints. The patient would be examined to determine if there were any medical components to his problem. If a medical problem was found. If no medical problem was found. Where he was evaluated by Dennis Skinner. Such as the Anafranil Jackson was known to be taking. His condition to have stabilized. Ollada observed that Jackson was very agitated. Ollada that she believed that her husband was suicidal. Ollada determined that Jackson was suffering from a psychological disorder which caused his agitation. That he was not suffering from any physical disorders. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Pardee is liable pursuant to the Coal Act.1 Pardee denied its liability for the health care premiums to the extent they arose from beneficiary assignments made by the Social Security Administration ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER (2) denying Winters's motion for summary judgment on Count II of the complaint on the grounds that the deferred compensation accrual on the final cost report was immaterial. (4) denying Winters's motion for a new trial on the grounds that (a) the jury verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. (b) there was no evidence the Government sustained any harm. (c) the jury was confused in calculating damages. The jury verdict and remitted award of damages is AFFIRMED. All of which were managed through Medshares Management Group. Which was in place at all of the other home health agencies owned by Winters and managed by MMGI. The Plan was a deferred profit sharing and stock bonus plan. It was Winters's policy that after buying a home health agency. I at 132) ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER They argue that the district court's grant of summary judgment was erroneous because Ceridian provided vested disability benefits and did not unambiguously reserve the right to retroactively change the level of disability benefits that employees would receive in the future. 1 who were disabled before January 1. Dental insurance in which they were enrolled at the time they became disabled. Ceridian is the successor in interest to Control Data Corporation. We will refer to the appellee as Ceridian. The class specifically excluded those individuals who were members of the class in Chiles v. An opinion regarding this class action is recorded at 95 F.3d 1505 (10th Cir. 1996). 22 1 Appellants brought this action alleging that Ceridian's refusal to continue paying their insurance premiums violates ERISA. Disabled employees were eligible for long term disability status beginning after their fifth consecutive month of disability. Employees who qualified under this plan were entitled to up to 60% of their predisability salary. |
||
![]() |
99-6329 -- TATE V. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES INC. -- 10/10/2001 Seizures have never been indicated on previous physicals. Dilantin was listed |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Which was established to provide a network of doctors in Hawaii for a managed care health plan developed by IHM. Certain of their officers who were also named as defendants.1 We sometimes refer to these parties collectively as |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It was not possible to complete all of Part I at that time. Because the trust which was to be the beneficiary of the policy had not yet been formed. The plaintiffs in the underlying action were: Janet and Daphne Hammond. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE 3 Part I of the application included a declarations section containing the following provision: I represent that the foregoing answers and statements contained in Parts I and II are correctly recorded. No insurance will take effect before the policy for such insurance is delivered and the first premium paid during the lifetime(s) and before any change in the health of the Proposed Insured(s). Insurance will take effect if the answers and statements in this application are then true. Hammond was examined by an independent medical examiner (not a doctor) selected by Pacific Life. As is discussed in the text. Was entitled |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER P.A. were on brief. Lanham was on brief. Twombly provided the services she was required to provide under the contract. Participants such as Twombly had full time work assignments averaging 40 hours per week and were paid stipends at an annual rate of $7. 650 in exchange for their service. Twombly was the single parent of a seven year old child and relied on AFOP's promises to provide health insurance and workers' compensation.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Daniel J. Duff were on the brief for amici curiae John E. Edmonds was on the brief for amici curiae Emil Freireich and Stephen Strum in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. Turner was on the brief for amici curiae American Society of Clinical Oncology. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae National Organization for Rare Disorders. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether the Constitution provides terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety 3 trials but have not been proven safe and effective. The district court held there is no such right. A divided panel of this Court held there is. Because we conclude that there is no fundamental right |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. |
||
![]() |
