/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Did you mean Medicaid?

Your query medicaid returned 676 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Developmentally disabled Medicaid beneficiaries (
1000 PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)

If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.

The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a

1000 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 (
1000 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.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Schott's claims are not at issue in this appeal. The state agencies now appeal the determination that they are required to provide direct reimbursement for allowable services received during the retroactivecoverage period. I. BACKGROUND Medicaid is a joint federal­state program that provides health insurance for low income individuals. State participation in Medicaid is optional. Her application was initially denied. In December of 1995 the Saginaw County Circuit Court determined that Levy was eligible for Medicaid benefits for the period from August 1 to December 31. Between the initial denial of her application and the time that she was declared eligible for benefits. The district court held that otherwise eligible Medicaid recipients were entitled to direct reimbursement for out of pocket payments made for Medicaid covered services provided during the retroactive coverage period. The court deferred a ruling on Levy's motion for summary judgment regarding the expenses that she incurred during this period because it was uncertain whether she was otherwise eligible for Medicaid at the time she made her payments.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
If a medication is subsequently returned to a defendant pharmacy for resale. Requiring Medicaid provider pharmacies to credit Medicaid when a medication is returned for resale. Is disturbing. Quinn's failure to present evidence of the actual submission of a single false claim to Medicaid is fatal to this qui tam action. Were charged by Thomas Quinn with submitting false claims in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA). 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.1 Quinn Pompton is a Medicaid provider pharmacy that provides medications to individuals residing in long term care facilities. Pharmacy are also subsidiaries of Omnicare. Focused solely on Pompton's recycling and crediting practices because Quinn worked at Pompton and did not advance a theory of FCA liability against any other Omnicare subsidiary that was not advanced against Pompton. We too will focus solely on Pompton's recycling and crediting practices. 2 The complaint also named Alan Traster. East are the same entities. Cherry Hill Pharmacy and W inslow's 1 Approximately sixty percent of the medications that Pompton dispenses are paid for by New Jersey Medicaid.2 The remainder are paid for by the patients themselves or by private insurers.
1000 PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)

If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.

The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a

1000 03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004

Circuit Judge.

984 OPINION/ORDER
Participation by states in the Medicaid program is optional. An exception to this rule is the Medicaid waiver program. Under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to waive certain Medicaid requirements for innovative or experimental state health care programs. The state is only obligated to establish
969 OPINION/ORDER
969 00-1121 -- RAMEY V. REINERSTON -- 10/04/2001

As have other courts. That
967 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.
963 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
960 OPINION/ORDER
Was violating provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the
952 OPINION/ORDER
Caremark specifically challenges the district court's declaration that the Bureau of TennCare's third party claims for Medicaid reimbursement are not subject to certain
941 DOE V. BUSH (8/14/2001, NO. 99-14590)

The first appeal is from a contempt order entered on October 7. The second appeal is from a class certification order entered on February 11. There are a number of issues. All of which we will discuss in the course of this opinion. Suffice it to say that we have concluded that the district court's finding of contempt. Are due to be reversed. The case remanded to the district court which will then have an opportunity to more clearly define the obligations it intends to impose upon the defendants.

941 DOE V. BUSH (8/14/2001, NO. 99-14590)

The first appeal is from a contempt order entered on October 7. The second appeal is from a class certification order entered on February 11. There are a number of issues. All of which we will discuss in the course of this opinion. Suffice it to say that we have concluded that the district court's finding of contempt. Are due to be reversed. The case remanded to the district court which will then have an opportunity to more clearly define the obligations it intends to impose upon the defendants.

941 OPINION/ORDER
ODOM 3 cials to obtain (1) a declaratory judgment that dental screening and treatment services provided to minors in North Carolina under the Medicaid program are inadequate and fail to comply with the requirements of the Medicaid Act and (2) an injunction requiring the State officials to comply with the Medicaid Act by making dental screening and treatment promptly available. Who are minors. Allege in their complaint that they have been denied the dental care prescribed by Title XIX of the Social Security Act. They allege that they are unable to locate local dentists who are willing to treat them in exchange for Medicaid reimbursement. They assert that Medicaid beneficiaries in North Carolina generally must conduct extensive searches and travel long distances to locate and utilize the services of a dentist who will accept Medicaid reimbursement. That clinic was unable to provide ongoing care. She has had to have extensive dental care. Which was unable to provide dental services. Brooks has had to have four of his front teeth pulled and several of his remaining teeth capped.1 Because of their inability to receive adequate dental care.
941 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.
939 OPINION/ORDER
We have observed that
932 03-1074 -- HOUGHTON V. REINERTSON -- 08/24/2004

We reverse and remand with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Sellers.

I.

Medicaid is a cooperative federal state program authorized under Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965. See 42 U.S.C.

913 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.

911 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
900 TALLAHASSEE MEM'L REG'L MED. CTR. V. COOK

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is a Boren Amendment challenge under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/983521P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2000 9:54:01 AM </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/96-2227.opa.html">TALLAHASSEE MEM'L REG'L MED. CTR. V. COOK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is a Boren Amendment challenge under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5155a.html">MCCREARY MAURICE V. OFFNER, PAUL<BR></A><BR> Jr.</i> argued the cause for appellants. <p> With him on the briefs was <i>Allen V. With her on the brief were <i><p> Frank W. Were on the brief for <p> appellee Paul Offner.<p> <p> Before: Wald. Enrollment in Part A is <p> automatic. Part B is voluntary. Doctors and other health care providers are <p> not required to service Medicaid patients. 1396<i>o</i>. <p> State Medicaid rates for any given service are almost always <p> lower than the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011443.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are reserved to the States respectively. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5155a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19965144.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F5ADFBA60A012A188256B4B00155B57/$file/0055065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are providers of medical services to Medi Cal recipients. The California Department of Health Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50EB8ECDDADDFFDE88256B9D0079D4ED/$file/0055065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Is hereby AMENDED as follows: 1. Id. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19965144.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/96-5144.man.html">DOE V. CHILES (2/26/1998, NO. 96-5144)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/96-5144.man.html">DOE V. CHILES (2/26/1998, NO. 96-5144)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that officials of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were failing to furnish Medicaid assistance with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0233p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1237p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5029a.html">PHARM RSRCH MFTR V. THOMPSON, TOMMY G.<BR></A><BR> Snyder argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/01-5029a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/817B02275C9E3BC2882572E20057D770/$file/0435746.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We deal with what federal Medicaid restrictions apply to a state program providing medical benefits to persons who are not eligible for Medicaid. States do not have to participate in the federal Medicaid program. If a state chooses to expand coverage to needy people who are not eligible for Medicaid. Then the needy people who are not eligible for Medicaid are neverthe 5922 SPRY v. THOMPSON less regarded as though they were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011175.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 15 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5164a.html">N BROWARD HOSP DIST V. SHALALA DONNA E.<BR></A><BR> With her on the briefs were <i><p> Frank W. <p> the statute provides for a disproportionate share adjustment <p> for any hospital that<p> <p> is located in an urban area. 158. <p> The change to the present wording was made by a 1987 <p> amendment. <i>See</i> The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of <p> 1987 (OBRA). The single <p> issue is whether the 30% set forth in the provision is a <p> percentage of all net inpatient care revenues or whether it is <p> a percentage of net inpatient revenues <i>excluding</i> revenues <p> from Medicare and Medicaid. The question is <p> whether the antecedent of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1292.htm">00-1292 -- HARRIS V. OWENS -- 09/10/2001<BR></A><BR> The historic 1998 agreement between most of the states and the major tobacco companies was a milestone in the ongoing attempt to address this issue. It is perhaps not surprising that there has been considerable controversy about the status of the settlement funds. <p> In this case. After the state has reimbursed itself for the benefits it has paid out it must then turn over the excess funds attributed to the Medicaid settlement to the individuals whose claims were settled. <p> Contrary to a number of district courts that have considered similar cases. We hold that this suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint in this case. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5164a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIyNzctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2277-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> * 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIyNzctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2277-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> * 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR> 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.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR> 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.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/013774p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/013933.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion and judgment are being entered insofar as the remaining judges are unanimous in this decision. A class of Pennsylvania Medicaid recipients who have various smoking related illnesses. They assert 2 that pursuant to the provisions of S 1396k(b) they are individuals to whom the remainder of the amount collected should be paid. We will affirm that dismissal. Which they contend requires the Commonwealth to pay them whatever portion of the Tobacco Settlement is not used to reimburse the Commonwealth for its Medicaid expenses. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Because these claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. We will reverse only if. The plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Before plaintiffs can prevail in this suit they must demonstrate that the relief 3 they seek is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. We can consider whether there are alternative grounds. That it is appropriate to decide whether a statute permits a cause of action against a State before deciding whether the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/792C113C5EA2DF0588256CED005284F4/$file/0117512.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQxMDctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4107-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Introduction This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court 11 for the District of Connecticut (Underhill. Morenz is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94haynes.html">HAYNES AMBULANCE SERVICE V. ALABAMA HAYNES AMBULANCE SERVICE V. INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS OR ENTITIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO RECIPIENTS OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID BENEFITS AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO IN THIS COMPLAINT. THIS PAYMENT IS KNOWN AS PART B COINSURANCE. WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1291 AND. 838 F.SUPP. 243 (E.D.VA.1993) (FOLLOWING THE SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDING IN PERALES ). THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ALABAMA PLAN CAN. THUS EXPLAINS WHY THE ATTEMPT TO CAP PAYMENT AT THE MEDICAID RATE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE. SNIDER ADDRESSES EACH OF THE ARGUMENTS. (E)(I) FOR MAKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR MEDICARE COST SHARING (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1396D(P)(3) OF THIS TITLE) FOR QUALIFIED MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1396D(P)(1) OF THIS TITLE. THE MEDICARE COST SHARING WHICH THE QUOTED PORTION OF THE STATUTE REQUIRES A STATE TO PAY IS DEFINED IN 1396D(P)(3)."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94haynes.html">HAYNES AMBULANCE SERVICE V. ALABAMA HAYNES AMBULANCE SERVICE V. INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF PERSONS OR ENTITIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO RECIPIENTS OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID BENEFITS AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO IN THIS COMPLAINT. THIS PAYMENT IS KNOWN AS PART B COINSURANCE. WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1291 AND. 838 F.SUPP. 243 (E.D.VA.1993) (FOLLOWING THE SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDING IN PERALES ). THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ALABAMA PLAN CAN. THUS EXPLAINS WHY THE ATTEMPT TO CAP PAYMENT AT THE MEDICAID RATE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE. SNIDER ADDRESSES EACH OF THE ARGUMENTS. (E)(I) FOR MAKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR MEDICARE COST SHARING (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1396D(P)(3) OF THIS TITLE) FOR QUALIFIED MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1396D(P)(1) OF THIS TITLE. THE MEDICARE COST SHARING WHICH THE QUOTED PORTION OF THE STATUTE REQUIRES A STATE TO PAY IS DEFINED IN 1396D(P)(3)."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A95CF272053DC6E882570510054C594/$file/0415228.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether developmentally disabled recipients of Medicaid funds and their service providers have a private right of action against state officials to compel the enforcement of a federal law governing state disbursement of such funds. We are also asked to decide. Or are at risk of living in. State institutions because community based services are inadequately funded. All members of the class are entitled to services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-6861.opa.html">HARRIS V. JAMES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Alleging that Alabama's Medicaid plan was not in compliance with a federal regulation requiring State Medicaid plans to ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. Because the State does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the plan was not in compliance with the regulation. We wrote:<p> Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. <p> <p> (a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. And<p> <p> (b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.<p> <p> 42 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/033377P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6002.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that Oklahoma is not acting contrary to Congressional intent. I Reames is a 51 year old disabled inhabitant of an Oklahoma nursing home whose only income is from monthly Social Security Disability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-6861.opa.html">HARRIS V. JAMES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Alleging that Alabama's Medicaid plan was not in compliance with a federal regulation requiring State Medicaid plans to ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. Because the State does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the plan was not in compliance with the regulation. We wrote:<p> Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. <p> <p> (a) Specify that the Medicaid agency will ensure necessary transportation for recipients to and from providers. And<p> <p> (b) Describe the methods that the agency will use to meet this requirement.<p> <p> 42 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1F54949BF4B57E18825707A004E0DEA/$file/0474204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0247p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/99-11034.opn.html">WOLF PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/99-11034.opn.html">WOLF PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11034.opn.html">PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11034.opn.html">PRADO-STEIMAN V. JEB BUSH (8/11/2000, NO. 99-11034)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1939.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC9E6FCE60171BBD88256FB80059D3AB/$file/0335612.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Only expenditures made under an approved state plan are eligible for matching federal payments. States have considerable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/973113P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3935.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging violations of the Medicaid Act based on the State of Indiana's failure to provide long term residential treatment in psychiatric 1 The district court certified a class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0104p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031015P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 3 1 We affirm the district court's ruling that ADHS may not alter the CHMS program until it conducts an impact study to ensure that the changes are consistent with the principles of economy. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was not a party to the suit below. The district court ordered it to continue to subsidize the services that ADHS was providing. BACKGROUND Much of the historical background to this case was detailed in our prior decision. While participation in Medicaid is voluntary. That such services were currently provided under the CHMS program. Our court agreed that children are entitled to day treatment under the Medicaid Act. It was sufficient that ADHS continue to provide CHMS like services when prescribed by a physician. Since ADHS had done nothing to 3 42 U.S.C §§ 1396 1396v. 5 determine the effect that terminating elements of the CHMS program would have on these principles. ADHS notes that this issue was not remanded to the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3657.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032313np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Scherfel argues that the government was charged for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc.</SPAN> 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.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3481_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant was indicted for defrauding Indiana Medicaid. The government's case centered on three independent methods that Davis used to get Indiana Medicaid to pay for procedures that they might not otherwise have paid: he billed for services that were actually provided by other people (substitute billing). He challenges whether one of the three charged methods of fraud substitute billing was actually pro 2 No. 05 3481 hibited. I. HISTORY Davis is a psychologist who operated two clinics in Indiana. He was licensed as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1604OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0791n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monroe Counties ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/995024.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That thereafter while it was contemplating the amendment's adoption. In which it indicated that in its discretion it was determining the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-7239a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1BBF21077D855F888256C72007840B0/$file/0115297.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawaii will receive approximately $1.38 billion over the next 25 years. The plaintiffs are Medicaid recipients1 who suffer from smoking related illnesses. The State of Hawaii is required by 42 U.S.C. § 1396k(b) to distribute that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6066.htm">01-6066 -- EVANS V. FOGARTY -- 08/21/2002<BR></A><BR> Irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied. (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. <p> <u>Kikumura v. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the right to relief is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/013971P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background CHMS is the health care model that Arkansas currently uses to provide early intervention diagnostic and therapy services to Medicaid eligible children between the ages of six months and six years in order to help make them ready for school. It is designed to serve children who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D6C066EBF6660308825710E007B92EC/$file/0435704.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are seniors and disabled individuals. We have jurisdiction under 28 1514 WATSON v. The district court is thus affirmed in part. The Medicaid Framework Medicaid is a cooperative Federal State program with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1849.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1410.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024078.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller argued that the proper measure of loss for sentencing purposes was the difference between the amount he actually received from Medicare and Medicaid and the amount to which he was legitimately entitled for the services he rendered. The offense level based on the estimated loss should therefore have been increased by four levels. The Government conceded that some of Miller's objections to the PSR were reasonable and that the defense expert's loss estimate was based on better data than the PSR. The Government argued that the proper formula for calculating loss was the difference between the amount Miller billed (rather than the amount he actually received) and the amount to which he was legitimately entitled. Most generous estimate of the amount of money to which he was entitled. The court held that the total loss amount was between $73. The Guidelines limit intended loss to the amount of loss that was likely. The loss calculated by the district court was not likely. The district court held that the amount of loss was the total amount claimed on the false vouchers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1148.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That neither recipients nor providers have a private right to enforce the sufficient payments requirement through 1983. I. Factual and Procedural Background This suit was brought in August 2000 by six persons. The six individual plaintiffs are developmentally disabled persons who are on waiting lists for comprehensive residential services. These services are provided by public and private entities. Which are paid by the State. Which is in turn reimbursed for about half of the costs by the federal government through Medicaid. An Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR) is an institutional setting. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0139p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2064.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGovern's sentence was enhanced for obstruction of justice. We reject this argument on the grounds that the Medicare and Medicaid audits had an adequate link to the ensuing criminal proceedings and so were during the course of the investigation of the offense of conviction.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4193_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Memorial is a hospital located in Belleville. It is licensed to provide health care services. The Medicaid program is a program jointly funded by the states and the federal government. It provides medical assistance to individuals and families whose resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services. Ark. 2002) (noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/031721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is about Temporary Medical Assistance. Are members of a class. Under a provision of what was popularly known as the Welfare Reform Bill. Plaintiffs are ineligible for Medicaid benefits unless they qualify under transitional provisions now found in Sections 1925 and 1931 of the Social Security Act. Plaintiffs' claim is likely to succeed under the plain meaning of the relevant statutes. After such proceedings as are necessary to put the case in a position for final decision. The principal federally funded public assistance program in this country was called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). States do not have to participate in Medicaid. Was that persons receiving AFDC would also be eligible for Medicaid. States were permitted. This regime was fundamentally changed in 1996 by the enactment of welfarereform legislation that ended the AFDC program and made other important changes in federal assistance to the needy. This enactment was called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0580n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norwest Bank appeals from an order in which the district court concluded that it was responsible for the 2003 real estate taxes covering a nursing home purchased by Extendicare Health Services. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4222.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were indicted on charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud. The alleged fraud involved billing for services that were not provided (ghost billing). Overstating what services were provided (upcoding). After one of the mail fraud counts was dismissed. A new trial was ordered for all but these two counts. Mitrione was sentenced to a term of 23 months and DeVore to 15 months. Restitution for each was set at $11. We will mention only those that have arguable merit. Are presented in the light most favorable to the verdict. Who was his assistant at the time. CPTs are listed in a book of codes used for medical billing which is published by the American Medical Association. The handbook for physicians provided: The provision of psychiatric services is limited . . . and must be personally provided by the physician who submits charges. Etc. are not reimbursable. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-15005.man.html">MCCLENDON V. GEORGIA DEP'T OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (8/17/2001, NO. 00-15005)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/013888P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-5192.htm">02-5192 -- FISHER V. OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY -- 07/15/2003<BR></A><BR> 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. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-15005.man.html">MCCLENDON V. GEORGIA DEP'T OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (8/17/2001, NO. 00-15005)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/051668P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that ADHS violated the procedural due process rights of the plaintiffs by attempting to change the CHMS program without first conducting a study about the effect such a change would have on the efficiency. We held that ADHS's attempt to move CHMS services </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/993262P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was born with the physiology of a female. Equates with what is popularly known as transsexualism. Has determined that sex reassignment surgery (essentially a transition from female to male physical features) is the necessary treatment for Smith. Which is a phalloplasty. We will refer to Smith. C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition. That surgical procedures are not covered. That were medically necessary for diagnosed conditions other than his gender identity disorder. Medicaid is a federal state program through which the federal government provides funds for the provision of health care services to needy individuals through the participation of the states. States are not required to participate in the Medicaid program. It does require that state Medicaid plans establish `reasonable standards . . . for determining . . . the extent of medical assistance under the plan which . . . are consistent with the objectives of [the Medicaid Act].' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5013a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those hospitals which serve an unusually high number of Medicaid patients are entitled to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-2154.htm">00-2154 -- LEWIS V. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH -- 08/16/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90ED0685C5E977DC88256EF5007FDC99/$file/0217278.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The resulting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4070.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taj Becker is a medical doctor in St. She was investigated by Utah's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) for alleged billing irregularities. Those charges were later dismissed by state prosecutors concerned about the methods MFCU used to obtain records and assess Becker's billing practices. (1) This Cross Appeal raises no issues not implicated by the Appellant's brief. (2) The Honorable Claire V. Sitting by designation. <hr> After the charges were dismissed. Alleging that the MFCU investigation was a sham to force her to pay civil penalties to avoid criminal prosecution. Her lawsuit was based on several federal and state theories. I. Factual Background Becker is a board certified neurologist practicing in St. The MFCU investigation centered on a suspicion that Becker </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5013a.html">STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL V. TOMMY THOMPSON<BR></A><BR> Ar gued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0143p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of scheming to defraud private health insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid. Defendant was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment. Defendant argues: (1) the jury's conviction as to all counts should be reversed because defendant alleges there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Defendant's Medical Practice Defendant is a physician who owned and operated two clinics in 1997. Defendant became an employee of MAHC and was issued one sixth of the shares of stock in MAHC. The billing for both clinics was done at the McKee clinic. All billing for the six MAHC clinics was performed by an outside billing service. One type of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0328a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of scheming to defraud private health insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid. Defendant was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment. Defendant argues: (1) the jury's conviction as to all counts should be reversed because Defendant alleges there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Defendant's Medical Practice Defendant is a physician who owned and operated two clinics in 1997. Defendant became an employee of MAHC and was issued one sixth of the shares of stock in MAHC. The billing for both clinics was done at the McKee clinic. All billing for the six MAHC clinics was performed by an outside billing service. One type of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1895.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-1560.htm">99-1560 -- KEITH V. RIZZUTO -- 05/15/2000<BR></A><BR> He suffers from dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease and is expected to require extensive care for the remainder of his life. The average cost of nursing home care was $3034 per month. The Department determined that his income trust was invalid under Colorado law. That he therefore was ineligible for Medicaid. <p> Appellant filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4000_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Explaining that 2 No. 04 4000 Crews did not point to any particular claim that was false. Approximately 60% of the nursing home patients were on Illinois Medicaid. Illinois Medicaid is jointly funded by the State of Illinois and the Social Security Administration. Prescriptions were typically filled by a machine. Was not perfect. NCS was violating state law. NCS was violating state and federal law by mixing together pills with different expiration dates. The storage of the pills was improper. As was the label on the final packages. The pharmacy was raided by law enforcement personnel pursuant to a search warrant. Connell was sentenced to prison while NCS was ordered to pay $200. It is unclear from the record what new or additional information. Summary judgment is appropriate if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs relied almost exclusively on Medicaid (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their private clinics were among many publicly funded facilities that offered such services. Which are typically paid more than private providers for the same services. Dana Brown ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-8870.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PEDRICK (7/22/1999, NO. 98-8870)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Pedrick was tried jointly with co defendant Andrew Shankman. Pedrick and Shankman were charged jointly with one count of conspiracy to defraud Medicare. Shankman alone was subject to ten counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 91 to 100) and twenty five counts of money laundering to promote the scheme to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (Counts 101 to 125).</P> <P> Shankman was a psychiatrist who owned and operated Shankman/Davidson Psychiatric Management. Along with co defendant Thomas Davidson.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4191A0541D6B3B1388256E5A00707C2D/$file/9957009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: We are again confronted1 with the failure of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5455a.html">USA V. KRIZEK GEORGE<BR></A><BR> Were on the briefs.</P> <P> Jeffrey Bossert Clark argued the cause for appellees/cross </P> <P>appellants. With him on the briefs was Karen N. Because it was impossible to identify </P> <P>precisely which claims were fraudulent. His wife Blanka functioned as his secretary and was </P> <P>responsible for his billing. Krizek could not have spent the </P> <P>requisite time providing services.... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1901.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy</SPAN> was on the brief for appellant.<SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5110a.html">PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA V. TOMMY THOMSON<BR></A><BR> Jr. argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3030a.html">U.S. V. DENISE BRAXTONBROWN-SMITH<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/02-5110a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/02-5110b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/713E472C8ADA430088256AA1005C2341/$file/9957009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: We are again confronted1 with the failure of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2570-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-8870.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PEDRICK (7/22/1999, NO. 98-8870)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Pedrick was tried jointly with co defendant Andrew Shankman. Pedrick and Shankman were charged jointly with one count of conspiracy to defraud Medicare. Shankman alone was subject to ten counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 91 to 100) and twenty five counts of money laundering to promote the scheme to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (Counts 101 to 125).</P> <P> Shankman was a psychiatrist who owned and operated Shankman/Davidson Psychiatric Management. Along with co defendant Thomas Davidson.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0104n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts are amply presented in the Ohio Court of Appeals decision. Are incorporated by reference here. Petitioner Edward Urban operated a family medical practice and was licensed to treat persons covered by Medicaid. He was charged with Medicaid fraud under Ohio Rev. For billing for services provided by an LPN that were not payable under Medicaid unless provided by a physician. Urban was also charged with tampering with evidence in violation of Ohio Rev. Urban was convicted by a jury of two counts of felony Medicaid fraud. Urban was originally sentenced on January 25. Was granted a modification of sentence on November 5. An application for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner shall not be granted unless the state court decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6E0E59235A16C028825709900654D82/$file/0335605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 99 05577 FDB ORDER AND OPINION *Dennis Braddock is substituted for his predecessor. Concurrence by Judge Fernandez **Christine Gregoire is substituted for her predecessor. ORDER The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot. Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Opinion and concurrence. Further petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc will be accepted. Facts Medicaid is a program under which the federal government provides financial assistance to participating states to help them furnish care to low income persons. Which are generally large public institutions made available to any person who meets the eligibility requirements for admission. That waiver program is known as the Home and Community Based Services waiver (HCBS).1 HCBS provides a variety of noninstitutional care options for qualified persons. Enabling them to remain more integrated in the community than if they were institutionalized. Central to the question presented to us is the limitation on HCBS services to a particular number of individuals 9. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0409p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-6142.htm">02-6142 -- BARTLETT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER V. THOMPSON -- 10/20/2003<BR></A><BR> 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. <p> 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.<strong></strong> <ol> <li><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></li> </ol> <p> Plaintiffs are or operate Oklahoma for profit. Is the agency of HHS responsible for administering the Medicare program. <p> Some of the hospital services provided by Plaintiffs are covered by Medicare. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-3030a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was A. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Her principal contention is that the government failed to prove. Who were assigned to the centers by the Mental Retardation and Devel opmentally Disabled Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971049.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the appeal was pending. The agreement purported to permit the State to maintain an appeal as to whether the Bureau must submit its requirement of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/052791P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The class contends that they are eligible for temporary medical assistance (TMA) benefits described in 42 U.S.C. § 1396r 6. Which provides up to one year of transitional medical coverage to certain categories of people who have lost Medicaid because of an increase in the amount of their earned income. Arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the class members were entitled to TMA benefits. TMA is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1730A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> May be sued for violations of the ADA and that the state is immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3705_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Christopher Bertrand and Frank Patterson are developmentally disabled adults who want residential habilitation services under the Medicaid program in Illinois. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-6308.htm">98-6308 -- U.S. V. FRIESEN -- 10/18/1999<BR></A><BR> She further contends that her guilty plea must be vacated because it was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. She alleges for the first time on appeal that her guilty plea was taken in violation of Fed. Carol Friesen was charged with nineteen counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21753C0F7FCAA0E088256FD300016AD5/$file/0335605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 99 05577 FDB OPINION *Dennis Braddock is substituted for his predecessor. Opinion by Judge Fernandez **Christine Gregoire is substituted for her predecessor. 