WRIGHT V. HANNA STEEL CORP. (10/25/2001, NO. 01-10371) Their two minor children in this ERISA action. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was Grant Crandall. Robin A. With her on the brief was W. Were on the brief for intervenor National Mining Association. Before: Wald. Because all parties agree that MSHA is currently working on two other rulemakings with greater significance for miners' health. Because the agency's response was not definite. Concentrations in excess of permissi ble exposure limits (PELs) set by the agency are forbidden. Id.1 Since the early 1970s. Those regulations have incorporat ed PELs established in 1972 by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. MSHA recognizes that those levels are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was Grant Crandall. With her on the brief was W. Were on the brief for intervenor National Mining Association. Because all parties agree that MSHA is currently working on two other rulemakings with greater significance for miners' health. Because the agency's response was not definite. Concentrations in excess of permissi ble exposure limits (PELs) set by the agency are forbidden. Those regulations have incorporat ed PELs established in 1972 by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. MSHA recognizes that those levels are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Chubrich & Harrigan was on brief for appellants. McGillicu ddy were on brief for appellees. Various entities that later acquired interests in the real property upon which the health club facility was located. The note was secured by a first mortgage on the Property. The Property was acquired by appellee A.B. Which was later converted to chapter 7. There is no evidence that appellants filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. 2 |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Thomas Greither ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The case was remanded to the district court to consider whether Defendants' reliance on Utah Code Ann. 62A 4a 202.1 and 202.2 or the advice of counsel made their conduct nonetheless objectively reasonable and thus entitled them to qualified immunity. Defendants' conduct was not objectively reasonable. Was sweating profusely. Was wearing a parka in seventy degree weather. Roska stated that Rusty was suffering from kidney failure. Who assured her Rusty was not in kidney failure. Sneddon was told that Rusty's healthy appendix had been removed at Mrs. The dispute is irrelevant in this case. The issue we must decide is whether Defendants' actions were objectively reasonable in light of the information they possessed at the time of removal. Regardless of whether theinformation was accurate or not. MSBP is a disorder in which an individual. The prior DCFS investigation concluded that the allegations of MSBP were unsubstantiated. When Morrison informed the physicians she was investigating Mrs. Both stated something to the effect that it was about time someone discovered what was going on with Rusty. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Among those claims are two student loans totaling $94. ECMC argues that Barrett was required to provide corroborating evidence in the form of expert medical proof to establish that the circumstances underlying his inability to repay the loans will likely continue for a substantial portion of the repayment period. Barrett was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in the summer of 2000. Barrett was diagnosed as being at the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Sellars is entitled to a Gary Firefighter Service Pension. He applied for and was granted early receipt of his pension benefits. Alleging that his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated and that the City breached the original settlement agreement by denying him health care benefits. Although retirees were permitted to participate in Gary's health insurance plan in 1997. Gary claimed that even if Sellars was eligible. Summary judgment is inappropriate if there is a genuine issue of material fact. A plaintiff may allege an equal protection class of one violation when discrimination or unequal treatment is not based on membership in a particular class or group. 564 (2000) ( |
||
![]() |
03-9546 -- SAFEWAY INC. V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION -- 09/07/2004 The citation was later amended to allege. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. |
||
![]() |
DEDRICK V. YOUNGBLOOD (1/12/2000, NO. 98-6499) The Act was enacted in 1992 to reduce the growing costs of malpractice insurance to private nonprofit health centers that provide health services to medically underserved populations. Youngblood based his appeal on an expanded interpretation of the definition of a contractor under § 233. We must decide whether a doctor is considered a U.S. Public Health Service Employee within the meaning of § 233 of the Act if at the time he allegedly committed malpractice he was performing medical services as an employee of a legal entity that has contracted with a FSHCAA eligible health care entity. It appears that we are the first circuit to address this issue. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The December 16th response was submitted together with a brief to this Court. Have jurisdiction over the petition before us which the parties. Agree is appropriately recharacterized as a petition to review final agency action. Cir. 1987) (when a petition to compel rulemaking was pending and the agency denie d rulemaking. It was appropriate to treat the pending petition as a petition for review of the denial). We find that the Secretary's denial of the request for rulemaking proceedings on MWFs was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Will deny the petition for review. I. Background Metalworking fluids are used in a wide variety of industries as coolants and lubricants for metal machining. Who are employed at approximately 185. Are exposed to MWFs by means of skin contact or by breathing or otherwise ingesting particles from mists or aerosols. There is little doubt. It is not disputed here. That exposure to MWFs can have debilitating health effects. The nature and prevalence of health effects from MWF exposure is. |
||
![]() |
01-6066 -- EVANS V. FOGARTY -- 08/21/2002 Irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied. (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. Kikumura v. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the right to relief is |
||
![]() |