42 U.S.C. § 12132) is violated by a restriction on the number of people who can participate in the special Medicaid waiver program that provides for alternatives other than institutionalization for developmentally disabled people. 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c). BRADDOCK 3797 BACKGROUND Medicaid is a program under which the federal government provides financial assistance to participating states to help them furnish care to low income persons. Which all 50 have. Which are generally large public institutions that are made available to any person who meets the eligibility requirements for admission. That waiver program was known as the Home and CommunityBased Services waiver (HCBS). Central to the question presented to us is the HCBS limitation of its special services to a particular number of individuals 9. 977 when this action was filed. Such a limitation is expressly contemplated by the Medicaid waiver provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5455a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. With him on the briefs was Karen N. Because it was impossible to identify precisely which claims were fraudulent. His wife Blanka functioned as his secretary and was responsible for his billing. Krizek could not have spent the requisite time providing services.... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50507-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. Who are both medical professionals. Consultants from both Deloitte and Medicaid Solutions alerted local school districts to the opportunity to gain reimbursement through Medicaid for health services that the districts were already providing. The district court concluded that any action arising out of NHIC's role as a Medicaid fiscal intermediary is barred by Texas's Eleventh Amendment immunity. Tangipahoa Parish Council Presidential Gov't.2 In order to determine whether the district court properly concluded that NHIC is an arm of the state and thus entitled to sovereign immunity from this damages action. Whether the entity is concerned primarily with local as opposed to statewide. City of New Orleans.3 This Clark test seeks to determine </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1254.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-9557.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MCCLENDON (10/6/1999, NO. 98-9557)<BR></A><BR> Pled guilty to conspiring to commit Medicaid fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 and was sentenced to seventy eight months' incarceration. HRIC was advertised to parents of Medicaid eligible children as an after school or summer program offering assistance with homework. Payment is only permitted for psychotherapy services provided by a physician. None of whom was a physician. McClendon frequently billed Medicaid for psychotherapy allegedly provided when children were either absent or on a field trip. When McClendon himself was out of the country.</P> <P> During the fourteen month period covered by the indictment. Medicaid was billed approximately $8. Payment was made through checks payable to McClendon or one of his businesses. 000 to Fletcher and/or HRIC in this manner.</P> <P> Some of the proceeds transferred to HRIC were then deposited into an HRIC cash management account with Merrill Lynch. Monies were transferred into a Merrill Lynch account in McClendon's name. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2DC2AF1C268A46E388256D95005CC9AD/$file/0215057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4148.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL and COURTNEY MORTON. Relators Will and Courtney Morton appeal the dismissal of a qui tam action brought by them against A Plus Benefits. FCA qui tam provisions </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-9013.htm">01-9013 -- IHC HEALTH PLAN, INC V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/09/2003<BR></A><BR> Will &. We have jurisdiction to review the Tax Court's decision under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6662FBE72165A60E88256E3100792791/$file/0215057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-9557.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MCCLENDON (10/6/1999, NO. 98-9557)<BR></A><BR> Pled guilty to conspiring to commit Medicaid fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 and was sentenced to seventy eight months' incarceration. HRIC was advertised to parents of Medicaid eligible children as an after school or summer program offering assistance with homework. Payment is only permitted for psychotherapy services provided by a physician. None of whom was a physician. McClendon frequently billed Medicaid for psychotherapy allegedly provided when children were either absent or on a field trip. When McClendon himself was out of the country.</P> <P> During the fourteen month period covered by the indictment. Medicaid was billed approximately $8. Payment was made through checks payable to McClendon or one of his businesses. 000 to Fletcher and/or HRIC in this manner.</P> <P> Some of the proceeds transferred to HRIC were then deposited into an HRIC cash management account with Merrill Lynch. Monies were transferred into a Merrill Lynch account in McClendon's name. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/051115P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0322p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-6861.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D3D92C93F0B5E9088256C2B004F61E0/$file/9816545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 $2. The State extended medical and dental benefits to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E06981E462F2C6E88256E31005DCB30/$file/0355765.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-6861.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0299p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jones is employed by the Salvation Army Harbor Light ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964813.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7EDE098B3F82C55688256C3F0075ECB9/$file/0155359.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were employed by the California Department of Health Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3254.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provides that the rights of an assignee of an account debtor </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-11955.man.html">MURRAY V. AUSLANDER (3/13/2001, NO. 00-11955)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-3181.htm">96-3181 -- COPELAND V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S. INC. -- 02/17/1998<BR></A><BR> </strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/96-2278.htm">96-2278 -- K.L. V. VALDEZ -- 08/12/1999<BR></A><BR> Sixteen mentally or developmentally disabled children who are or were in the custody of the state of New Mexico. Brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that defendants have failed to provide protections and therapeutic services required by federal statutes and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprised of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/96-2227.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051206P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Nathaniel Richmond was injured in an automobile accident and treated at BJH in June 2001. Each time Albright informed BJH that Richmond was attempting to settle the personal injury action and asked BJH to call him back in a few weeks. It is undisputed that Higgins is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-7058a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert R. With him on the brief were Kelly Bagby and Joseph B. With her on the brief was Bill Lann Lee. We agree with appellant that the fine was a criminal sanction that could not be imposed without a criminal trial. Named as defendants were the Mayor and four other District officials (collectively. It requires the District to place specified numbers of Forest Haven residents in community institutions and to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031226p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are a class of mentally retarded adults in need of medical services from an intermediate care facility for persons with mental retardation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/96-2227.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-11955.man.html">MURRAY V. AUSLANDER (3/13/2001, NO. 00-11955)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972588.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983153P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alexander and her son are plaintiffs. Alexander's son was a resident of a group home operated by Pathfinder. The district court dismissed all of the claims on the grounds that they were precluded by the administrative hearing. All matters that were or could have been considered at the administrative hearing were precluded. Alexander previously that he was qualified. Because these acts were in retaliation for her original lawsuit. Alexander reasserted various state law claims from her original complaint that we held were not precluded. This new claim was based. Alexander was allegedly locked out of the Pathfinder facility and was denied additional medication. All deny that they are proper defendants in this case. Alexander was definitely discharged from the Pathfinder group home. He was denied admission to the workshop. No reason for the denial was given. Alexander was discharged because Pathfinder no longer received Medicaid funds for Mr. Pathfinder is a private corporation and the fact that it receives Medicaid funds does not convert it into a state actor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-3172a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTYwNjgtY3Zfc28ucGRm/04-6068-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-3341.htm">98-3341 -- STATE OF KANSAS V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- 06/01/2000<BR></A><BR> The new program consists of federal block grants that are distributed to states. They are required to work toward program goals. These databases are regularly matched against one another and against a Federal Case Registry and National Directory of New Hires. States are not required to participate in the IV D program. (3)(B).<em> </em> <p> <em><center><strong></em>II<em></strong></center> </em> <p> <em> </em>Kansas argues that the amended IV D program requirements are too onerous and expensive. Kansas contends it is being coerced into implementing the program requirements in violation of two provisions of the United States Constitution. 8 and the Tenth Amendment.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052082p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Intermediaries contract with the Secretary to determine the amounts due and are bound by the Secretary's regulations and interpretive rules. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1423.html">NATIONAL CENTER V. U.S.A.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5400a.html">MODDERNO MARSHA V. KING, JAMES B.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. We hold that a district court does not retain supplemental enforcement jurisdiction over a settlement after granting a Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) motion unless the parties either have agreed to incorporate the terms of the settlement into the dismissal order or have executed a stipulation authorizing the court to retain jurisdiction over the implementation of the settlement. Claiming that the Department was in violation of the Medicaid Act and in breach of contract. The case was assigned to Judge Fusté. That it was contemplating a motion for voluntary dismissal. He stated that how to terminate the case was up to the parties. The second was a motion for voluntary dismissal. Both the order and the judgment were promulgated on August 17. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/943067P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-4023.htm">01-4023 -- VILLAGRANA V. GRAHAM -- 03/06/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Linda K. Because plaintiff Villagrana's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff Malm's claims are foreclosed by our decision in <em>Harris v. The State's lawsuit was part of a wave of litigation brought by the various states against tobacco companies. The states will receive payments from the tobacco companies over several decades. <em>Id.</em> at 175 191. <p> In November 1999. The plaintiffs argued that they should be permitted to intervene into the tobacco litigation because the class they represented was entitled to part of the MSA proceeds. Holding that the motion was untimely and that plaintiffs were barred from suing the State by the Eleventh Amendment. <em>See</em> <em>id.</em> at 259 67. Plaintiffs Villagrana and Malm are smokers who received Medicaid benefits through the State for smoking related illnesses. Holding that the MSA did not settle any individual claims and therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to any portion of the settlement proceeds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1284.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Will &. Emery</SPAN> were on brief. This timely appeal ensued.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B97D5C369DDFA424882573480056ED67/$file/0536065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031584P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Julia Bazazzadegan were charged with various counts involving a home health care fraud scheme. Dupont pled guilty and seeks to have his plea set aside for failure of consideration. Claiming improper joinder and that her motion for acquittal should have been granted. Physicians are required to certify that certain individuals are considered homebound and require home health care. Were alleged to have conspired with the doctors to fraudulently certify patients as requiring home health care. Patients are assessed by case managers who visit residential care facilities. The government alleged defendants submitted false applications for payment for services on dates when the patients were in the hospital and therefore not receiving the personal care services. Jr. was charged with ten counts. Dupont's counsel also believed dismissal 3 of all charges against Liveoak was a term of the agreement. B. Kelley Liveoak Appellant Kelley Liveoak was charged in Counts One and Nine. Trobaugh was charged in Counts Two. When they were allegedly not homebound. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/005172.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001360.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/99-15197.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WHITESIDE (3/22/2002, NO. 99-15197)<BR></A><BR> 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</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-6299.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CENTURY HEALTHCARE CORP.<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This provision bars qui tam suits that are based upon allegations of fraud already publicly disclosed. Because we conclude plaintiff's suit was not based upon publicly disclosed information. She was employed as a consultant to. It was her responsibility to monitor compliance with applicable Medicaid requirements. The defendants continued to submit noncomplying claims to the government that ultimately were paid by Medicaid. Only three copies of the Hughes Report were made: one copy was given to the DHS programs administrator. A second copy was provided to the defendants. No copies of the Hughes Report were released to the general public. Nor was this report available to the public except upon a written request for the specific record and approval from the DHS legal department. Because Congress sought to achieve </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0243n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/032292p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1207.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Douglas C. With him on the brief were Peter D. As that boundary is understood in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. The other defendants are the Federal Housing Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944608.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Later was discharged. Peterson contends that the jury's verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The facts are as follows. a pretrial detainee at the Palm Beach Brian Peterson was Stockade (the County </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/041372P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (PTS) and two of its employees were convicted by a jury for filing false Medicare and Medicaid claims. PTS is an Arkansas company owned by Donald Wise that provides ambulance transport services. Is a licensed paramedic who worked as the general manager of PTS. In that capacity Kevin Wise was in charge of all personnel and oversaw billing procedures. Shirley Wallace is the cousin of these two brothers. She was the office manager and supervised the billing clerks who filed claims with Medicare and Medicaid. In advance of each transport Wallace prepared a transfer form which stated that the patient was confined to bed and could only be moved by stretcher to and from the hospital. The transfer form was given to the paramedics operating the ambulance. After the patients were transported. PTS was The government investigated PTS and uncovered evidence that these patients had not been confined to bed. Medical personnel from the treatment centers testified that each of these twelve patients could have been transported to and from the centers by other means without endangering their health. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915197.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416167.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a qui tam action brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by a physician. The questions lying at the heart of this appeal are whether the complaint's allegations of fraud have been made with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3625.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Placing an elderly parent in a nursing home is a trying experience under the best of circumstances. The industry is highly regulated and the customers are often anxious and unhappy about the need for nursing home services. When a customer believes he has been defrauded and the proprietors of the establishment have been accused not just of fraud but racketeering. No such luck here: the parties and their attorneys have chosen the scorched earth model of litigation. The briefs on appeal do little to untangle the mess the parties have made of the case. This is the second time we have reviewed a district court's grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff in this civil RICO action. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff is still unable to produce enough evidence to demonstrate a viable RICO claim against the defendants here. The defendants have cross appealed. Nos. 01 3625 & 01 3642 I. 3 We will assume familiarity with our first opinion in this matter and repeat only what is necessary to the resolution of this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/99-15197.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WHITESIDE (3/22/2002, NO. 99-15197)<BR></A><BR> 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</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022076.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0286n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Batavia Nursing & Convalescent Center is a nursing home facility that was assessed a civil monetary penalty by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Which is the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services charged with enforcing Medicare/Medicaid participation standards. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-9459.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILLIARD (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9459)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it excluded evidence of a polygraph examination offered into evidence by Appellant Fred Emerson Gilliard. While he was chief executive officer of Penn Teck Diagnostics. Honts is an associate professor of psychology at Boise State University whose training is in psychophysiology. While you were employed by Penn Teck. When the incorrect billings were filed with Medicare or Medicaid. Did you know that they were incorrect?</P> <P> 3. While you were employed by Penn Teck. Were the incorrect billings to Medicare and Medicaid made unintentionally?</P> <P>Gilliard denied any wrongdoing. Concluded that the results indicated that Gilliard was not being deceptive when he answered the relevant questions. Polygraph evidence is no longer per se inadmissible. </EM> the district court sustained the Government's objection and held that the Honts Polygraph evidence was inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702. </EM> polygraph evidence was per se inadmissible in this Circuit. <EM>Piccinonna. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-3209.htm">98-3209 -- U.S. V. SPECTRUM EMERGENCY CARE INC. -- 09/07/1999<BR></A><BR> The Act also contains jurisdictional limits on those who may bring <em>qui tam</em> actions and it specifically bars all <em>qui tam</em> suits based upon publicly disclosed information unless the person bringing the action is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1282.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>John H. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Eric D. Britell ( Britell ) in this Little Tucker Act case seeking reimbursement for the cost of an abortion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The district court ruled<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>that 10 U.S.C. § 1093(a) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution under a rational basis review because its ban on funding abortions could not be justified on the basis of the state s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1734p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062115P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Horras is the founder. Christine Richards is Hawkeye's former Director of Finance. Its headquarters were Horras's basement. There were more than 500 employees and seven branch offices across Iowa (in addition to Knoxville home office). Her supervisor was a Director of Finance who left in July 1993. The IG alleged that Horras </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-2159.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. JARAMILLO<BR></A><BR> Jaramillo moved for a new trial on the ground that there were exhibits in the jury room during deliberations that had not been admitted into evidence. The trial court found that the loss to the government was $12. BACKGROUND Jaramillo was a psychiatrist licensed in Albuquerque. Jaramillo was also a staff psychiatrist and part owner of Memorial Hospital. He was not licensed to practice medicine in the United States because he had failed the foreign medical graduates examination more than twenty times. CHAMPUS are federally funded health insurance programs. Jaramillo was permitted to submit claims to these programs because he. Was an authorized provider of services. Who was not licensed to practice medicine. Was not an authorized provider. The regulations did not permit Jaramillo to bill for services provided by Meyerowitz if Jaramillo was absent from his office or the hospital. Jaramillo was not in Albuquerque. (4) the use of videotapes in English which were shown to Spanish speaking patients. The government argued that this evidence was directly relevant to the conspiracy count and to Jaramillo's knowledge and intent on all counts under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1157_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The 1 Because seven of the eight facilities that were the subject of the original complaint were located in Indiana. Venue in the Southern District of Indiana was proper. Referred to in the lease as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/961736P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is undisputed that the DHS had informal monitoring procedures in effect to evaluate the operation of its Medicaid program and to gauge the adequacy of its reimbursement rates. Actively participated in the 1993 legislative session during which the rate change was considered such that concerns of efficiency. Access to services were before the Legislature when it determined to raise the home health care reimbursement rates by three percent. We conclude that summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendant. Although I agree that appellants have insufficient evidence DHS violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30). I write separately because I do not believe appellants have stated a claim under § 1983. is premised on Wilder v. Created an enforceable right </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-9459.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILLIARD (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9459)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it excluded evidence of a polygraph examination offered into evidence by Appellant Fred Emerson Gilliard. While he was chief executive officer of Penn Teck Diagnostics. Honts is an associate professor of psychology at Boise State University whose training is in psychophysiology. While you were employed by Penn Teck. When the incorrect billings were filed with Medicare or Medicaid. Did you know that they were incorrect?</P> <P> 3. While you were employed by Penn Teck. Were the incorrect billings to Medicare and Medicaid made unintentionally?</P> <P>Gilliard denied any wrongdoing. Concluded that the results indicated that Gilliard was not being deceptive when he answered the relevant questions. Polygraph evidence is no longer per se inadmissible. </EM> the district court sustained the Government's objection and held that the Honts Polygraph evidence was inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702. </EM> polygraph evidence was per se inadmissible in this Circuit. <EM>Piccinonna. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1763.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will &. Alvarez LLP</U> were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P></UL> <P> <TABLE> <TR> <TD VALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2136.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. She did not complete it because she believed that by signing the application she would automatically assign her rights and her children's rights to parental support to the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. After one of Appellant's children was in need of dental care. Appellant claims that she was misled by employees of state agencies to believe that federal law required an assignment of her rights to all child and parental support before she could apply for Medicaid benefits. The district court dismissed some of Appellant's claims against the Human Services Department because claims brought against states under these statutes are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and because the state of New Mexico had not otherwise consented to suit. The court emphasized that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-8096.htm">02-8096 -- HIGH COUNTRY HOME HEALTH INC. V. THOMPSON -- 03/03/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5092a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1734p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1614.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0276n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is responsible for overseeing Tennessee's Medicaid program. At issue is a consent decree entered into between the plaintiffs The Honorable Lawrence P. Reducing or suspending the TennCare coverage of members of the plaintiff class who are enrolled in the TennCare program. The district court commented upon both procedural and substantive guarantees of the consent decree and indicated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3502_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The creditors' committee all agreed the settlement was in the 2 No. 05 3502 best interest of the estate. The bankruptcy court held the settlement was in the best interest of the estate and approved it. I. Background Desnick was the owner and sole shareholder of Doctors Hospital and a number of other entities. Because the loan was. It was secured by the Hospital's equipment and (like the Daiwa loan) by the Hospital's accounts receivable. The proceeds some $48.5 million after administrative fees were deposited into an No. 05 3502 3 account bearing the name of Desnick and his wife. Twelve of the other defendants were Desnick controlled entities2 and four were former corporate officers or directors3 of the Hospital whom Desnick had effectively agreed to indemnify for their losses.4 The gist of the complaint was that Desnick and the other officers and directors caused the Hospital's bankruptcy through mismanagement and a series of fraudulent transactions to the tune of about $34 million which benefitted Desnick. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-9361.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361)<BR></A><BR> 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.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-6023.opn.html">STEANS V. COMBINED INS. CO. OF AM. (8/4/1998, NO. 97-6023)<BR></A><BR> Order prohibiting future punitive damages awards was not binding on Aldridge and Williams and that Aldridge and Williams did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the orders enjoining their state court claims for punitive damages. The aggregate amount of the settlements agreed to be paid is four and a half times Combined's entire statutory profits earned during the whole of the ten year period between 1985 and 1994 in the State of Alabama. . . . The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages paid in these settlements is more than 125 to 1. . . . The payment by Combined of the amounts it has either paid or agreed to pay is sufficient to punish Combined for the alleged Misconduct and to deter Combined and others from similar Misconduct in the future. . . . This Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Order and the settlement of this case. Evidence relating to Combined's operation in the entire state of Alabama.</P> <P><U>Id.</U> at 7.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50507.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. R. 47.5.4. * The district court's judgment is reversed. The liability of National Heritage is explained by an accompanying published order. The record raises issues supporting the claim of relators that they were the original source. In order to determine whether the relators were an original source. A two part test must be satisfied: (1) the relator must demonstrate that he or she has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-6023.opn.html">STEANS V. COMBINED INS. CO. OF AM. (8/4/1998, NO. 97-6023)<BR></A><BR> Order prohibiting future punitive damages awards was not binding on Aldridge and Williams and that Aldridge and Williams did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the orders enjoining their state court claims for punitive damages. The aggregate amount of the settlements agreed to be paid is four and a half times Combined's entire statutory profits earned during the whole of the ten year period between 1985 and 1994 in the State of Alabama. . . . The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages paid in these settlements is more than 125 to 1. . . . The payment by Combined of the amounts it has either paid or agreed to pay is sufficient to punish Combined for the alleged Misconduct and to deter Combined and others from similar Misconduct in the future. . . . This Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Order and the settlement of this case. Evidence relating to Combined's operation in the entire state of Alabama.</P> <P><U>Id.</U> at 7.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1413p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rehkop alleged that he was discharged from his position as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist in retaliation for refusing to complete what he contends were fraudulent Medicare. Rehkop is not precluded from alleging a RICO conspiracy under section 1962(d). Thus we will reverse the district court's dismissal of the conspiracy count and remand also for reinstatement of the pendent state law claims. Rehkop was hired as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist by the Berwick Healthcare Corporation to provide services at the Berwick Hospital Center. Medicaid and Medical Assistance as these programs are established and administered by the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Was hired to provide the anesthesia services. Alex Keris was the Chief Nurse Anesthetist and Manager of the Anesthesia Department. Keris was Rehkop's direct supervisor. To which they were not entitled. Rehkop further alleges that he was required to complete claim forms. When he learned that the claims were fraudulent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0662n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual background Clermont is a nursing home located in Milford. Clermont is required by law to comply with all 1 No. 04 3949 Clermont Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. This survey found that Clermont was not in compliance with 23 federal regulations for nursing homes participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 2 are at issue in this appeal. The first point of contention involves the surveyors' finding that Clermont was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. § 483.25(c). Which mandates that a facility ensure that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-4608.opa.html">PETERSON V. WILLIE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Peterson v. Later was discharged. Peterson contends that the jury's verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The facts are as follows. Brian Peterson was a pretrial detainee at the Palm Beach County Stockade (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0107p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-1331.wpd.html">PAINTER V. SHALALA<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Acevedo & Otero was on brief for appellee. *Of the Ninth Circuit. Morcelo was advised by his doctor to seek heart surgery in Texas. The defendant allegedly denied coverage for such treatment and the surgery was eventually performed in Puerto Rico and paid for by the Medicaid program of the Puerto Rico Department of Health. Payment or aid for medical expenses which I or which any other person may have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/97-8538.man.html">L.C. V. OLMSTEAD (4/8/1998, NO. 97-8538)<BR></A><BR> A psychiatric hospital where persons with mental disabilities are cared for in a segregated environment. The State's principal argument is that the district court's application of § 12132 and its accompanying regulations is contrary to the ADA's requirement that a plaintiff prove that he or she faced discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-4608.opa.html">PETERSON V. WILLIE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Peterson v. Later was discharged. Peterson contends that the jury's verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The facts are as follows. Brian Peterson was a pretrial detainee at the Palm Beach County Stockade (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1227p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/987408.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The major issue is whether under the Sentencing Guidelines interest owed on a defaulted loan obtained by fraud may be included by the court in calculating the amount of the victim's loss. 718.85 was principal and $1. 