DEDRICK V. YOUNGBLOOD (1/12/2000, NO. 98-6499) The Act was enacted in 1992 to reduce the growing costs of malpractice insurance to private nonprofit health centers that provide health services to medically underserved populations. Youngblood based his appeal on an expanded interpretation of the definition of a contractor under § 233. We must decide whether a doctor is considered a U.S. Public Health Service Employee within the meaning of § 233 of the Act if at the time he allegedly committed malpractice he was performing medical services as an employee of a legal entity that has contracted with a FSHCAA eligible health care entity. It appears that we are the first circuit to address this issue. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER In this case we are presented with the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Are amended as follows: At slip op. 14. That the Act was not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled subsidy challenge because the assessments funded government speech. He would now remand to the district court pursuant to the Court's statement in Johanns that an as applied challenge might lie |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Is limited to $200. Rabkin is a liver transplant surgeon who contends that after he raised concerns about patient well being under a fellow physician's care. Rabkin was originally recruited to serve as director of OHSU's Liver Transplant Program in 1991. Who did not have confidence in Dr. Trunkey's decision was based on Dr. Rabkin was reinstated as director under the supervision of John Barry. Orloff was still unhappy with the new arrange RABKIN v. OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES 16611 ment and was exploring other opportunities. His recommendation was followed. Before he was placed on the tenure track. Orloff's patient mortality rate was double his own. Rabkin was informed that he was no longer director of the Liver Transplant Program and that a third transplant surgeon would be recruited as the new director. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the order of the District Court. 000 and was issued stock certificates in the club. That transfer was memorialized by a March 24. You shall remain the IHS designated member unless you resign the membership or you are terminated for cause. Abe Briarwood Corp. is Integrated Health's successor in interest and appellee in this action. 2 1 App. at 85 ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We are presented with the question of whether the Federal Tort Claims Act. Asserting that he was suffering from a medical emergency. Federal employees operating the hospital refused to treat White or to refill his oxygen tank because he was not Indian. He was in extreme respiratory distress. The complaint alleges that White's death was caused by the Cherokee Indian Hospital's |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The district courts then determined that the exemption was severable from the remainder of the statute. We describe the parties generally immunization conflicts with the religious tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination of which the parent or guardian is an adherent or member. The first group of parties consists of Arkansas schoolchildren who were excluded from school or threatened with exclusion from school for failure to receive immunization treatments for Hepatitis B. This decision will also be of understandable concern to those who previously enjoyed the immunization exemption as adherents or members of a recognized church or religious denomination. The recourse of both groups is to communicate their concerns to the Arkansas Legislature. For it is within the province of the legislature and not this Court to enact a religious exemption provision that comes within constitutional boundaries. Set forth a separate analysis to conclude that the religious beliefs exemption was unconstitutional and severable. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Mso hansi font family: |
||
![]() |
LUCERO V. TROSCH This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
BLACK V. SHHS |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Pizzuto was sentenced to death. Because Pizzuto filed his habeas petition before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was enacted. Regardless of when the petition was filed. Pizzuto needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Pizzuto could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Berta Herndon and her adult nephew Delbert Herndon were robbed and murdered and their property was stolen while they were camping in the Ruby Meadows area. The victims' hands were bound behind their backs with shoelaces and heavy wire. Berta's and Delbert's jeans were pulled below their knees. Were camping together that day in a cabin in the Ruby Meadows area. While they were at the pond. He picked up a .22 caliber rifle and said he was going |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Were on brief. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA or Act) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe criteria specifying when public water systems are |
||
![]() |
MCCLENDON V. GEORGIA DEP'T OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (8/17/2001, NO. 00-15005) Circuit Judge:
| ||
![]() |
UNIV. HEALTH SERV. V. HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > (1) The debt must be related to covered services and derived from deductible and coinsurance amounts.
(2) The provider must be able to establish that reasonable collection efforts were made.
(3) The debt was actually uncollectible when claimed as worthless.
(4) Sound business judgment established that there was no likelihood of recovery at any time in the future.
42 C.F.R. |
||
![]() |
LUCERO V. TROSCH This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > |
||
![]() |
MCCLENDON V. GEORGIA DEP'T OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (8/17/2001, NO. 00-15005) Circuit Judge:
| ||
![]() |
01-6065 -- ROGERS V. CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY -- 02/20/2002 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Diana Rogers is appealing the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants City County Health Department of Oklahoma County (Health Department). (3) plaintiff's state law claims against defendant Harris.