983.89 was interest. Interest on the defaulted loan should not have been included in calculating the victim's loss. Both of which were attended by Sushil and Subodh. Chaudhury signed a side agreement in which Building Technologies agreed to have Eaglemark. The land was to be used as the nursing home site. The mortgage on the property was in Subodh and Vinod's name. The falsified agreement stated that the purchase price was $264. Sushil submitted two financial statements for V Care that were signed but not prepared by a certified public accountant. Construction was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-3274.htm">99-3274 -- U.S. V. MCCLATCHEY -- 06/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court concluded there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find McClatchey had a specific intent to violate the Act. That the district court improperly instructed the jury it could convict McClatchey if remuneration was paid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1389.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3476_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-9361.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361)<BR></A><BR> 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.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9ED28F4C4A61936882572430060DCB7/$file/0555556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Bly Magee had failed to overcome the False Claims Act's jurisdictional bar that precludes private actions based on public disclosure of allegations unless the relator who is bringing the action is an original source of the information. She initially suspected CDR of filing false claims while she was serving as the executive director of Southern California Rehabilitation Services. Bly Magee continued to investigate what she believed was CDR's misappropriation of federal funds. We have affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bly Magee II. While Bly Magee II was pending. Which is the subject of this appeal. PREMO We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's final order. Public Disclosure Through Bly Magee II [1] The False Claims Act deprives the district court of jurisdiction over a qui tam action that is based on allegations or transactions previously publicly disclosed. Unless the relator is the original source of the allegations. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is implicit in the statute authorizing the regulation. The plaintiffs do not have a right enforceable through a 1983 action under the EPA's disparate impact discrimination regulations. We will reverse. We point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront South contains two Superfund sites. Lawrence's business is the processing of ground granulated blast furnace slag ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania waived its sovereign immunity by accepting certain federal funds for the Department of Corrections. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. George Koslow was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a water treatment plant supervisor for the State Correctional Institute in Graterford. He was dismissed for being unable to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/97-8538.man.html">L.C. V. OLMSTEAD (4/8/1998, NO. 97-8538)<BR></A><BR> A psychiatric hospital where persons with mental disabilities are cared for in a segregated environment. The State's principal argument is that the district court's application of § 12132 and its accompanying regulations is contrary to the ADA's requirement that a plaintiff prove that he or she faced discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8896E583616EC4688256E82007E9EE7/$file/0356028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50507.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. R. 47.5.4. * The district court's judgment is reversed. The liability of National Heritage is explained by an accompanying published order. The record raises issues supporting the claim of relators that they were the original source. In order to determine whether the relators were an original source. A two part test must be satisfied: (1) the relator must demonstrate that he or she has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1436.html">JAMES V. CALDERA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5109a.html">MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER V. TOMMY G. THOMPSON<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344.htm">99-3344 -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Ronald LaHue were convicted by a jury for violations of the Medicare Antikickback Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344a.htm">99-3344A -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1396p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-5133a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-5350a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0530n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are general dentists practicing in Tennessee. Who is Tennessee's Commissioner of the Department of Health. Who is the Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee TennCare Bureau. Under which general dentists are no longer reimbursed for orthodontic services they provide to Tennessee's Medicaid enrollees except in extenuating circumstances. They are: (1) whether the claimant has established a life. (2) whether that interest was `deprived' within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. (3) whether adequate procedures were afforded prior to the deprivation of the protected interest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983619P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Knew or should have known of the improprieties. Palmisano was The HONORABLE JOHN B. I. The Defamation Claim Allina is a nonprofit health care corporation. An Allina staff attorney conducted the internal investigation and completed his final report on the day Palmisano was forced to resign. Mishek also noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4113_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plea was accepted by the court. Judgement was entered on March 25. That his behavior was the result of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder. Which was diagnosed after he entered his plea. Rinaldi's case is not new to this Court. During the course of the legal proceedings against him we have heard two interlocutory appeals through which we had the opportunity to establish the history of the matter. Is an orthodontist with offices in Edwardsville and Springfield. Who were under the protection of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Some of these claims were for services not rendered. These records were never produced. The district court held Rinaldi in contempt and ordered him to be imprisoned and fined until the material was produced. Rinaldi was indicted for executing a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system in the state of Illinois and obstructing justice. The sentencing hearing was initially scheduled for the following June 24. Was repeatedly deferred at the request of both parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0957n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-5109a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-3117.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STARKS (10/9/1998, NO. 96-3117)<BR></A><BR> Starks and Siegel contend that the Anti Kickback statute is unconstitutionally vague. The government cross appeals Siegel's sentence on the grounds that the district court should not have reduced his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. That the district court should have applied the guideline for bribery of a public official rather than the guideline for fraud and deceit. Andrew Siegel was both the president and the sole shareholder of Future Steps. Angela Starks and Barbara Henry had just become community health aids in the employ of the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1605.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monospace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5356a.html">SOFAMOR DANEK GRP V. GAUS CLIFTON R.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0095p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. ** This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3521_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-3117.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STARKS (10/9/1998, NO. 96-3117)<BR></A><BR> Starks and Siegel contend that the Anti Kickback statute is unconstitutionally vague. The government cross appeals Siegel's sentence on the grounds that the district court should not have reduced his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. That the district court should have applied the guideline for bribery of a public official rather than the guideline for fraud and deceit. Andrew Siegel was both the president and the sole shareholder of Future Steps. Angela Starks and Barbara Henry had just become community health aids in the employ of the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3981.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/96-6400.opa.html">D.W. V. ROGERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>D.W. v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/975006.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He contends that the district court erred in finding that Miller's was not an extraordinary case in which adjustments for both obstruction of justice. Miller was president of the board of directors of the Big Creek Volunteer Rescue Squad ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974353.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 4353 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1 and was sentenced to a term of twenty four months imprisonment. Ward appeals his sentence asserting that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was not a minor participant in the offense.2 Because the district court's determination was not clearly erroneous. It contended that Ward was as culpable as many of the other participants in the scheme. The court found that Ward did not establish that he was less culpable than most other par 1 See 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994). 2 See U.S. Although Ward did not have decision making authority in the operation of Big Creek. Whether they were valid or dishonest. Before they were submitted through the mail for reimbursement. A defendant seeking a mitigating adjustment bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to it.4 We find no clear error in the district court's factual determination. Not simply the acts alleged in the count of conviction.6 The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore affirmed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1086.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0238p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The taxes at issue in the instant cases are payroll taxes withheld from employees' paychecks and held in trust by the employer until payments are made to the government. The total current liability (including interest and penalties) is approximately $450. Collection due process hearings were conducted by phone in March 2002 (Living Care II. Notice of Determination letters denying Living Care's claims were mailed June 2002 and March 2003. Which were heard by different judges. Judicial Review of Collection Due Process Proceedings Collection due process hearings were created by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. 112 Stat. 685 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/013346P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that they are entitled to the benefit of the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5ODEtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1981-cv%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are a proposed class of patients who received treatment from defendant appellees New YorkPresbyterian Hospital and New York Presbyterian Health Care System. Inc. and were uninsured at the time of their treatment. Arguing that the district court should not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims after all 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 claims supporting original jurisdiction had been dismissed at a very early stage in the proceedings. Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that even if the district court was correct to reach the merits of their state law claims. We need not reach plaintiffs' alternative arguments because we agree that this case is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5ODEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1981-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are a proposed class of patients who received treatment from defendant appellees New YorkPresbyterian Hospital and New York Presbyterian Health Care System. Inc. and were uninsured at the time of their treatment. Arguing that the district court should not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims after all 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 claims supporting original jurisdiction had been dismissed at a very early stage in the proceedings. Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that even if the district court was correct to reach the merits of their state law claims. We need not reach plaintiffs' alternative arguments because we agree that this case is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/003899P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DHS promulgated and published eligibility rules for each year the waiver program was in operation. The Iowa regulations were consistent with federal law. The program was administered by Gary Gesaman. A relator may recover damages and attorneys fees if it is successful. It is required to deliver a copy of its complaint to the United States which has the right to intervene if it wants to pursue the claim. The allegations in the complaint were based on information acquired by Carlton G. While he was representing Keokuk County. Iowa in a state civil proceeding in which a key issue was whether an individual was mentally retarded. Gary Gesaman ha[d] operated the [waiver] program . . . allowing eligibility to those who were not mentally retarded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/002968P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The State's appeal is wholly duplicative of its pending second action. The Foundation's review allegedly revealed that Prudential was failing to provide adequate lead poisoning testing for enrolled children. The State argued that removal had been improper because its complaint raised no issues of federal law and the parties were non diverse. The State argued that the language of federal law was part and parcel of the contract. The court held that the State's contract claims were pleaded insufficiently because the State had failed to allege. Where the matter is stayed awaiting our decision in the appeal from the first action. Both the State and Prudential have described the second action as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/96-6400.opa.html">D.W. V. ROGERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>D.W. v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/992986P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was brought by forty seven individuals seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Minnesota. State funds have been used for these abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned a state statutory scheme which authorized state spending on medical services related to childbirth but prohibited it for therapeutic abortions. Several amicus briefs have been submitted in support.2 Because the appellants have not established standing. The federal court is without jurisdiction to reach the merits of the issues raised in their complaint. I. Many issues relating to the provision of abortion services have been legislated and litigated since the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. A number have related to the use of public funds for abortions. This federal policy is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment after its original sponsor. It is effected by means of an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services or by a joint resolution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-13951.man.html">KISSIMMEE RIVER VALLEY SPORTSMAN ASS'N V. CITY OF LAKELAND (5/10/2001, NO. 99-13951)<BR></A><BR> It claimed that the Act and regulations create a federal right of equal access for boats with common horsepower ratings and that this right was infringed upon by the airboat restriction. We must accept the allegations set forth in the complaint as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-13951.man.html">KISSIMMEE RIVER VALLEY SPORTSMAN ASS'N V. CITY OF LAKELAND (5/10/2001, NO. 99-13951)<BR></A><BR> It claimed that the Act and regulations create a federal right of equal access for boats with common horsepower ratings and that this right was infringed upon by the airboat restriction. We must accept the allegations set forth in the complaint as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE43AF4A2D2DFB9888256DFF00007467/$file/0235912.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031268p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1464.html">CONSOLIDATED EDISON V. DEPT. OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR> For defendants appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3730AAA6B048E0DD88256E5A00707CC4/$file/9917539.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants filed this qui tam action alleging that Appellees defrauded the United States by receiving payments from Medicare and Medicaid for care which was not given. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review the district court's findings of fact relevant to its determination of subject matter jurisdiction for clear error. Is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. The False Claims Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914088.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was possible for an individual who randomly received Social Security disability benefits instead of SSI benefits to be declared ineligible for Medicaid in any given month. The functions of the Secretary in Social Security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner at the time of the change was Shirley S. For clarity we will use the single term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914088.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was possible for an individual who randomly received Social Security disability benefits instead of SSI benefits to be declared ineligible for Medicaid in any given month. The functions of the Secretary in Social Security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner at the time of the change was Shirley S. For clarity we will use the single term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4419_038.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiff Relators are employees of Caremark. The Relators argue that the district court erred in dismissing the case while Caremark argues that the case should have been dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal employees are able to choose among these private health insurance plans. Were employed by Caremark at two of its prescription drug processing facilities. An amended complaint was also filed under seal in March 2004. The government declined to intervene in this case and the case was unsealed by the district court in February 2006. The Relators were granted leave to file a second amended complaint which they did in June 2006. Caremark's position was that the Relators' second amended complaint was based on publicly disclosed information and the Relators were not the original source of this information. [N]otice [sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b)] is woefully inadequate where. The Relators were then given an opportunity to seek leave to file a third amended complaint. Because the Relators' claims are based on publicly disclosed information and the Relators are not the original source of this information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/033822P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I was depressed. I was having mood swings. I was upset. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concerned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002069.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Edell is widely recognized as a preeminent legal authority on litigaIn an affidavit submitted by Edell in the present action. Edell was the first to bring a successful suit to verdict against tobacco companies on behalf of a smoker. The litigation proposal assured the Maryland AG that if the Angelos Firm was retained. The amount of legal fees that Edell and his law firm would receive for their participation in the Maryland AG Action was always an issue to be determined solely between Edell and his law firm and the Angelos Firm. The dispute in the present case is over the amount the Angelos Firm agreed to pay Edell and his law firm for their substantial participation in the Maryland AG Action. 218 in attorneys' fees (based upon varying hourly rates) they have already received from the Angelos Firm in connection with the Maryland AG Action. They never would have continued their substantial participation in the Maryland AG Action had the Angelos Firm not made these repeated promises and the Angelos Firm fully understands this. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4NTMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4853-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/021112.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-14192.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGUEIRO (2/6/2001, NO. 99-14192)<BR></A><BR> Regueiro and Perez established more than 100 nursing groups whose ostensible purpose was to provide home health care services to qualified patients. Regueiro and Perez used the nursing groups to bill Medicare for thousands of services that were never performed. Or that were performed on patients who were not eligible to receive Medicare benefits. Both of them were extensively involved in all aspects of the scheme. Regueiro's total offense level was 28. The district court had notified the parties that it was considering imposing an upward departure on Regueiro because her conduct had significantly disrupted a governmental function. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0071p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311392.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Plaintiffs are ambulance suppliers based in Georgia. Holding that the mandamus jurisdiction invoked by plaintiffs under 23 U.S.C. § 1361 is both available and appropriate in this case. Certifying a class of ambulance providers.2 The threshold issue we must decide is whether the district court correctly assumed mandamus jurisdiction over this action. R.E. 32 34. 4 2 Mandamus jurisdiction is appropriate3 only where (1) the defendant owes a clear nondiscretionary duty to the plaintiff and (2) the plaintiff has exhausted all other avenues of relief. Plaintiffs cannot invoke the extraordinary remedy of mandamus because they have an alternative </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyOTFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1291_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-3447.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DBB, INC. (7/14/1999, NO. 98-3447)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The United States and various defendants separately appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2) freezing the defendants' assets that were traceable to their fraudulent activities. Procedural History and Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> This action was originally filed by Gary E. The individual defendants are directors and officers of various companies that provide Durable Medical Equipment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/023494U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goli) was charged with nineteen counts of mail fraud. Goli was charged with devising and executing a scheme to defraud private individuals. Medicaid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972780.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key question in this case is whether Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act). I. The facts are undisputed and can be stated in short order. Major Rogers was employed by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) as a maintenance engineer for approximately 22 years. As a state worker Rogers was a participant in a long term disability plan sponsored by the State of South Carolina (the State) for the benefit of its employees. The plan administrator was the South Carolina Budget and Control Board. It appears that all eligible state employees were covered by the same plan. Rogers was diagnosed with a panic anxiety disorder. He alleged (1) that he was discriminated against because he was denied the same level of benefits as someone with a physical disability and (2) that the plan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0269n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams was an eligible employee of a contributing employer during 2003. Jr. was born on June 26. His parents were married on November 28. He was in custody for that crime from June 24. He was released into the community. He was assigned to a family service agency and received individual and group counseling. Jr. was taken into custody as a result of assaults against his sister's boyfriend and his suspensions from school. Escalation to a secure facility was recommended after a hearing. Jr. was placed at the Bradley Behavioral Mental Health Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5203a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Banks was injured on the job on February 28. In answer to the question </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-6158.htm">00-6158 -- U.S. V. HILLCREST HEALTH CENTER INC. -- 09/07/2001<BR></A><BR> The <em>qui tam</em> provisions of the Act permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the United States those persons or entities who allegedly have presented false or fraudulent claims to the federal government.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-13312.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. LAB. CORP. OF AM., INC. (5/9/2002, NO. 01-13312)<BR></A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89E9077C28AC645B88256AC60013283D/$file/9917539.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants filed this qui tam action alleging that Appellees defrauded the United States by receiving payments from Medicare and Medicaid for care which was not given. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review the district court's findings of fact relevant to its determination of subject matter jurisdiction for clear error. Is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. The False Claims Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E275296C4CEAF1188257060007DB039/$file/0435810.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Learned during a routine checkup with her obstetrician that her fetus was anencephalic. Anencephaly is a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic end of the neural tube fails to close. Anencephaly is an ultimately and unequivocally fatal birth defect. Approximately one third of anencephalic fetuses carried to term are born alive. Fewer than two percent that are born alive survive more than seven days. There is no cure for anencephaly and even extensive medical intervention and continuous life support will not prolong the life of an anencephalic infant more than two months. Doe was a covered federal beneficiary under the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4088.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fairfax Nursing Home is a skilled nursing facility participating in Medicare and Medicaid. Fairfax was assessed a civil monetary penalty ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0196p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/961414P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury convicted Brown on two counts Anti kickback The district court granted Brown's post verdict motion for a new trial based on its findings that the jury was exposed to prejudicial extrinsic information and that certain members of the jury engaged in misconduct. court. The government contends that Brown waived any claim We affirm the order of the district to a new trial that he might have had. A home health care company that was the exclusive home health distributor of an expensive growth hormone called Protropin. In exchange for Brown's referral of patients for whom he prescribed Protropin and who were participants in the Medicaid program.2 On June 20. Approximately one month before the trial was set to begin. Three of Brown's co defendants were executives at Caremark. While the fourth co defendant was an executive at Genentech. Both the government and Brown's counsel asked the court to conduct an individual voir dire of the jurors based on their belief that the jurors may have witnessed Brown's co defendants celebrating in the hallway following their acquittals on October 3 and that the jurors may have been exposed to ensuing news accounts that referred to the codefendants' acquittals and Caremark's previous guilty plea and agreement to pay a $161 million fine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-14088.man.html">SINGLETON V. APFEL (10/26/2000, NO. 99-14088)<BR></A><BR> It was possible for an individual who randomly received Social Security disability benefits instead of SSI benefits to be declared ineligible for Medicaid in any given month. The Commissioner moved the district court to remand the case to the administrative level to determine the amount of retroactive benefits Singleton was due. The Commissioner contended that Singleton was ineligible for an award of fees because she was not a prevailing party and the government's position was substantially justified. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. The court </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1342.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Once the wheat is shaken from SELYA. Our burden of exegesis is considerably reduced. The statute reads in pertinent part: [T]he Secretary [of the United States Department of Health and Human Services] shall not approve any State plan for medical assistance if (1) the State has in effect [AFDC] payment levels that are less than the payment levels in effect under such plan on May 1. 1992 than they would have received under the May 1. The case was submitted to the district court 1Stowell sued H. Since Maine is the real party in interest. We will sometimes refer to Ives as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-3447.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DBB, INC. (7/14/1999, NO. 98-3447)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The United States and various defendants separately appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2) freezing the defendants' assets that were traceable to their fraudulent activities. Procedural History and Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> This action was originally filed by Gary E. The individual defendants are directors and officers of various companies that provide Durable Medical Equipment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0837n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063531P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Deborah Shank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1396.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. was on brieffor appellants. The question in thiscase is when the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1937.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Henry</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. Factual and Procedural Background</STRONG></P> <P> The following facts are drawn from the presentence investigation report and transcripts of the defendant's change of plea and sentencing hearings. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0826n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1203.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hanson & DeTroy were on briefs for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. Are drawn from the presentence report. Gill was employed part time at the Bethel Area Health Center in Bethel. That he possessed a doctoral degree in psychology and was licensed as a psychologist or counselor under Maine law. Gill was not licensed and had never received an advanced degree in either psychology or counseling. The total value of the payments claimed from these entities was over $37. All charges were consolidated for sentencing. It is these two adjustments that are the sole subjects of Gill's appeal from his sentence. Gill was sentenced under the November 1995 edition of the guidelines. References are to that version unless otherwise specified. The standard of review in such a case is simple. In the standard formulation: the district court's factual findings are respected unless clearly erroneous. The determinations of law are reviewed de novo. The application of a legal standard to undisputed facts is also an issue of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ten states with qui tam legislation.1 Appellees King Pharmaceuticals and Monarch Pharmaceuticals </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-14088.man.html">SINGLETON V. APFEL (10/26/2000, NO. 99-14088)<BR></A><BR> It was possible for an individual who randomly received Social Security disability benefits instead of SSI benefits to be declared ineligible for Medicaid in any given month. The Commissioner moved the district court to remand the case to the administrative level to determine the amount of retroactive benefits Singleton was due. The Commissioner contended that Singleton was ineligible for an award of fees because she was not a prevailing party and the government's position was substantially justified. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. The court </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052978P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porter was originally joined by a second plaintiff. Only Porter's claim is before us. Norman was removed from one of the HDCs and taken to a private facility. That was three months after the initial action was filed in this case. He is no longer a party. Porter is a forty nine year old individual with moderate mental retardation and developmental disabilities. This appeal stems from a time when Porter was confined at one of the six Arkansas HDCs. Porter was admitted to the HDCs voluntarily by the authority of Gibson. There are several sources of legal protection currently afforded to persons in situations like Porter's. HDCs have supplemented the statutory protections with internal policies and procedures. There are also adversarial administrative proceedings to determine proper treatment and placement. Because HDCs are Medicaid eligible facilities. There are also numerous protections under the Medicaid regime. There were no judicial hearings to review Porter's admission to. Porter filed his complaint alleging that the procedures governing admission and continuing placement were constitutionally infirm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-13312.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. LAB. CORP. OF AM., INC. (5/9/2002, NO. 01-13312)<BR></A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1527.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> King</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2056.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ahidley was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. Restitution was ordered in the amount of $22. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to justify the amount of the restitution award and that the district court erred in imposing an immediate obligation to pay restitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Were staying the night at his cousin's home. Ahidley admitted he was intoxicated. Pollock <hr> was belittling him and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/01-5294a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-14192.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGUEIRO (2/6/2001, NO. 99-14192)<BR></A><BR> Regueiro and Perez established more than 100 nursing groups whose ostensible purpose was to provide home health care services to qualified patients. Regueiro and Perez used the nursing groups to bill Medicare for thousands of services that were never performed. Or that were performed on patients who were not eligible to receive Medicare benefits. Both of them were extensively involved in all aspects of the scheme. Regueiro's total offense level was 28. The district court had notified the parties that it was considering imposing an upward departure on Regueiro because her conduct had significantly disrupted a governmental function. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1925.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-6456.htm">00-6456 -- U.S. V. VANMETER -- 01/29/2002<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042352P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Reaves is a disabled person and a client of the Division. Is charged with providing vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities in the State. 29 U.S.C. §§ 720. The Division is organized as part of the Department. Of which King is the appointed Commissioner. Reaves requested support from the Division in her pursuit of a career as what is known as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4NTMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-4853-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1590.html">BRAZOS V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5137.html">BLACK V. SHHS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5317a.html">UNIV MED CTR SO NV V. SHALALA DONNA E.<BR></A><BR> With him on <p> the brief were <i>Frank W. Anderson</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> <p> National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Concerned that many federally funded hospital <p> facilities serving low income patients were incurring high <p> prices for drugs. Section 340B <p> requires a manufacturer of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7189a.html">FINDLEY D.J. V. FPC BORON EMPL CLUB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-4200.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ (9/13/2000, NO. 99-4200)<BR></A><BR> By failing to adequately investigate indications that the jury had engaged in premature deliberations. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/95-4061.man.html">CHILES V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chiles v. Florida alleges it is injured by the United States' failure to enforce the immigration laws. The claim is justiciable. <i>See Japan Whaling Ass'n v. We recognize that the level of illegal immigration is dependent on many factors outside the control of the Attorney General. <i>See Simon v. We suppose that the State does have standing to raise this claim.<p> B. For much the same reasons as are expressed in the district court's order<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR> 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). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-14291.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. (1/28/2003, NO. 01-14291)<BR></A><BR> We held that an insurance company occupying the role of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/96-8787.man.html">JOHNSON V. UNIV. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 96-8787)<BR></A><BR> Is a perinatologist. Which is an obstetrician who specializes in high risk pregnancies. She was recruited in May 1992 by Hossam E. Fadel is a member of the obstetrics department of University Hospital in Augusta. Which is run by the non profit University Health Services (UHS).</P> <P> Only a few months into her employment. Her primary dissatisfaction was based on the low number of new patients that Dr. It was important that she admit a large number of new patients in order to become a board certified perinatologist. Fadel was not permitting her to admit patients in sufficient numbers to allow her to qualify for certification as quickly as she would have liked. Johnson claims to have been promised an $800. Fadel that she was considering other alternatives before it would provide any assistance.</P> <P> Dr. Johnson claimed that UHS was estopped from refusing to provide her with financial assistance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We conclude that they are without merit. Johnson's first two causes of action are antitrust claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-4608.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-4200.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ (9/13/2000, NO. 99-4200)<BR></A><BR> By failing to adequately investigate indications that the jury had engaged in premature deliberations. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/95-4061.man.html">CHILES V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chiles v. Florida alleges it is injured by the United States' failure to enforce the immigration laws. The claim is justiciable. <i>See Japan Whaling Ass'n v. We recognize that the level of illegal immigration is dependent on many factors outside the control of the Attorney General. <i>See Simon v. We suppose that the State does have standing to raise this claim.<p> B. For much the same reasons as are expressed in the district court's order<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR> 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). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-14291.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. (1/28/2003, NO. 01-14291)<BR></A><BR> We held that an insurance company occupying the role of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-8787.man.html">JOHNSON V. UNIV. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 96-8787)<BR></A><BR> Is a perinatologist. Which is an obstetrician who specializes in high risk pregnancies. She was recruited in May 1992 by Hossam E. Fadel is a member of the obstetrics department of University Hospital in Augusta. Which is run by the non profit University Health Services (UHS).</P> <P> Only a few months into her employment. Her primary dissatisfaction was based on the low number of new patients that Dr. It was important that she admit a large number of new patients in order to become a board certified perinatologist. Fadel was not permitting her to admit patients in sufficient numbers to allow her to qualify for certification as quickly as she would have liked. Johnson claims to have been promised an $800. Fadel that she was considering other alternatives before it would provide any assistance.</P> <P> Dr. Johnson claimed that UHS was estopped from refusing to provide her with financial assistance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We conclude that they are without merit. Johnson's first two causes of action are antitrust claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-4608.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-4056.wpd.html">WILSON V. GLENWOOD INTERMOUNTAIN PROPS., INC.<BR></A><BR> We conclude they do not have standing. All of the defendant landlords have been certified by BYU to provide BYU off campus housing to unmarried BYU students. (2) to segregate students from non students by buildings or wings of buildings if they are certified to rent to both students and non students. (3) to rent only to unmarried male or unmarried female students or to separate unmarried male students from unmarried female students by buildings or wings of buildings if the landlords are certified to rent to both male and female BYU students. Apartments in those buildings and wings are rented only to students. An unmarried man under 25 years old who was not a BYU student. Was denied apartments in off campus BYU approved student housing that was reserved for women. An unmarried woman under 25 years old who was not a BYU student. Was denied apartments in off campus BYU approved student housing that was reserved for men. They were not otherwise qualified for apartments reserved for students. The court also ruled that in any case defendants' practices were permitted under Title IX. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-2011.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. M.K. FERGUSON CO.<BR></A><BR> It bars all qui tam suits that are based upon publicly disclosed information unless the person bringing the action is an original source of the information. The primary questions presented in this appeal are whether the relator's suit is based upon a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-3296.wpd.html">PATTON V. TIC UNITED CORP.<BR></A><BR> I Ryan Patton was raised on his family's farm in Hiawatha. The wings are lowered for use. A hydraulic system is used to lift. When the pins are removed. A new hydraulic cylinder is not charged. To insure that the cylinder will support a wing. The operator must cycle the machine to make sure that the hydraulic system is fully charged before removing the safety pin. The operating instructions did not state how to insure that the hydraulic system was properly charged or warn that the wings should not be in an upright position when replacing the cylinder. Because the day was cool and rainy. The shed was too small to permit the wings to be fully lowered while changing the cylinder. Patton retracted the cylinder to make sure that the wings were fully raised. Unaware that the cylinder was in fact not completely charged. Although he knew that one possible cause of binding was that the cylinder was not charged. The cultivator that injured Patton was manufactured by Wil Rich. Between 1981 and 1987 the assets and stock of Wil Rich were transferred among a number of entities through merger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-2079.html">PINO V. HIGGS<BR></A><BR> Because they were not state actors. Who was the hospital administrator at LVMC. She is deemed to have waived the challenge on appeal. Despite her admonitions that she was fine. That her family was concerned about her. Weiss determined that Appellant was severely depressed and likely to harm herself. That immediate detention was necessary to prevent such harm. There was no space available at Socorro General and it was decided that since Appellant needed further evaluation she should be taken to LVMC. Deputy Naranjo was called to take Appellant to LVMC. Appellant again insisted that she was not mentally ill and at first refused to go with him. Weiss' certification that Appellant was mentally ill and represented a likelihood of harm to herself. Appellant was admitted into the facility and Deputy Naranjo returned to Socorro. After which the staff there concluded that she was not mentally ill and released her. Appellant's constitutional claims are that Appellees deprived her of her liberty without due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and unreasonably seized her in violation of the Fourth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-3327.htm">01-3327 -- U.S. V. MCCLATCHEY -- 01/16/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-2136.htm">00-2136 -- JOSEPH A. V. INGRAM -- 01/07/2002<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-2031.htm">97-2031 -- U.S. V. MEYEROWITZ -- 08/17/1998<BR></A><BR> </strong> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-4047.htm">97-4047 -- ST. MARK'S CHARITIES LIQUIDATING TRUST V. SHALALA -- 04/14/1998<BR></A><BR> The hospital was sold on December 31. 284 was allocated to the building and fixed equipment. The historical cost of these assets was $15. Our review of the Secretary's underlying decision is governed by 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3326.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The grievance was the subject of a teleconference. Uliano [were] present by phone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE24B24353BD1131882571EA0055BE58/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5491DE098B65E4588256C930002145D/$file/0115986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> *** District Judge. *Michael Willden is substituted for his predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an action brought by Nevada residents who allegedly suffered smoking related illnesses for which they received state administered medical care under the Medicaid program. They seek certain benefits from Nevada or its officials arising out of the multi state tobacco settlement reached between major tobacco companies and 46 States. [1] The plaintiffs' claim is indistinguishable from that brought by similar Hawai'i plaintiffs in Cardenas v. Cardenas held that the plaintiffs' claims of entitlement to any part of the settlement funds were wholly barred by 42 U.S.C. 4 ANDERSON v. The plaintiffs here contend that they are entitled to notice and an accounting when Nevada attempts to recoup Medicaid payments from the estates of plaintiffs by imposing and enforcing liens on their property. An accounting of the amount of settlement recovery Nevada received for the medical care of the plaintiffs from whom recoupment is sought.1 [2] This claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8B53EDC826E8CC6A8825726800054A4B/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. It was not until the Petition for Rehearing that Jawara. First addressed whether the expert's reliance on the country report is testimonial under Crawford v. This is a significant question given the traditional reliance on State Department country reports in immigration proceedings. Because the comparative country conditions were not central to the charges here and the admission of this testimony was harmless. The same is true with respect to 808 UNITED STATES v. As I have stated. The evidence on the document fraud charge is comparatively weak. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15061B820BD0BE1C88256DCC00750AAD/$file/0235020.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983123P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Poplar Bluff is a city of 17. It is located in Butler County. It is the largest city in several counties and has numerous major employers and manufacturing operations. 000 are forty and sixty miles away from Poplar Bluff. The population in the area surrounding Poplar Bluff is concentrated in Scott and Stoddard Counties. Poplar Bluff is within a few hours' drive of several large metropolitan centers including St. Lucy Lee is a general acute care hospital that provides primary and secondary care services.2 Lucy Lee has 201 licensed beds. 185 of which are staffed. Its average daily census was 75 in 1994. Doctors' Regional Medical Center in Poplar Bluff is presently owned by a group of physicians. It is also a general acute care hospital providing primary and secondary care services. Of which 187 are staffed. Its average census in 1994 was 106. In 1995 was 99. In 1996 was 95 and in 1997 was 77. Both hospitals are underutilized and have had problems attracting specialists to the area. Secondary care is somewhat more complex. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972331P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three government officials who were sued in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I. BACKGROUND Because this appeal is before us on a motion for summary judgment. Jo Anne Coleman was hired by the Minneapolis Public School District as principal of Lincoln Elementary School (Lincoln). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/964043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The remaining equity in the company was owned by Mary Beth's then husband Steven and by trusts benefitting their children. Who were beginning divorce proceedings. Judy Breeding (who was also a director of CHCC). Who was well known in Missouri as a successful manager of nursing homes. Gourley explained to the Userys that his assets were tied up because of continuing litigation relating to his divorce. The Userys and Breeding (who is not a party to this case) assured Gourley that. Even though 1988 financial results were not yet available. The homes' cash flow in 1988 was substantially the same as the 1987 cash flow. He was told that they totaled about $75. 000 and were current. The resulting drain on cash was exacerbated by Mary Beth's insistence. The Userys also represented that all of the long term debt that Gourley agreed to assume was business related debt. As the deal was structured. The amount of the note was to be adjusted after the closing to account for the difference between payables and Medicaid receivables. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nebraska (Local Office). 1988 in the district FAIR was denied access to the Local Office. Concluding that FAIR's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because: (1) the Local Office's policy was not vague. (2) the Local Office was not a public forum. (3) the Local Office's regulation of expressive conduct was reasonable. (4) the Local Office's prohibition on FAIR's efforts to advocate its position to a captive audience was not motivated by opposition to its viewpoint. The requirement of independent appellate review is a rule of federal constitutional law. We are obliged to make a fresh examination of crucial facts. This Court's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the state's exclusion of the group did not violate the The policy employed to decide which persons are permitted access to the lobby is vague and subject to For this reason. The facts of this trial case and BACKGROUND are essentially on a undisputed. for After a consolidated bench hearing request preliminary injunction. Families Achieving Independence and Respect (FAIR) is a looselyorganized group of past and current welfare recipients providing educational support for low income persons. system' and 'welfare reform.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/061717P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. The Parties and the Allegedly Illegal Practices Extendicare is a for profit healthcare company that operates long term care. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin. The reimbursement rate Medicare pays to Extendicare is substantially higher than the rates paid to Extendicare by the other sources. Buytendorp alleges that she received no adverse performance reviews and was denied no raises nor opportunities for advancement prior to 2003. Practices she believed to be illegal.3 The objectionable practices Although Buytendorp also alleges she was denied advancement opportunities in 2003 and 2004. Cut staffing to levels that were adverse to the patients' interests. Buytendorp states that there was some emphasis within Extendicare to maximize the admission and retention of Medicare patients dating back to 1996 but that she was neither instructed nor pressured to participate in practices she believed to be illegal until the 2003 04 time frame. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052445P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joshi asserts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/043141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs do not have an absolute or automatic right to amend. Futility is a valid basis for denying leave to amend. Lee argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for leave to amend as futile because she could have amended the complaint to include an allegation that Fairview's athletic trainers were not properly supervised and. That Fairview's Medicare and Medicaid claims were falsely made. Lee first requested leave to amend in her opposition to Fairview's motion to dismiss so that she could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/043263P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs asserted that they are each </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/033710P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Many of the bills prepared by Appellants were submitted for payment to various federal entities including Medicare and Medicaid. If the file data was incomplete. Central to Appellants' concern was that the University was billing federally funded programs for surgical procedures and other medical services as if they were performed by teaching physicians when the procedures and services were 2 actually performed by residents. She told her advisors that she thought it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011862P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D.D.S. is charged with health care fraud. Sell was charged in a federal criminal complaint with making false representations in connection with payments for health care services in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035(a)(2). The district court held that Sell was competent to stand trial. Which was accepted without objection. Stated that Sell was currently competent to stand trial but that there was a possibility that he would develop a psychotic episode in the future. An indictment was returned against Sell and his wife. Sell was released on bond. A warrant was issued The Honorable Donald J. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 Sell has a history of mental illness. 2 for Sell's arrest and he was brought before a magistrate judge for an initial appearance. Sell's behavior at this appearance was out of control. A bond revocation hearing was held. The court received evidence that Sell's mental condition was deteriorating. Sell was not sleeping at night because he expected the FBI to barge into his house. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/994324P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2241.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court ordered that the defendant be committed for a custodial examination not to exceed 45 days to determine whether he was in fact suffering from a claimed mental disease or defect during the commission of 2 No. 03 2241 his crimes. BACKGROUND Rinaldi is an orthodontist with offices in Springfield and Edwardsville. His clients included wards of the state of Illinois who were under the protection of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Individuals who were receiving Medicaid assistance from the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA). Rinaldi was issued a grand jury subpoena demanding the production of records related to his orthodontics practice. The defendant refused to produce the records and the district court conducted a hearing to determine if Rinaldi's refusal to reply was contemptuous. The government presented evidence to establish that the defendant removed records from his Springfield office after being served with the subpoena and was later seen hiding them near a dumpster outside of a McDonald's restaurant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1563.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed this diversity fraud suit on the ground that the key defendant was a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff. According to allegations of the complaint that for purposes of this appeal we are required to treat as true. Who was rightly deemed an indispensable party by the district judge. Who are Ohioans (and who are the other defendants in the case). They placed her in an assisted living facility there and are preventing Dakuras from having any contact with her. Citizenship for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is domicile. Domicile is the place one intends to remain. She would be a citizen of Illinois (unless she had decided she didn't want to go back to Illinois when she was released). The judge reasoned that if she was lured to Ohio this is the same as her having been forcibly removed there. If that were all there was to the matter. The defendants concede and indeed emphasize that Calder is incompetent. It is they. Who have decided that she shall remain in Ohio. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3750_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted for defrauding Medicaid by submitting claims for work that he had not performed. Arguing that the district judge should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea. His main ground is that the plea was coerced: he says that he believed (in fact knew) all along that he was innocent but that his love for his wife had moved him to admit his guilt so that the charges against her would be dropped. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/97a0236p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from the district court's award of attorney fees against the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Asserting that the fee provisions relied on by the plaintiffs and the district court are inapplicable to this case. We now REVERSE. {*}This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0809n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Lakeridge Villa Health Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0595n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Petitioner is a Mexican citizen who unlawfully entered the United States sometime prior Honorable Harold A. Although the only child named in any of her immigration applications was born in Mexico in 1992. The application was denied on September 7. She claimed that she did not attend her interview because her husband was incarcerated and therefore could not appear with her. The INS alleged that she was in the United States illegally and was removable pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0161p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0507n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because it was not based on facts admitted by her or proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Bush was employed as a billing/payroll manager by Nurses Calling. Personal Touch was headquartered in Bayside. For visits that were never provided. Bush was indicted on four counts of mail fraud. She argued that she was not the end in the chain of authority. That there were others above her who reviewed her billings. Stating that the two level enhancement was warranted because she held a professional or managerial position and possessed a high degree of skill due to her bachelor's degree in health information management and business administration. Then added a 12 level enhancement because the total loss was between $200. The Guidelines range was between twenty seven (27) and thirty three (33) months. She </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0434n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court erred when it permitted the government to introduce evidence establishing the high profit margin that the Defendant received on selling power wheelchairs because the evidence was either irrelevant to any issue in the case. Was overly prejudicial. Amr was indicted on November 2. Charging for standard accessories which were already included in the wheelchairs. The vast majority of the durable medical equipment that USMS sold were power wheelchairs. Part of this profit USMS earned on each chair it sold was obtained by charging Medicare for more expensive products than that which it actually provided the patient (a fraudulent practice known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0372p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By failing to develop a transition plan for 1 These ind ividuals are Cora L ee B oswo rth. Which was denied. The court also concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because such damages are not available under Title II absent proof of intentional discrimination. Arguing that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs have a private cause of action under Title II to challenge violations of § 35.151. Be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0037n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of whom claim tobacco related injuries and are recipients of the Tennessee Medicaid program. Plaintiffs further argue that the litigation resulting in the MSA was essentially a subrogation action to recover medical expenses paid on behalf of Plaintiffs as TennCare recipients. That the Plaintiffs have not been made whole for their injuries. The district court dismissed the Section 1983 claims because the plaintiffs could not identify any property right protected by the Constitution or by federal law of which they have been deprived. The district court held that the state law claims failed because they were wholly dependent upon a finding that the MSA lawsuit was a subrogation action. Which it was not. We have carefully reviewed the district court's opinions. We are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0452p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0145p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants argue that this court can affirm the district court's opinion on summary judgment grounds or on the grounds that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim 26 Helwig. When defendants chose to speak they have a duty to provide complete and non misleading information regarding those statements. The effect of the Court's decision seems to be that no statements about the future prospects ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0067p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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% </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062738np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kinney asserts that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041258np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. Appellant is a unit of Mercer Street Friends Center. Inc. is a non profit corporation that manages appellant's endowment. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ2NjBfc28ucGRm/05-4660_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE1NDZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1546_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIzMjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2324-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. The motion for a stay is DENIED as moot. Circuit Judge: The appeal in this class action asks us to determine the amount in controversy in an action for an accounting where there is no accompanying demand for damages or restitution. The amount in controversy is well over the $5 million jurisdictional requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. We hold that the Appellants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the amount incontroversy requirement has been met. It is unclear which funds Appellants calculate to total $40 million. 2 was filed . . . . We are not required to deny the appeal despite the fact that it was docketed more than 60 days prior to the time that a panel of this Court granted the petition to allow it. Dentists operating in various states who have agreed to treat patients eligible under Medicaid or Medicare. The pools consist of state and federal funds from which participating dentists are paid monthly on a pro rata basis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE1MzktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1539-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM0NDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3448-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the challenges to the New York State budget measures aimed at controlling Medicaid costs are either barred by the Eleventh Amendment or are not susceptible to enforcement by the plaintiffs appellants. J.) held that plaintiffs' Boren Amendment claims were barred under the Eleventh Amendment. 318 F. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non movant and affirming if there is no triable issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416091.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. (collectively the health care agencies will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114291.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We held that an insurance company occupying the role of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914563.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1101.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated from her long time position as ticket agent with Eastern Air Lines. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal the following month. Finding that plaintiff's allegations were unsupported and advising her of her right to file a private action against Eastern. Eastern then reported that it had filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in March 1989 and was therefore protected by the automatic stay. Plaintiff's claims against Eastern were not addressed below. 3 discrimination in a deficient manner particularly by failing to conduct an independent investigation and failing to monitor the MCAD. This determination was plainly correct. It is well established that Congress has not authorized either expressly or impliedly. 662 63 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that courts have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1738.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was subjected to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966OPN2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Russoniello</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2679.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. The principal issue in this case is whether the plaintiff forfeited his objection to an error that might but need not have resulted in a shorter sentence. Nonetheless argues that there should be no relief because the issue was not preserved. Forfeited sentencing objections are reviewed for plain error and there is no plain error. Because Gallant's 24 month sentence falls within the guidelines sentencing range that would have applied had the district court given Gallant the additional one level adjustment. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012555p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/003403.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/995489.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1810p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue we must address on this appeal is whether Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation Act. The purpose of Act 44 was to contain the spiraling costs of medical treatment for work related injuries. It is these provisions of Act 44 which create the utilization review process and the corresponding supersedeas that are challenged in this action. Utilization review is a process whereby medical providers assess the reasonableness or necessity of current. Section 531(5) provides the mechanism by which utilization review is invoked. The decision to invoke utilization review is made independently by the employer or insurer. 7 A. Utilization review is invoked when an employee. The Bureau reviews the Initial Request to ensure that it is properly completed i.e. That all information required by the form is provided. If the Initial Request is improperly completed (i.e. If the Initial Request is completed properly. The request is approved and the party requesting review must serve a copy of the Initial Request upon the remaining interested parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0994p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The general issue we address is whether Fair Acres Geriatric Center. The jury was asked to decide whether. Wagner was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0756p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to examine the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/986248.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is whether the submission of fraudulent legal bills for approval to the United States Bankruptcy Court violates the False Claims Act. S 3730(h) requires proof that the employee engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995) ORDER AMENDING DISSENTING OPINION It is hereby ordered that the dissenting opinion of Judge Nygaard be amended as follows: On page 48 of the slip opinion. 1995) ORDER AMENDING DISSENTING OPINION It is hereby ordered that the dissenting opinion of Judge Nygaard be amended as follows: On page 48 of the slip opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0952p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge We are asked to decide if the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0917p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This suit was brought on behalf of sixteen children who had been placed in DHS's care by orders of the Family Court Division of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5366a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-5046a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-5295a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994870.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) they were overly broad and oppressive and therefore unreasonable. I The four subpoenas at issue in this case were directed respectively to (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991560.