Plaintiff is a Hispanic female who was employed by the Health Department from 1991 until March 1999. Plaintiff was placed in an office area . That nothing was done to correct the situation. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Harris. When plaintiff was meeting with defendant Harris to discuss her problems with Carolyn Harris. Telling him she was happily married and that what he was doing was wrong. She also claimed she was constructively discharged from the Health Department. Summary judgment is appropriate |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. Honeycutt was convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action for the April 7. As he was being taken into custody. He told police that |
||
![]() |
00-6456 -- U.S. V. VANMETER -- 01/29/2002 VanMeter asserts the following: (1) the trial court should have suppressed wiretap communications obtained pursuant to a court order that included unlawful references to offenses not subject to wiretap investigation. (4) there was insufficient evidence the bribe in question was related to Oklahoma State Department of Health official business to sustain a conviction. Was responsible for overseeing Oklahoma's nursing homes. Were unable to discover the full extent of corruption. VanMeter was soliciting bribes. Judges may only authorize wiretaps where statutory requirements are met. Including a showing the wiretap is |
||
![]() |
UNIV. HEALTH SERV. V. HEALTH & HUMAN SERV. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > (1) The debt must be related to covered services and derived from deductible and coinsurance amounts.
(2) The provider must be able to establish that reasonable collection efforts were made.
(3) The debt was actually uncollectible when claimed as worthless.
(4) Sound business judgment established that there was no likelihood of recovery at any time in the future.
42 C.F.R. |
||
![]() |
FIORETTI V. MASS. GENERAL LIFE INS. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in this diversity action. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Scott argued the cause for petitioner. | ||
![]() |
SG LOEWENDICK & SONS V. OSHC |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The only facts before us are those alleged in the complaint itself. Diamond is the President of ASA and Division Director for General Surgery at Allegheny General. Magovern is the President of CTSA and Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Allegheny General. Magovern accused Brader of incompetence and of having improperly rendered trauma treatment to a patient who was on the call service of CTSA (Magovern's group) although the details of Magovern's displeasure are not spelled out in the complaint. It was opposed by Magovern. That Brader could not practice medicine at Allegheny General if he was not employed with ASA. Which Brader contends was not performed in accordance with Allegheny General's medical staff bylaws. In May 1990 after the study was completed. Brader alleges that Ochsner was a personal friend of Magovern. Brader contends that he was prevented from having an informal conference with Ochsner in violation of the medical staff bylaws. That Brader's mortality experience was not surprising or unexpected but recommended that his performance of ruptured AAA procedures should be supervised due to excessive morbidity. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. We set forth the facts as the jury could have found them in support of its verdict. SEPTA would have to pay substantial penalties. If the actual cost was 90% or less of that estimate. Pierce was responsible for monitoring those costs. John Doe is a SEPTA employee. Doe was HIV positive. Retrovir is a prescription drug used solely to treat HIV. If he or anyone else reviewed employee names in association with the drugs the employees were taking. He was never informed that this change might alter his confidentiality status. These reports were part of the contract between Rite Aid and SEPTA. This report listed employees who were filling prescriptions at a cost of $100 or more per employee in the past month. It was immediately apparent to Pierce that the reports would reveal employees' medications. Pierce stated that her purpose in reviewing the reports with Aufschauer was several fold. Some employees would purchase prescription drugs under the SEPTA health plan in order to give them to an ill friend or relative who was not covered by SEPTA's benefit package. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Rich ard Wasserstrom was on brief. Were on brief. Section 112(b)(3)(A) requires that EPA |
||
![]() |
FIORETTI V. MASS. GENERAL LIFE INS. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in this diversity action. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER 000 consisted of general educational loans whose dischargeability is governed by the Bankruptcy Code at 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8) (the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Rancho is a county hospital dedicated primarily to providing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative care. Is an acute care facility that provides a full range of hospital services. Challenging the district court's decision that plaintiffs have standing to sue and the court's issuance of an injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). County emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Creating what witnesses in this case have called an |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This case requires that we determine whether the Attorney General's consent is required before a private plaintiff may settle or otherwise dismiss an action under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act ( |
||
![]() |
AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION V. EPA Frye argued the cause for the petitioner. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs further alleged that after David returned to the emergency room the next day and was admitted to the hospital for inpatient care. Plaintiffs' remedies for David's alleged inadequate medical care were under state law. I. Factual and Procedural History David was a 17 year old boy who was severely disabled and had the mental capacity of a young child. He was unable to communicate with anyone other than close relatives. Rosenthal noticed that David was coughing up yellow phlegm. Was wheezing. Because David was agitated. The medical staff was not able to inject the full dosage of Rocephrin. As David and his family were preparing to leave for the hospital. He was transferred from the emergency room to a medical/surgical room. Because there were no beds available in the Intensive Care Unit. David was transferred to U.C. Plaintiffs do not contend that this emergency transfer to the Center was improper or a violation of EMTALA. David was released from U.C. |