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The State of Maryland voluntarily provided the relief sought by § 1983 plaintiffs who were residents of a large State facility for the developmentally disabled. There was no settlement agreement. The lawsuit was dismissed by stipulation pursuant to Fed. Was a residential institution for the developmentally disabled that was operated by the State of Maryland through its Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA). Were diagnosed with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972512A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants are ten former obstetrical patients at MUSC whose urine was tested pursuant to the Policy. We will refer to the defendants collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034470.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ELSHINGETY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was sentenced to a term of eighteen months' imprisonment. In determining that the amount of loss for sentencing purposes was $104. All certified transportation providers such as Elshingety are compensated by Medicaid at a higher rate for wheelchair patients than for ambulatory patients. The government attorney stated as part of the factual basis that it could have proved at trial that Elshingety had over billed DMAS by $104. 280.80 for a total of twenty five patients and that the administrator of the Old Dominion Home would have testified that none of the twenty five persons had ever been confined to a wheelchair. After the presentence report was prepared. ELSHINGETY 3 of the patients listed in the presentence report were identified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031588.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022001.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Filed suit seeking to have declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012012.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BethEnergy Mines is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001511.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and find that Credit Recovery Systems had a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2156.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that three of these allegations were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6007.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seek an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying their request to file a third motion for summary judgment asserting that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss it. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. That their First Amendment rights were violated when defendants retaliated against them for speaking publicly about various issues affecting Oklahoma's Medicaid system. None of those motions raised the defense (1) The remaining defendants were all connected to OHCA in various capacities. <hr> of qualified immunity either. Their motion is DENIED. The Court concludes it is inappropriate. They argue the order is tantamount to a final decision denying them <hr> the defense of qualified immunity and. Is appealable on an interlocutory basis under Mitchell v. Defendants were able to raise a defense of qualified immunity. They concede that the issue was included in the pretrial order and was the subject of extensive Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-21247.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Parsons was indicted on twenty three counts of health care fraud. The Government showed that Parsons submitted numerous Medicare and Medicaid claims for office visits that never occurred and for echocardiogram services that were never performed. Parsons restated his objection and an amended motion in limine was granted. That she did not have heart problems and she did not remember Parsons performing an echocardiogram on her. Parsons took the stand and testified that the Medicare bills were mistakes or accidents. The Government introduced evidence that Parsons had been warned by the Medical Board in 1994 to adequately supervise his employees and that his files were substandard. II. 404(b) EVIDENCE Parsons argues that the admission of evidence involving his prior dealings with the Medical Board was an abuse of discretion because the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul02/00-41112-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we rejected.4 We do not have appellate jurisdiction over any other issues raised in appeal No. 01 40667. All such issues are therefore dismissed from this appeal.5 The other appeal. We withdraw that language from Frew I. 3 5 4 stating that we </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-1111.htm">98-1111 -- U.S. V. POWELL -- 04/16/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <p> Crosby L. Was false. Which was above the $2. 000 limitation on assets and would have. He claimed that he was receiving no income when. He was receiving a salary from his business. 950 in SSI benefits to which he was not entitled and approximately $2. 419 in related Medicaid benefits. <p> <center><strong>Bank Fraud and Use of a False Social Security Number</strong> </center> <p> Powell was charged with engaging in four separate bank fraud schemes. The banks' aggregate loss was $59. Powell raises five issues: (1) whether certain counts of the controlling indictment were multiplicitous. Or acts that should have been excluded under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Which contends that it has not engaged in the misconduct attributed to the major tobacco manufacturers and was not sued by any of the States. Asserts that it will be unjustly burdened by the requirements of the Master Settlement Agreement and the legislation that Virginia enacted pursuant to the agreement. Which was known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTMxODEtYWdfc28ucGRm/05-3181-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A95 161 939 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the petition for review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The BIA's order is VACATED in part and AFFIRMED in part. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. There are several exchanges between the IJ and Liu during the pretrial hearings which cause serious concerns regarding IJ Chase's neutrality and reasonableness. Including the following: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTMxMDlfc28ucGRm/04-3109_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both were members of the Superior Officers Association union. 1. Was conducting an investigation of a corrections officer suspected of smuggling contraband to inmates at DOC facilities. Cheverko requested that Klivans assist him in the investigation by retrieving a bottle of alcohol from an inmate who was acting as an informant in the investigation. Cheverko told Bizzarro that he was ordering him to assist in the investigation and that the order came directly from the commissioner. That he was upset at the outcome of an earlier episode in which he had helped Cheverko. Before this whole thing is over. Every supervisor will see it's their obligation to cooperate. I'm going to give you an order to do it right now.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/01-16211.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was created by the debtor prior to insolvency. Was established to provide income to the debtor for her lifetime with the remainder ultimately being given to several charities. The debtor contends her interest in the trust is exempt from her bankruptcy estate. The debtor contends her interest is exempt because the trust qualifies as a support trust. Is not exempt from the debtor's bankruptcy estate. Is not likewise subject to the claims of the debtor's creditors. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkyMjJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9222_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This civil antitrust action was instituted by plaintiffsappellants Apothecon. The suit was brought under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs' antitrust claims are based on the alleged anti competitive conduct of defendants appellees Barr Laboratories. Which is the primary chemical ingredient used to make warfarin sodium. This litigation is about protecting the operation of our competitive markets. Safeguard consumers by protecting 1 The code of rules that most directly influenced modern boxing was first published in 1867 under the sponsoring of John Sholto Douglas. There are 12 rules in all. Are not designed to protect competitors from one another's conduct. (Apothecon) is a wholly owned subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis. (Barr) is a competing manufacturer of generic warfarin sodium. Inc. is a Canadian corporation that. Was known as ACIC (Canada) Inc. (hereafter ACIC/Brantford). ACIC/Brantford is a supplier of various chemicals used in manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011338.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA3MDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0708-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their claims were not ripe. Their claims were not ripe. It </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA3MDgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/06-0708-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their claims were not ripe. Their claims were not ripe. It </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/992565P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was terminated from employment on the basis of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) and Minn. BACKGROUND PRS is an Ohio corporation that provides external reviews of the quality of health care services. Whitley was a high level employee. She was expected to develop review tools by identifying quality of care indicators through her research. She further was expected to facilitate study groups. It became apparent to Ohio PRS staff that Whitley was not completing her assignments on time. Were intimately involved in the Minnesota project. Whitley was disruptive. She was fired on February 26. Although summary judgment is 2 to be used sparingly in employment discrimination cases. It is appropriate where one party has failed to present evidence sufficient to create a jury question as to an essential element of its claim. Because Whitley's race discrimination claim is based on inferential rather than direct evidence. The plaintiff must prove that she is a member of a protected class. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/001420P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Here at issue are only the claims against the Missouri DSS. If the State's Eleventh Amendment argument is meritorious. Then it is entitled to close off that possibility by having the bank's claim dismissed with prejudice. The law is clearly settled. Are off point. The State will be entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to the re filing of the federal court suit. 2 II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3MjUtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4725-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court denied habeas relief on the ground that Finkelstein was not in custody at the time his petition was filed. Finkelstein's fraud convictions were entered in Nassau County Court. He was sentenced principally to an indeterminate prison term of one and one third to four years. His convictions were affirmed. He served his prison term and was released on parole. He was discharged 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 from parole in April 2005. Seeking to vacate his state court convictions on the ground that his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/993707U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 1 previously worked as a sacker. He was terminated from these positions. A disorder that was exacerbated. Arguing the ALJ erred in finding his alcohol use was material to his disabling impairment. Were caused by his closed head trauma. Brown contends that this new evidence was unavailable until he was granted Medicaid benefits on September 7. That it is material because there is a reasonable likelihood that it would have changed the Commissioner's determination. We must decide whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. If an ALJ finds that a claimant is disabled. He must determine whether the addiction is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/003794P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us on petition for rehearing by the panel filed by the appellees. That is. That the federal courts do have jurisdiction. The major argument presented by the petition for rehearing is that this Court was without appellate jurisdiction. The Secretary reminds us that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of a claim jurisdiction over which is based in whole or in part under the Little Tucker Act (see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). This assertion is sound. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/011201P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Callantine filed this action alleging she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy for failure to commit the illegal act of signing a backdated Medicare Form 485. The action was tried to a jury. Is wholly owned by Staff Builders. Callantine is a registered nurse who worked as a field nurse for the Cabool office from October 1996 until March 25. When she was terminated. Are required by Medicare to fill out Form 485 for patients who use Medicare as their primary insurance. The doctor's determination that a patient is homebound and requires home health care for a certain length of time. Recertification is required to continue home health care after the time period originally prescribed. The doctor who prescribes the home health care and the nurse who provides the home health care are both required to sign the form. Were terminated. Sander was terminated on March 13. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyMjQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1224-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003139P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/992356P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant hospitals are Unity Hospital. Also named as defendants are hospital employees John Murphy and Allina Health System Corp. Which is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-2683.opa.html">SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSP. V. SHALALA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sarasota Memorial Hosp. v. Appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5488-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court erred by concluding (1) that a warranty that individual loans were eighty percent secured by real property had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5488-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court erred by concluding (1) that a warranty that individual loans were eighty percent secured by real property had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/023613P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PTS was under investigation for submitting fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims. Wallace was PTS's office manager. Nine federal agents were dressed in business suits and carried their weapons concealed. Wallace was in the business office she shared with four other employees. The employees were told not to leave until they were interviewed or talked to someone. Seventeen employees were found in the building and interviewed. Employees were allowed to use the restrooms without permission. Wallace and other employees were able to move freely between the front office and the business office. At which time they were paged back to the offices. Because she was also the evidence custodian. Agent Dawkins and Wallace were alone in the lounge during the 2 interview. Wallace told Agent Dawkins she was upset by the initial entry of the other agents. Wallace seemed fine and was calm. Wallace explained she was familiar with Medicare billing. Wallace testified </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1NDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2542-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) denying their motion for a preliminary injunction requiring New York City and the State of New York to provide immediately to all members of the plaintiff class all services required by their Individualized Education Programs that have been put in place under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Plaintiffs argue that in evaluating whether they were entitled to a preliminary injunction. We also agree that the District Court erred in using the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516935.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Appellant Gulfcoast Medical Supply (Gulfcoast) is a Florida based supplier of durable medical equipment (DME). A DME supplier unequivocally establishes that such equipment is medically </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516771.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Also paid out claims to tens of thousands of individuals whose structures were insured under FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. After questions were raised concerning how 2 individual disaster assistance was disbursed in one Florida county following one of the hurricanes. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that disclosure of both the names and the addresses was exempt under Exemption 6. At issue today is whether FEMA has established that the names and addresses of 1.3 million individuals who applied for aid or made insurance claims after one of 31 federally declared disasters are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. We conclude that the addresses are not exempt under Exemption 6 because FEMA has failed to meet its heavy burden of showing a 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513006.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the district court was required to impose a sentence within the guidelines range based upon language in his plea agreement. He further argues that his consecutive statutory sentences on each count were unreasonable in light of Booker. Eldick was indicted on one count of fraudulently obtaining money from health care programs by filing claims falsely representing that he was a licensed physician in Florida and one count of dispensing hydrocodone. The District Court's discretion in sentencing is limited only by statutory provisions and the Sentencing Guidelines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After that appeal was taken. A copy of that order is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. We now have before us the plaintiffs' appeal from the order denying that second motion for a temporary restraining order. 2 Our prior decision in this case brings into play the law of the case doctrine insofar as issues we addressed in our March 23. 2005 opinion are concerned. [the resolution of] an issue decided at one stage of a case is binding at later stages of the same case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/021777P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This suit was intended to address grievances arising out of the implementation of revitalization plans for the Darst Webbe and Clinton Peabody public housing complexes in St. This was a very complicated case that involved a total of nineteen counts. All of which were maintained throughout the proceedings in the district court. The appellees have not appealed the district court's decision on these two counts. The appellants have appealed the district court's decision on eight of those counts. Darst Webbe Tenant Association Board and Peabody Tenant Association are housing associations. Inc. is a Missouri non profit corporation that engages in activities designed to help the homeless and encourage affordable housing. We will not determine which appellant would be entitled to any relief that the district court could order on remand. We leave that determination to the district court if it determines that the appellants have prevailed on any of the remaining six counts. Is a Missouri non profit corporation. Or other governmental entity or public body (or agency or instrumentality thereof) which is authorized to engage in or assist in the development or operation of low income housing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5064a.html">TENET HEALTHSYSTEMS HEALTHCORP V. TOMMY THOMPSON<BR></A><BR> Ar gued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415283.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415117.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was licensed to practice medicine in Florida and registered under the Controlled Substances Act. He was convicted. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 Williams was sentenced. He was also sentenced to a five year period of supervised release to follow the imprisonment and ordered to pay $2. The Government presented Williams was previously convicted of Medicaid fraud and served twelve months in federal prison. He was released in 1995. All of the prescriptions discussed in this opinion are prescriptions for controlled substances. Oxycodone is a Schedule II controlled 2 2 1 the expert testimony of Dr. Who was qualified as an expert in the areas of pain management. That he wrote prescriptions for patients whose behavior and physical appearance indicated that they were addicted to controlled substances or who informed Williams that they had been addicted to controlled substances or illegal drugs in the past. That he wrote prescriptions for patients whose toxicology screens (tests to determine which drugs are in a patient's body) showed that they were not taking the prescribed drugs and were instead taking illegal drugs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312113.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The City of Day tona Be ach requ ested an e videntiar y hearing to determin e the mer its of Pau l Smalb ein's 42 U .S.C. § 1 983 claim s in orde r to establish w hether S malbein and M illis were e ligible for § 1988 (b) attorn ey's fees. Becaus e we fin d that Sm albein and Millis are prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Were v iolated fo llowing his arrest in a night clu b parkin g lot. Sma lbein claim ed that he was de prived o f his due process rights. The compla int was la ter amen ded to allege eleven counts and named Claudia Smalbein and Edward Millis as plaintiffs after the death of Paul Smalbein.2 After mediation. All issues raised in the amended complaint were settled except for payment of attorney's fees and taxa ble costs. A nd the p arties jointly noticed th e district co urt of the ir 2 We note that Paul Smalbein's death was unrelated to the facts of this case. 3 agreement. Both the motion and the request for an evidentiary hearing were denied as premature because a final settlemen t had no t yet been r eached. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/023242U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing the government failed to prove the proceeds of the unlawful activity were used to further his unlawful scheme. He was convicted of laundering or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/023242U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing the government failed to prove the proceeds of the unlawful activity were used to further his unlawful scheme. He was convicted of laundering or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210018.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was entitled to a new trial. The petitioner would like to state that this is not a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [petition]. It is not subject to the constraints imposed by the Anti Terrorist [sic] and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The courts' authority to provide the relief appellant was seeking in his October 3 pleading is contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255. That everything written herein is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-6499.man.html">DEDRICK V. YOUNGBLOOD (1/12/2000, NO. 98-6499)<BR></A><BR> 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.</P> <P> 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.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116211.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was created by the debtor prior to insolvency. Was established to provide income to the debtor for her lifetime with the remainder ultimately being given to several charities. The debtor contends her interest in the trust is exempt from her bankruptcy estate. The debtor contends her interest is exempt because the trust qualifies as a support trust. Is not exempt from the debtor's bankruptcy estate. Is not likewise subject to the claims of the debtor's creditors. Appellee is entitled to receive an annual amount equal to 7% of the net worth of the trust. The payments are due in monthly installments. Who is unemployed. Appellee is the only beneficiary currently entitled to receive income payments under the trust. Appellee's only rights are to receive the 7% income payments. Her powers are generally limited to directing investment decisions. She does not have the discretion to invade the trust corpus or to alter the amount of payments made to the trust beneficiaries. Appellee is prohibited from assigning or otherwise alienating her interest in the trust by virtue of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us after the Supreme Court granted Rockwell International Corporation's petition for writ of certiorari and reversed the portion of our prior judgment in favor of plaintiff James S. ORDER AFTER LIMITED REMAND The disposition of the instant appeals by published opinion for a divided panel was suspended on petition for rehearing. Is reported. We will not attempt to summarize in this order the complex factual and legal background of this matter which is outlined in that opinion. At which all counsel agreed that the record was adequate to enable the judge to make the findings and conclusions necessary. Defendant avers that this point is (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (2) Judge Hartz has replaced the late Judge Politz on the panel. (1) See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4). (2) These terms are explained in our published opinion. <hr> moot because the verdict for the time frame including this claim was in its favor. Stone had conceded that he did not make pre filing disclosure to the government of any knowledge he may have had underlying his claims with respect to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033743U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Depression with anxiety were severe but not of listing level severity. Although some of Marrotte's contentions have force. We find that the ALJ's credibility findings are nonetheless entitled to deference. Court will normally defer to credibility determination). We disagree with Marrotte's assertion that the ALJ was required to discuss her prior work record and her illness related job losses. So long as analytical framework is recognized and considered). While there is a statement from her last employer indicating that Marrotte lost that job due to frequent absences. The ALJ's finding that the record suggested that Marrotte was seeking care only to establish evidence supporting a disability claim is supported by substantial evidence: for example. Marrotte's rationale (lack of transportation) for choosing not to participate in a July 2000 pain management program is suspect. See id. at 976 (substantial evidence is less than preponderance but enough that reasonable person would find it adequate to support decision). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4052.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION The current action is one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Defendant Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/056001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Filed an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that his child support obligations were dischargeable. One child was born in 1991. One child was born in 1999. Foss was the father of the child born in 1999. The matter is now pending before the District Court of Hall County. He also alleged that awards made payable to child support enforcement agencies are dischargeable in bankruptcy. Foss' claims are barred by the Rooker Feldman Doctrine. That these claims are for child support. Are. Such brief was due on April 5. 214 B.R. at 418. 3 overrule that objection and will. Which was filed on April 20. The Rooker Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that applies to final judgments or orders. The bankruptcy court also found that this matter should be dismissed because there is currently pending in the District Court of Hall County. We concur that abstention is appropriate and we affirm on that basis. The district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11.8 That jurisdiction is not. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/033905P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/051985P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Juvenile officers are judicial employees. Who are supervised by the juvenile court or circuit court judges. It must designate a single state agency (SSA) that will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/054372P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All Medicare eligible costs incurred by a provider hospital were reimbursed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964398.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Ranch was owned by the Madiwales and was located on the property upon which the Madiwales also had Honorable Edward S. Savaiko discovered that one of the residents had alleged that he was sexually attacked by other boys at the Retreat Ranch on February 5. It is this incident upon which the application for the search warrants and the warrantless arrest were based. Asserting that she was entitled to qualified immunity on all counts. Summary judgment is appropriate where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/053803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are current and former firefighters for the City of Aberdeen. Who have sued the City to recover overtime pay that they claim is due them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Both sides agreed that no facts were in dispute and moved for summary judgment. Concluding that the FLSA's plain language prevents the payment of overtime wages to those who have not actually worked. Because the relevant facts are not in dispute and the judgment is final. The plaintiffs were often scheduled to work more hours than the FLSA permits an employee to work without receiving overtime pay. This kind of arrangement is common among firefighters and is permissible under the FLSA so long as it is voluntary and done with the employer's permission. 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(3). The amount that the substitute receives is fixed by private agreement between the two employees. It refused to pay them the overtime to which the FLSA plainly would have entitled them had they worked the shifts themselves. The law provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1973.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. The district court concluded that Seminole Tribe was a bar and dismissed the suit. Ninety six current and former probation and parole officers (plaintiffs appellants) have asserted that the State of Maine improperly failed to pay them overtime in accordance with the requirements imposed by Section 7 of the FLSA. Maine contended that the probation officers were exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were covered employees but came within the FLSA's partial exemption for law enforcement officers. Was challenged under the Commerce Clause as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. These amendments were challenged under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the amendments were legitimate expressions of Congress' Commerce Clause powers. Held 5 5 that Congress did not have the power to extend FLSA protections to state employees in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/053972U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where Oliver was counseled. Residual effects of an ankle fracture were severe impairments. That her substance abuse was not a contributing factor material to finding a disability. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 1 complaints were not fully credible. We conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits to Oliver. The determination is entitled to deference. Because they were consistent with Oliver's reports to her two main treating physicians and to a Medicaid clinic doctor that her prescribed medications were controlling her manic and depressive episodes. They were consistent with a consulting psychologist's opinion as to the type of work Oliver could perform even when she was abusing alcohol. They were even more restrictive than the findings of a Social Security Administration reviewing psychologist. Oliver was properly discredited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/061999P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of filing false Medicare and Medicaid claims and sentenced to a $1. The resulting fine range was $1. On the earlier appeal we found there was sufficient evidence to support the findings on which the district court relied in calculating the guideline range. It was also unclear whether PTS had been found to be a criminal purpose organization under U.S.S.G. § 8C1.1 (fines should divest such a defendant of all its net assets). Which are now relevant. The court asked whether there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1613.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On cover sheet. Richardson & Troubh were on brief for appellant. Ashley & Bull were on brief for appellee. Was a preexisting condition excluded from coverage under the Policy and therefore the district court erred in not granting Golden Rule judgment as a matter of law. We agree that Golden Rule was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Those who knew Catherine Atallah realized that something was amiss with her. She was becoming increasingly unable or unwilling to perform the ordinary tasks of everyday life. Her utility and telephone services were cut off more than once. Explained that she was doing so to learn </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1766.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. and Julianne Cloutier were on brief for appellee Amy Bierbaum. Cabell and Hale and Dorr were on brief for appellees Verrill & Dana. McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellee RECOLL Management Corporation. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee Fleet Bank of Maine. The issue is one of first impression. We have attached them in an appendix to our opinion. 2. As will be discussed infra. We believe the court erred in determining that this action was jurisdictionally barred. Section 3730(e)(3) states: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952608P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were declared constitutional by the district court. We conclude that section 130.100 is unconstitutional and reverse the judgment of the district court. Will have an aggregate value in excess of the limits stated in section 1. They are not irreconcilably inconsistent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1137.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Pine Tree Legal Assistance were on brief for appellees. Provides federal financial assistance to needy families with children who are deprived of parental support through death. States are not required to participate in the AFDC pro gram. 316 (1968). 1The nominal defendants are the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Since the State of Maine is the real party in interest. States in turn were required to amend their Title IV A plan. Mined </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1106.