||
![]() |
98-2265A -- WEITZ V. LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM INC. -- 05/31/2000 1991 |
||
![]() |
FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507) That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Line 1 the paragraph is changed to begin: When. There is no genuine issue of material fact. 1112 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Claiming that Ruth Rahija was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Holding that Rahija was deliberately indifferent to Coleman's serious medical needs and awarding Coleman $1. (4) Rahija's conduct was sufficiently callous to support an award of punitive damages. remaining issues. I. Background The factual background is primarily based on the findings of the district court. Was transferred from the Iowa Correctional Facility for Women in Mitchellville. Coleman was twenty eight years old and approximately She was transferred to IMCC to facilitate closer Rahija was a registered nurse employed by seven months pregnant. Coleman prematurely delivered twins who were either stillborn or died Of Coleman's subsequent four pregnancies. Examined Coleman and discovered that her cervix was one to two centimeters dilated. Coleman's obstetric history was |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. |
||
![]() |
FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507) That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.
| ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. The Coal Act is the end of a long line of attempts to finance health care benefits for coal workers. Were already receiving benefits under the NBCWAs. 26 U.S.C. § 9703(f). To continue those plans until they are no longer in business. The 1992 Benefit Plan provides coverage for those who would have been eligible under the Combined Fund but for its cut off date and those whose employers orphan them by going out of business. Patsy was located in Bluefield. Or until Patsy was no longer in business. Mailed a letter to Patsy's eligible retirees informing them that Patsy was no longer financially able to provide them with health benefits. Cox also wrote a letter to the UMW Fund which would assume responsibility for Patsy's retirees under the 1988 NBCWA that Patsy was discontinuing benefits. Cox was taking cash and other tangible assets out of the company. These dividends were not in cash. Which became effective shortly before suit was filed. The court held that Patsy was liable under the Coal Act for its retirees' benefits for the period beginning February 1. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER | ||
![]() |
97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998 We affirm.
Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER This is a class action on behalf of retired employees and surviving spouses of retired employees of Rockford Powertrain. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether RPI contractually was obligated to maintain retirement benefits for the life of its retirees and their surviving spouses. Further that RPI was not equitably estopped from modifying the benefits. The terms of the plan were described in a booklet entitled |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Their two minor children in this ERISA action.2 The district court determined that Hanna Steel was required to pay for a period of 18 months. Wright was excessive. There is no consistency among federal statutes. We will use the term |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The County's actions are alleged. By certain health care providers who have not received such funds. To have resulted in a denial of their due process and equal protection rights. Have used a series of tax levies. The most recent such Hamilton County Health and Hospitalization Tax Levy was approved by the voters in November 2001. Whereby tax levy funds designated for indigent patient health care services (amounting to approximately $42 million per year) are distributed through the University of Cincinnati to University Hospital (80 percent) and Children's Hospital (20 percent) in reimbursement for services rendered to the indigent and uninsured. Although the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The plaintiffs here are trustees of various employment benefit funds established by collective bargaining agreements between construction industry employer associations and unions representing their employees. Finding that the plaintiffs were equitably estopped from recovering fringe benefits under the circumstances of this case. Et al. 3 is not a case in which the parties have not had a chance to dispute facts material to the plaintiffs' claim. The undisputed facts show that the defendants have failed to make contributions to the trust funds in question according to the terms of valid collective bargaining agreements. We have examined the record below and find no merit to any of the defendants' asserted legal defenses to their duties under the agreements. Is due to the Trustees acting on behalf of the ERISA funds. All the elements of this circuit's common law test must have been established. Are contractors in the construction industry. The trustees of which are plaintiffs here. The defendants' business and personal bank accounts were garnished to satisfy the judgment. |
||
![]() |
PENN ALLEGH COAL V. HOLLAND, MICHAEL Green and David W. Allen were on the briefs. Woodrum was on the brief. Senior Judge: The trustees of a health benefit plan created by the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 claim that Penn Allegh Coal Company is obliged to pay premiums to the plan because it is responsible. Who was a disability pensioner. The employees of the members of the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association ( |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Inclusive individually defendants are sued in their official capacities. Rancho is a County hospital dedicated primarily to providing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative care to disabled individuals. Plaintiffs are current and future Medi Cal patients with special needs that require medical services offered at Rancho. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). I. Rancho one of six County hospitals is a 207 bed facility that specializes in rehabilitation and the acute care needs of patients with chronic diseases. BONTA inpatients and 58 percent of Rancho's outpatients are MediCal recipients.1 Rancho has served Los Angeles's homeless. Were invented at Rancho. Rancho was also the first facility to replace wood with plastic for prosthetic limbs. Rancho was becoming legendary for its occupational therapy. 865 Los Angeles area polio victims were treated at Rancho.2 In 2002. These services were also offered at other County facilities. Currently about 60 percent of Rancho's inpatients are transferred to Rancho from the other five County hospitals. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Bowman II. 20 1 In these appeals we are asked once again to interpret certain provisions of the agreement by which the parties to the Pulaski County. The question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated that agreement. These funds were separate from another. Separate appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance were no longer made. Was required to pay its own contributions for teacher retirement. (There were refinements and exceptions to this system. Our general description is sufficient for present purposes.). This new general fund was apportioned among the several districts in accordance with two main criteria: the number of pupils. This change was made in response to a decision of the Chancery Court of Pulaski County. Was that it affected. Are |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER An employee who leaves work to travel with and care for a family member with a serious health condition is not entitled to leave when the family member decides. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. We state all facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party and assume that all disputed facts are resolved in his favor. He was a union member and was covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Ruskin had a policy that required employees to call in if they were going to miss work. He will be dismissed. Gradilla was fired after an unfortunate confluence of events that occurred in October 1999. There is no contention that any of these injuries was either fraudulent or attributable to any negligence on Gradilla's part. 2 GRADILLA v. RUSKIN MANUFACTURING 2189 While he was filling out the necessary paperwork. Gradilla needed her husband to care for her during the trip because her father's death and funeral were stressful. His supervisor told him that he did not qualify for bereavement leave under the collective bargaining agreement because his father in law was not a member of his immediate family. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER We conclude that the appeal in this case is moot. While there are several small rural hospitals near Dubuque. The closest comparable hospitals to Mercy and Finley are regional hospitals located between 70 and 100 miles away in Waterloo. Mercy and Finley began pursuing a partnership which would have merged the two entities into Dubuque Regional Hospital Systems. While Finley was estimated to have 124 staffed beds and an average daily census of 63. Had between 25 and 99 licensed beds and an average daily census of between 3 and 12.4. 44 2 merger would have anticompetitive effects and denied the requested injunction. Key to the district court's conclusion was its finding that the United States had not proven that the relevant geographic market did not include the Regional hospitals. Then the court would have rejected Mercy's and Finley's argument that efficiencies stemming from the merger justified any anticompetitive effects. This Court described the relevant geographic market for antitrust purposes: The determination of the relevant market is a |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole. |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER The tobacco companies argue that this is a case of compelled subsidization of speech prohibited by the First Amendment. California counters that the advertisements are government speech entirely immune from First Amendment attack. The tobacco companies concede that (1) the imposition of the tax itself is not unconstitutional and (2) the message produced by the government's advertisements creates no First Amendment problem apart from its method of funding. The revenue generated by the surtax is placed in the |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Mata had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an Eighth Amendment claim and that defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Contending the district court erred when it determined there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning (1) whether Ms. Hough were deliberately indifferent to Ms. Saiz was deliberately indifferent to Ms. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows |
||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER Rendering LPNs supervisory employees who are not covered by the NLRA. I. The Home is a long term nursing home in Vineland. The Board held a representation hearing to address three questions: (1) whether the LPNs were already represented by another union. (2) whether the unit was appropriately limited to LPNs. (3) whether three of the LPNs were |
||
![]() |
UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361) We determine whether the owner and chief executive officer of a home healthcare provider properly was accorded a two level enhancement in her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust by submitting falsified Medicare claims to a fiscal intermediary. Because the two level enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust was improper. Was the owner. Health Care Financing Administration. | ||
![]() |
OPINION/ORDER With hi | ||