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 14. P.C. were on brief for Sea 3. Murphy was on brief for Storage Tank Development Corporation. Anderson and Latti Associates were on briefs for plaintiff. Defendants were the owner of the facility. Storage Tank's and Sea 3's third party claims against Goudreau were omitted from that trial.1 On October 9. Finding him to have been damaged in the amount of $1. I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Clausen argues that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over Storage Tank's appeal because the district court's December 31. Amended judgment was not an appealable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2200.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Francisco Mendoza Torres pled guilty to one count of illegal (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Arguing it is unreasonable when viewed under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors based on family circumstances. Mendoza Torres advised his wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. 2) a recent biopsy determined it was benign. 3) surgery was scheduled to remove it. He also argued the government was equitably estopped from prosecuting and sentencing him because when he was deported in 1992. Mendoza Torres was told by state authorities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2442.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2079.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun16/03-20792.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is black. She was assigned to the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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. The group was supervised by Mary McCullen. Smith's performance ratings were consistently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/953423P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brandon is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1270.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1993 is amended as follows: In footnote 1. 1993 is amended as follows: On page 7. Millimet & Branch were on brief for appellants. Bass & Green were on brief for appellees. Both sides are engaged in providing medical services through health maintenance organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/951554P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These defendants are Jesse Rouse. Who was acquitted by the jury. The children are referred to by initials in the text of this The jury acquitted the defendants of the remaining charges. The appellants raise twelve allegations of error in the trial of the case.1 We grant relief on two issues: (1) refusal to allow expert opinion testimony by a court appointed psychologist that the children's evidence and testimony became tainted by suggestive influences to which the children were subject in the investigation and trial. 11) whether the defendants were denied due process right to fair trial when the Department of Social Services. The appellants are entitled to a new trial on these grounds. Sufficiency of the evidence is not an issue. An examination of the record establishes that the medical evidence was inconclusive as to abuse or abuse by the defendants and that the children's reports of abuse may have been tainted by the influence of social workers and law enforcement officials who investigated and prepared the government's case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/951754P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether an amendment to a Minnesota statute. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The Association is a nonprofit Minnesota corporation created pursuant to the Minnesota Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the Act). The Investment Plus Plan of Honeywell the Honeywell plans is First Trust National Association. App. 1987). business in Minnesota are To provide this protection. Who was a Minnesota resident (as is the current trustee). GICs are unallocated annuity contracts. Or Id. annuity contracts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1592.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 37 at line 10. Lynette Labinger with whom Roney & Labinger was on brief for appellants. & Murphy was on brief for Milton W. Lowe </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/963651U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ulrich discovered that Minnesota hospitals were not being properly reimbursed for patients eligible for benefits under both Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs. The state to resolve potential outstanding claims offered to pay defendants a portion of what they were owed. They were unjustly enriched by his efforts. Are bound by the decisions of the Minnesota courts. As he has made no allegation that defendants' acceptance of payments to which they were entitled was fraudulent or illegal in any way. He has stated no facts to support an allegation that defendants' actions were morally wrong. Ulrich is not entitled to compensation from defendants merely because his efforts in representing his clients may have incidentally conferred a benefit upon defendants. The judgment is affirmed. Ulrich's attorney's fees and costs is denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-2180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kevin O'Dea were Goldings. Kevin O'Dea were on brief for appellants. on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appel Heymann. Were on brief for appel lee. lee. 2 2 CYR. Which were managed from offices owned by defendant Bel Art Realty. It was necessary to obtain alcoholic beverage licenses. From municipal licensing boards to which the applicants were obligated to disclose the identity and background of all owners and managers of the premises to be licensed.1 1Chapter 138. Requires applicants to include </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1514.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monospace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963351U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there was no error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1753.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gray LLP</SPAN> 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. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/972009P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court has under consideration a motion by the State to have the St. The difficulty of developing a plan that will ensure that students of all races will have a continuing equal opportunity for a quality. Background The early history of this litigation is chronicled in our earlier opinions and will only be summarized here.1 See Liddell v. Louis (City Board) alleging that the city schools were segregated by race as a matter of state law and practice. 449 U.S. 826 (1980). 6 Missouri was joined as a party defendant. The City Board and the State were jointly responsible for maintaining a segregated school system. Louis Board of Education are ordered and directed as follows: a) To make every feasible effort to work out with the appropriate school districts in the St. Cooperative plan of pupil exchanges which will assist in alleviating the school segregation in the City of St. Which also insures that interdistrict pupil transfers will not impair the desegregation of the St. The City Board argued that the district court orders were not reviewable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/964280P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Forty milligrams of the drug at 3:00 in the afternoon while Kelly is still at school. Even though Kelly's higher dosage is necessary to treat her effectively. No studies show whether higher dosages are harmful. The district court concluded the school district's refusal was not based on Kelly's disability. Shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the school district is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The grantee may have to make reasonable accommodations in its program or benefit. Title II regulations require a public entity to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/973192P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Loyd McCord is the president and sole shareholder of McCord. The principal issue is whether the district court1 erred in applying the fivelevel sentencing enhancement in USSG § 2F1.1(b)(4)(A) for fraud offenses that involve </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1696.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief for petitioner. Decof</SPAN> were on brief for claimant. Was employed on the M/V Reflections. The result was anoxic brain injury anoxic refers to the lack of oxygen so severe that his life was despaired of. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/982951P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Planned Parenthood was allowed to receive program funds because it maintained accounting procedures that assured the State that no family planning funds were spent on abortion services. Abortion service providers like Planned Parenthood were receiving indirect benefits from family planning funds through shared revenue. These statutes were held to be unconstitutional by the district court. For fiscal year 1999 the Missouri legislature devised the three tiered approach that is at issue in this case. It provides that organizations or affiliates of organizations that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/982723P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's decision that a school district violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A high school that is located within the school district. Is not Kratisha's regularly assigned neighborhood school. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(d) & 1401(8) (Supp. 1999) (purpose of IDEA is to assure a FAPE to all children with disabilities). The IEP also required special transportation services a lift bus and establishment of a special route which were provided to Kratisha when she attended her neighborhood school. While there is evidence that there are other children in the school district with moderate to severe needs who also need transportation services. The evidence does not reflect whether the parents of the other students attending Kennedy High School would have used Kratisha's particular bus route if one had been created such that economies of scale would reduce the district's cost. Stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21805F090F35B46A882571C4007CB64E/$file/0455536.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Johnson Controls was engaged in a bid rigging scheme in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. 2 a draft of which was included with the letters. If any state funds are involved. If political subdivision funds are exclusively involved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-2629.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1255.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both parties have requested that we construe Mr. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He overstayed his visa and removal proceedings were initiated against him in 2004. Claiming that he will suffer political persecution if he is forced to return to Bangladesh. He fears persecution because he is the son of Siraj Sikder. Who was a prominent leftist political leader of the 1970's. Siraj Sikder was killed while in government custody in 1975. Which was then in power. Will find him and harm him out of residual ill will towards his father. Sikder's asylum application was untimely because it was not filed within a year of his 1991 arrival in the United States. The IJ was not persuaded that he faced any danger by virtue of his father's political activities. Sikder was not in hiding during that time. Attended a boarding school where his father's alleged enemies could easily have found him. Since Mr.Sikder filed what was plainly a challenge to the BIA's removal order within the 30 day deadline mandated by 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1952.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D6495646EB35EBE882571ED007FCF23/$file/0455122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Are not suspected of fraud or ineligibility. Are automatically enrolled in Project 100%. The parties are essentially in agreement as to the structure and operation of Project 100%. The visit includes a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36C1CFDD0AEC72828825717600555425/$file/0335864.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A requirement known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F82B2240C03373088256C2B004F8426/$file/9917148.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the subrogee/assignee of a Medicare supplemental insurance contract between National States Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C97098ADF8099AB88256C910059D128/$file/0136089.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This flaw is fatal to a qui tam1 action under the False Claims Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants and cross appellees</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70D03D89A5177B5688257154008058F0/$file/0316937.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was awarded over $700. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST Defendant Berens is a research scientist at Barrow Neurological Institute. Berens is the primary researcher on a project that uses beagle dogs to research glioma. The study is designed to develop a large animal model for studying glioma and then extrapolate any knowledge gained to treat glioma in humans. This procedure had to be done during gestation to prevent the immune systems of the puppies from rejecting the gliomal cells and was designed to cause tumors to develop after the puppies were born. Berens' research was privately funded. Berens' first grant application to the NIH was rejected. His second application was approved. Relator Haight is an experimental psychologist and the Southwest Regional Director of In Defense of Animals. Haight began investigating Berens' research at the request of a student and community members who were protesting animal research conducted at Barrow and Arizona State University ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DD653864B22C2868825707A007E63A7/$file/0335950.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are parents of adopted children with special needs1 Children with special needs include. Is a member of a sibling group which will be placed together and is difficult to place because there are three or more children. Is a member of an ethnic/racial/cultural minority. Or is eight years of age or older. R. 413 130 0020. 2 Oregon's Adoption Assistance Program is codified at Or. The federal statute provides that each grant recipient is entitled to a fair hearing before the applicable state agency to challenge any claim for benefits that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-9408.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SUBA (1/9/1998, NO. 95-9408)<BR></A><BR> 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).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD56EB1FEB830BA6882570650056DD30/$file/0317082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The False Claims Act provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE16CAFE31E5FACB88256F62005D8BF4/$file/0216155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Plaintiffs are six former tenants of three substandard Single Resident Occupancy hotels ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C13272C1707802B788256D800051CE88/$file/0216778.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is GRANTED. 11096 UNITED STATES v. Is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the following opinion. 2003 are denied as moot. Concluding that it was not grossly disproportional to the gravity of Mackby's offense. Who is neither a physician nor a physical therapist. Medicare Part B is a voluntary insurance program that pays a portion of the costs of some services not covered by Part A. 42 U.S.C. § 1395k. The clinic was subject to the cap applicable to a PTIP. Because the government was led to believe that Dr. Mackby was supervising physical therapy. Did not provide or direct any medical services at the clinic and did not know his son was using his PIN. Mackby himself is a layperson and did not provide physical therapy or other medical services to patients. A physical therapist in independent practice was defined as one who engaged in the practice of physical therapy on a regular basis without the administrative and professional control of an employer. We further held that both the treble damages and the civil monetary penalty provided for in the FCA are. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1254.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defenders</U> was on brief. Lougee</U> 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.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I.</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The following facts are undisputed.</P> <P> Vickie Lesley became pregnant in late 1994. The newborn was given AZT syrup. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFA926E7AF1CC15C88256EAF005445A8/$file/0316408.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose claims for coverage of their health care services were denied based on Local Coverage Determinations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/002525.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E0D2A537151F268588256BFB0002F443/$file/0156318.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It provided that the first stipulation for the lifting of sanctions was to remain in effect. We hold that a plaintiff who succeeds in obtaining a court order incorporating an agreement that includes relief the plaintiff sought in the lawsuit is not a mere catalyst he is a prevailing party for attorney's fees purposes. PACT is California's family Planning. Numerous forms of declaratory and injunctive relief were sought. The only issues remaining before the court were Labotest's PACT disenrollment and attorney's fees. If any is not determined by this Agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/031061p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents us with the question: should a Consent Decree entered in 1974 be vacated (1) where statutes and regulations have been enacted and promulgated curing the alleged due process deficiencies addressed by the Consent Decree. (2) where no originally named plaintiff remains a party to the Complaint and Consent Decree and no class was ever certified? Appellees Ernest and Eunice Brown and others (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6EA6819078EAEB188256D13006BEA3B/$file/0036060.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleged that his termination from the residency program was motivated by Seyfer's retaliation against him for questioning Seyfer's billing practices. He had a one year contract that was renewable for a second year. Ostad contends he was ordered to sign the letter and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/011793.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The contracts were funded by a grant from the United States Department of the Interior to the GVI for capital improvement projects. At issue here is Gumbs's submission to the GVI of requests for payment of $92. Gumbs was indicted on two counts of willfully causing a false claim to be made or presented to a federal department in violation of 18 U.S.C. Gumbs was also indicted on two counts of making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal department in violation of 18 U.S.C. These counts were dismissed before trial. 2 Gumbs moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Gumbs submits that there was insufficient evidence that he knew that the contracts in question were federally funded. That such knowledge is required before a defendant may be convicted under S 2(b) and S 287. The government responds that S 2(b) and S 287 do not require a defendant to know that he is causing a false claim to be presented to a federal department. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F61C87D5903EA3A28825731300564F27/$file/0556341.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022906p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The MSA was entered into 1. This suit is just one in a series attacking the MSA and statutes passed pursuant to it. These suits have been unsuccessful. We note that the Majors are not named defendants in this particular litigation as this court concluded in an earlier decision that the Majors were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr Pennington doctrine. Lorillard Tobacco. 5 Bedell and will be repeated here only to the extent necessary for the discussion and analysis. The MSA was negotiated after various lawsuits were either brought or threatened against the Majors and other tobacco companies by States seeking to recover Medicaid funds that they spent to treat tobacco related diseases. Pennsylvania filed suit against the Majors in April 1997 and the suit was settled as part of the MSA.3 Under the MSA. Provisions that the Plaintiffs allege were to be funded by the payment by wholesalers and consumers of artificially high prices for cigarettes. Plaintiffs further contend that after the MSA was entered into. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5160.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FAE8520783ADAC9588256B36008220A6/$file/9956319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1391.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Of counsel on the brief were Kevin A. With him on the brief was Geoffrey D. Of counsel were Michael J. This is a patent infringement case in which the United States District Court for the Western District of New York concluded at summary judgment that suit against a hazardous waste remediation contractor was barred by government contractor immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Because we agree with the district court that the contractor's use of the accused method was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-4398.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-1507.htm">96-1507 -- M.M. V. ZAVARAS -- 03/17/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff used the pseudonym </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-7085.htm">97-7085 -- SHERMAN V. APFEL -- 04/08/1998<BR></A><BR> Unskilled work. <p> We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-5139.htm">97-5139 -- U.S. V. WALKER -- 08/05/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant appellant James Edward Walker. Was charged by a federal grand jury in a twelve count indictment with extortion affecting interstate commerce. A jury found Walker not guilty on eight counts but was unable to agree on the four remaining counts. Judge Holmes asked defense counsel whether he would agree that there was no basis for the retransfer motion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/98-2131.htm">98-2131 -- U.S. V. JONES -- 11/16/1998<BR></A><BR> We conclude that due process may require such a hearing if certain conditions are present. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> The circumstances leading to the present appeals stem from an indictment returned against Mega Universal Oxygen &. Defendants are charged with. The grand jury also alleged that certain real and personal properties are subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-3001.htm">97-3001 -- HEALTHCARE AMERICA PLANS INC. V. CONSTANCE BOSSEMEYER -- 12/15/1998<BR></A><BR> Bossemeyer was not covered by the health care plan. The two actions were consolidated. Determining the fiduciary's denial of coverage was not arbitrary and capricious. <em>Healthcare America Plans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1168p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul's obligation to defend is also based on the comprehensive general liability coverage it purchased from St. I. Facts and Procedural History VNA is a non profit corporation engaged in the business of providing home health care and related services throughout the Delaware Valley. Agencies such as VNA typically provide home health care to patients who are discharged from hospitals and require follow up care. Which are required as a condition of participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to transfer or refer their patients to appropriate facilities. In February 1993 VNA was sued by AHS. Paul was required to defend VNA in the lawsuit brought by AHS and a judgment for all monies expended by VNA and all liabilities incurred but not yet paid by VNA with respect to the defense of the AHS suit. The district court held that VNA is not entitled to coverage under the commercial general liability portion of the policy. After the notices of appeal were filed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. Our review of the district court's grant and denial of the summary judgment motions is plenary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94ftc.html">FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/994024.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-3001a.htm">97-3001A -- HEALTHCARE AMERICA PLANS INC. V. BOSSEMEYER -- 12/15/1998<BR></A><BR> 1998 is now being amended to add the concurrence filed by Judge Robert Henry on this date. The concurrence is appended immediately following the majority decision which remains the same as when filed. <p> The amended copy of the decision is attached. <p> Very truly yours. Bossemeyer was not covered by the health care plan. The two actions were consolidated. Determining the fiduciary's denial of coverage was not arbitrary and capricious. <em>Healthcare America Plans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/98-2056.htm">98-2056 -- U.S. V. CHAVEZ-HUERTA -- 02/18/1999<BR></A><BR> The government next introduced the following stipulation into evidence: <p> The undersigned stipulate and agree that the following is true and correct: <p> On July 2. Which is contained in six zip lock bags contained in a larger zip lock bag. All of which were contained in a brown/beige bundle. <p> The parties agree that the suspected heroin was tested by Edwin G. Which is a Schedule I controlled substance. <p> The parties further agree that a proper chain of custody was maintained for the heroin from the time of the seizure on July 2. Which is designated as Government's Exhibit 1. Is therefore admissible in court without the need to lay further foundation. <p> The government. You will accept those as agreed facts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-4139.htm">98-4139 -- HANCOCK V. STATE OF UTAH -- 05/10/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Crae F. Hancock's district court complaint was that defendants had infringed upon his constitutional rights by failing to afford a Nevada state court judgment full faith and credit. Hancock asserted that he was entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1868p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0711p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the ACGME's conduct was not state action. We will reverse. Which is commonly referred to as a residency. Is defined in the Act as training approved or recognized by the board which is either: (1) accredited as graduate medical education by any accrediting body recognized by the board for the purpose of accrediting graduate medical education. . . . Or (2) provided by a hospital accredited by any accrediting body recognized by the board and is acceptable to an American specialty board towards the training it requires for the certification it issues in a medical specialty or subspecialty. . . . Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/02-10018.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS (10/4/2002, NO. 02-10018)<BR></A><BR> He was entitled to a new trial. The petitioner would like to state that this is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5181.html">ERICK LOWRY V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. The issue before us is straightforward: whether the provision in the recently enacted Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Modification Act (the </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3129a.html">US V. ARNETT C. SMITH<BR></A><BR> Klein argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1352p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the August 16. Hovsons is a developer of nursing homes and other forms of senior citizen housing. Approximately twenty two (21.96) of the acres are located in Brick Township. The remaining (10.77) acres are in Lakewood Township. The nursing home facility Hovsons has envisioned is intended for persons who will require some form of nursing care for the rest of their lives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-6167.htm">99-6167 -- NORRIS V. APFEL -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant Don L. We have jurisdiction under 28 . Reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. <p> <center><u>The Claim for Benefits</u></center> <p> Claimant was born on October 30. Until he was fired on June . His attempts to work since then have been brief and unsuccessful. He claims that he ends up in pain after a few days and is unable to continue working. <u>See</u> Appellant's App. at 120. He explained that the pain is on the right side of his lower back and in his right hip and leg. He testified that he was also depressed. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 202. <p> <center><u>The ALJ's Decision</u></center> <p> The ALJ denied the claim at step four on the basis that claimant retained the RFC to return to any of four specific past jobs. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 32. The agency requires the ALJ to have made specific findings concerning: (1) claimant's RFC. (3) claimant's ability to return to these past jobs with the RFC the ALJ determined the claimant to have. <u>See</u> Social Security Ruling 82 62. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are descendants of Osage Indians listed on the tribal rolls at the time of the Osage Allotment Act of 1906. Their complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) a claim that the defendants (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. 640 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1981). <hr> The court first concluded that the Tribal Council was a necessary party under Fed. Reasoning that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2000/991124.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The specific question before us is whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5455a.html">P.I.A. MICHIGAN CITY INCORPORATED V. TOMMY THOMPSON<BR></A><BR> Neustadter argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/981497.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Merena * The Honorable Will L. The government suspected that the laboratories had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0956p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over the district court's order. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings to determine whether Jesurum is capable of performing work or is capable of engaging in any substantial gainful activity. Is a native of the Dominican Republic with an eighth grade education and limited English language skills. She does not have a driver's license and was last employed in 1971 as a sewing machine operator. The district court concluded that the ALJ's determination was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Secretary's denial. Just as he accepted the ALJ's finding that Jesurum's back pains were not incapacitating and that she could perform the full range of light work. We are limited to a determination whether the Secretary's denial is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320.htm">98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> 1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment.<strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>I</strong></center> <p> Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1229p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320a.htm">98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2286.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is not much about grace. It is about Grace. Grace was abandoned soon after birth to the custody of the New Mexico Children. The basis of the foster family's objection was that they thought Bogey was actually a man pretending to be a woman because of Bogey's extensive facial hair. Responsibility for her case bounced around from one over worked social worker to another and concerns about her situation were investigated by an uninquisitive investigator. Grace's situation quickly turned from muddled to tragic: she died four weeks after the adoption was finalized. Apparently as the result of being beaten to death. <hr> This case is legally about the claimed failures of the Children. Particularly during the period between placement for adoption and the time adoption decree was entered. The argument is that. The adoption would not have been permitted and Grace would not have been placed in mortal danger. His state tort claims were dismissed as a matter of law. His 1983 claims against several Department employees were dismissed on summary judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1448.htm">99-1448 -- LAWRENCE V. PETERS -- 06/09/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Thomas R. We have carefully reviewed the district court's order. Lawrence at a hearing that his criminal trial was the proper forum in which to litigate the allegations in the indictment. Lawrence's complaint simply prematurely alleged a malicious prosecution case before he had established in his criminal trial that the allegations were unfounded. <em>See Taylor v. App. 1990) (setting forth essential elements of malicious prosecution claim in Colorado: (1) defendant was a party to or assisted in a criminal or civil proceeding against the plaintiff. (2) the proceeding was resolved in favor of plaintiff. (3) there was no probable cause for the proceeding. (4) the defendant was actuated by malice in instituting the proceedings. (5) the plaintiff was damaged thereby). The district court did not take the position that a prosecuting attorney </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1952p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-2136.htm">00-2136 -- JOSEPH V. INGRAM -- 08/22/2001<BR></A><BR> Stable families. <p> 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 <u>Younger v. The Department cross appeals the district court's rejection of its Eleventh Amendment argument.<strong></strong> <p> <strong> </strong>We conclude that Appellants' claims under the Social Security Act are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Appellants' constitutional claims are barred by the <u>Younger</u> . The background to this appeal is relatively straightforward. The district court approved the settlement and entered a consent decree ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0797p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-1351.htm">99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 09/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Rockwell was compensated on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-5232a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Adina H. Martha Jane Perkins was on the brief for amici curiae Representatives Henry R. With her on the brief were Peter D. Walker were on the brief for amicus curiae CTIA The Wireless Association in support of appellee. Is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. Because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term. Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. The District Court held that Public Citizen's bicameralism claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Marshall Field & Co. v. Through their presiding officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/06-5295a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-5190b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Gary S. Price were on the brief for amici curiae District of Columbia Affairs Section of the District of Columbia Bar. With him on the brief were Peter D. Were on the brief of appellee Commonwealth of Virginia. Were on the brief for appellee State of Maryland. PER CURIAM: The local government of the District of Columbia is prohibited by Congress from imposing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-5276a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5276 Palisades5a.odl.wpd
149 PFIZER INC V. SHALALA DONNA E.

With him on

the briefs were Andrew S. With him on the brief was

Frank W. With him on the brief was Steven

Lieberman.

David G. Adams was on the brief for appellee Penwest

Pharmaceuticals Group. David M. Durkin were on the brief for

amicus curiae National Association of Pharmaceutical Manu

facturers.

Before: Edwards.

that the osmotic pump is a unique

149 98-5222 -- OXY USA, INC. V. BABBITT -- 10/10/2001

Circuit Judge.

149 99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 03/04/2002

Was circulated to the members of the panel and all circuit judges of the court in regular service. That suggestion is denied.

The petition for rehearing by the panel has been considered by the panel and it has been determined that rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of modifying the opinion and ordering a limited remand to the district court as provided herein. The limited remand to the district court is for the purpose of that court making findings of fact and conclusions concerning the issue of disclosure prior to filing of this action in accordance with the False Claims Act. A supplemental record will be transmitted to this court containing the additional findings and conclusions made on this limited remand. This court will otherwise retain jurisdiction of this cause. The rulings made previously in our opinion are undisturbed. Final disposition of these appeals will be made.

The court's opinion as modified on rehearing by the panel is being filed along with this order.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Patrick Fisher.

149 OPINION/ORDER
149 OPINION/ORDER
149 01-3097 -- CLARK V. STOVALL -- 04/30/2002

Citibank was described in the complaint as the escrow agent designated by the parties to the tobacco litigation Master Settlement Agreement to receive. With the further prevision that
149 OPINION/ORDER
He argues that the state proceedings do not satisfy the conditions for a Younger abstention because they are no longer in progress and will not provide an adequate forum for his federal claims. Because we find that the state proceedings are still in progress and will provide an adequate forum to hear Mr. Stein is a New Mexico attorney specializing in estate planning. He solicits (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The Disciplinary Board would have the option to file formal charges against the attorney. Concluding that
the Stein Disciplinary Proceeding was in progress and that Mr. Stein would have an opportunity to raise any constitutional claims during that proceeding. After Stein II there were two notable developments. The complaint was largely similar to Stein I & II. A district court's abstention under Younger is subject to de novo review. A federal court must abstain under Younger if (1) there is a state. Criminal or administrative proceeding that is in progress and is judicial in nature.
149 99-4149 -- DAVIS V. NORRIS -- 05/01/2002

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Deborah Norris appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of her counterclaims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Who was her neighbor. Davis claimed that their sexual encounters were consensual. The litigation was bitter. The state court ordered that they were to remain confidential and not to be disseminated beyond use by the experts in the Utah state case.

In 1993. Davis was convicted of Medicare/Medicaid and insurance fraud in conjunction with his practice as a physician and was sentenced to federal prison. Numerous articles were published about his alleged illegal activities between 1989 and 1994. Norris was interviewed was published in a Salt Lake City. Davis was pending and that she was aware of four other women who claimed he had sexually assaulted them.

In June 1995. Norris sent a copy of the 1994 article to the federal prison where he was incarcerated and that he suffered loss of privileges and a .

149 02-1082 -- TRIMBLE V. SILVERN -- 03/27/2003

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs seek review of the district court's order dismissing their amended complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. The dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and action was based on and consistent with the court's oral findings and conclusions made as part of a hearing held January 30. 2002.

The background history is protracted. Defendants are attorneys who represented plaintiffs and their three young children in a personal injury action against various individuals and county officials in the aftermath of a fire which caused particularly serious injuries to one child (Valerie). All three children were in foster care in Colorado at the time. A comprehensive settlement agreement was reached which included. As did the appropriate state courts.

The earlier Colorado actions have been concluded and those decisions upheld on appeal. See Trimble v. 55(a) because of Monas's failure to respond while the action was pending in Texas.

149 01-4215 -- BINGHAM LIVESTOCK TRANSPORTATION. INC. V. MEAD -- 06/06/2003

We dismiss this appeal as moot.

Bingham Livestock is a trucking business located in Utah. Arguing the district court's order should be reversed and its business records returned.

While this appeal was pending. The government filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot because the

149 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I Plaintiff is African American. She was hired by defendant in 1997 as a Medicaid customer service representative. Plaintiff was issued a notice of unsatisfactory performance. Plaintiff contends that accuracy standards were not actually put into effect until January 2000. Plaintiff was given a second notice of unsatisfactory performance for the same alleged shortcoming. She was terminated for still having failed to achieve satisfactory performance on the accuracy standards. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Federal decisions applying Title VII are persuasive authority in construing [the Kansas Act Against Discrimination] claims because the statutory schemes are analogous. The Court will apply Title VII standards to the KAAD claims.
149 03-2173 -- U.S. V. DURANTE -- 01/20/2004

He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 57 months. He did so only on the grounds that the safety and soundness of the victim was not substantially jeopardized. We agree with the parties based upon our independent review that the NMTHA was not a financial institution. See United States v. NMTHA was an organization created in September 2000 in hopes of becoming a licensed managed care organization which would provide Medicaid reimbursable health care services to Native Americans in New Mexico. It is uncontroverted that NMTHA was not to provide medical insurance or similar benefits. 2B1.1 is inapplicable. Though the district court's ruling is certainly understandable based upon the parties' concession. Jr.

Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTES Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

149 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 (
149 02-1007 -- MILLER V. IMAGE DATA LLC -- 02/23/2004

We AFFIRM the district court's ruling on summary judgment and REVERSE and REMAND its ruling on costs.
  1. Background

Image Data is a high tech start up company formed to commercially develop its True ID

149 02-8059 -- EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP. V. POLLEYS -- 02/04/2004

Defendant Appellant Education Credit Management Corporation (
149 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Richard A. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Was convicted after engaging in dubious financial dealings with the owner of one of the facilities to which he had sent patients. He claims first that he was wrongly convicted for violating s 208(a). Advancing the novel theory that this statute should be read to exclude persons who are employed at his government salary level. Have considerable merit. He is correct. Because this error was plain. We are compelled to vacate and remand Smith's sen tence. We have concluded that the findings and calculations that the District Court used to support its up ward departure are materially flawed. One of Smith's most important responsibilities as the Chief of the Day Pro grams Branch of the District of Columbia's Mental Retarda tion and Developmentally Disabled Administration (
149 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
149 OPINION/ORDER
HOLLOWAY and HARTZ
149 03-6236 -- U.S. V. TAGOE -- 05/19/2004

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Edward A. That no downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was warranted. This court

149 BURKINS V. UNITED STATES

1970.(2) Burkins claims that he should have received a disability discharge in 1970 because he suffered from 100% disabling post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which he incurred while serving in Vietnam. The district court concluded that Burkins was entitled to such a disability discharge and (1) The terms
149 JANE L. V. BANGERTER

The instant case is the attorneys fees arm of the Jane L. v. Holding that the pre 20 week abortion restrictions and the spousal notification provision were unconstitutional. Holding that 1) the post 20 week abortion restrictions are not severable from the pre 20 week restrictions held violative of Casey. 2) the fetal experimentation provision is unconstitutionally vague. 3) the choice of method provisions are unconstitutional.
149 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Judy Rabinovitz. Perkins was on the brief for amicus curiae The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Beasley was on the brief for amicus curiae Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. With her on the briefs were David W. Established a system for expediting the removal of aliens who arrive at the border but are not eligible for admission. Or procedure ... is first implemented.
149 UNITED STATES V. 9844 S. TITAN CT.

There is merit in both arguments. These were adjacent units in an industrial condominium. Philip May was indicted on January 28. He was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Frances May was never arrested or charged with any crime. Contending that the property was connected with the sale and distribution of controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) and (a)(7). By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. (7) All real property. Which is used. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. (1) The May home at 1277 South Memphis in Aurora. Unit 9 was purchased with marital funds but was titled in Philip's name only. (3) The $13. 050 in cash that Philip had with him when he was arrested. (4) The $2. Arguing that he was unable to stop the searches as promised once the police took him from the search sites.
149 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Andrew S. With him on the brief was Frank W. With him on the brief was Steven Lieberman. Adams was on the brief for appellee Penwest Pharmaceuticals Group. Durkin were on the brief for amicus curiae National Association of Pharmaceutical Manu facturers. That the osmotic pump is a unique
149 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.
149 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
149 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:
149 SONNENFELD V. DENVER

Arguing there is no implied private right of action against municipalities under 10(b) or Rule 10(b) 5 and that it was immune under the Eleventh Amendment. We have jurisdiction over the securities law issue under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The Eleventh Amendment issue is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Implied Private Cause of Action Denver contends there is no implied private cause of action against municipalities under 10b and Rule 10b 5. Local governments are subject to actions by the SEC to enforce 10(b) and Rule 10b 5. The existence of an implied private cause of action under 10(b) and Rule 10b 5 is so well established in the courts that its existence is
149 UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)

The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.

149 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.
149 OPINION/ORDER
Which was created by the debtor prior to insolvency. Was established to provide income to the debtor for her lifetime with the remainder ultimately being given to several charities. The debtor contends her interest in the trust is exempt from her bankruptcy estate. The debtor contends her interest is exempt because the trust qualifies as a support trust. Is not exempt from the debtor's bankruptcy estate. Is not likewise subject to the claims of the debtor's creditors.

149 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

149 SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSP. V. SHALALA

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Sarasota Memorial Hosp. v. Appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994239.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 99 4239 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Various other insurance programs and companies for patient services that were not ordinarily reimbursable. AHS was dissolved and McMahon established a new corporation. In which he was the sole shareholder. The insurance scheme was discovered in 1993. In June 1995 McMahon and AHS were convicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States. 400 was due and payable immediately. The amount of AHS's fine was based on the determination in the presentence report that HDC had a net worth of $32. The fine and the special assessment were due in full immediately. Who was AHS's corporate representative. Was in no way affiliated with AHS. Again refused to provide any information concerning HDC on the ground that information concerning HDC's finances was relevant only in determining his own ability to pay restitution. The district court determined that HDC was a mere continuation and successor of AHS and ordered McMahon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991636.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was denied. A. The relevant facts underlying this claim are undisputed and fully detailed in the district court's opinion. DRI's gross income from its electric utility business is a function of the electricity rates it charges its customers. Many public utilities have established similar reserve accounts to meet deferred income tax liability. They may have received similar compensation from the utility serving their new residence or business). The remittance was allocated on the basis of the 1991 customers' electricity use during the preceding 12 months. The issue here is whether DRI is entitled to invoke § 1341 to obtain from the government an additional $1.2 million deduction. It was determined that the taxpayer was not entitled to the income. His only option was to deduct the amount of that income in the year of repayment he could not recalculate his income for the year of receipt. § 1341 is designed to put the taxpayer in essentially the same position he would have been in had he never received the returned income. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50201.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982847.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The managed health care industry has drastically changed the way medical and pharmaceutical services are dispensed in this country. Competition is keen over what company will administer an employer's health plan. 2 In September 1995. Medco was required to assemble an extensive statewide network of pharmacies which would agree to fill prescriptions at a steeply discounted rate. The Maryland Plan was scheduled to go </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-6499.man.html">DEDRICK V. YOUNGBLOOD (1/12/2000, NO. 98-6499)<BR></A><BR> 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.</P> <P> 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.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-2629.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-9408.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SUBA (1/9/1998, NO. 95-9408)<BR></A><BR> 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).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30294.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. The CMHCs first contend that the CMS's mistaken classification of the CMHCs as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-4398.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94ftc.html">FTC V. HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS FTC V. THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT WAS FORESEEABLE AND GRANTED STATE ACTION IMMUNITY TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD'S FIRST ACT WAS BUILDING A NEW FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE ONLY HOSPITAL THEN IN EXISTENCE IN LEE COUNTY. ONCE THE NEW FACILITY WAS COMPLETED. LEE MEMORIAL IS A PUBLIC. THE BOARD WAS ALSO GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BE A VOTING MEMBER OF. OR CORPORATION IS VIOLATING. OR IS ABOUT TO VIOLATE. AND (2) THAT THE ENJOINING THEREOF PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY THE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SUCH COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSION OR SET ASIDE BY THE COURT ON REVIEW. THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACQUISITION WAS IMMUNIZED UNDER THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE. THE REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY 17. STANDARD OF REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE IS A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT. SEE BOLT V."><BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034800.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LINDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was sentenced to a term of 215 months imprisonment. Contending that the district court plainly erred when it adopted the quantity of crack attributed to him in the presentence report without making an individualized finding that it was within the scope of his agreement. Linder's presentence report stated that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20792.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is black. She was assigned to the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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. The group was supervised by Mary McCullen. Smith's performance ratings were consistently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0861n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0866n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision that Daniels was not disabled. We conclude that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirm the district court's decision. He was thirty five years old and had worked as a kitchen manager. Daniels was prescribed Vicodin and ibuprofen and advised to follow up with another physician. Actual reports for these hospital visits are not included in the record. Daniels reported that the Vioxx was helping his back pain and that the worst his pain got on a scale of one to ten was now a seven. He was diagnosed with musculoskeletal back pain. He was still experiencing numbness in his thigh. The examiner indicated that Daniels possibly was suffering from osteoarthritis and recommended a consultation with a rheumatologist for blood work. Ratliff that his back pain was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0650n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is unnecessary to consider whether the ALJ. Because the evidence is not in equipoise in this case. Hillman is not dispositive of the result here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0542n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These cases have a long and tortured history. We are the seventh different Sixth Circuit panel to review The Honorable Joseph H. Three cases were consolidated for purposes of oral argument. The parties to these appeals are the United States. Requiring the State </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0964n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20500.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. R. 47.5.4. * </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0470p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031401.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A special reimbursement that is available under the Medicare program to hospitals providing inpatient acute care to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0388p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Against a civil action in which Amedisys is the plaintiff. Amedisys is a Louisiana corporation supplying home nursing services. Because the Louisiana action is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0080n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Summary judgment is proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0284n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is said to be the product of an improper shifting of the burden of proof. Windsor was found not to have * Michael O. Is substituted for outgoing Secretary Tommy Thompson as defendant in this case. This determination was based primarily on two accidents. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0151p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was a tenant at the Jeffries Homes public housing project in Detroit. Is based on federal rights under the same statutes and regulations as described in Count I. Was diagnosed with lead poisoning at the age of two. Plaintiff's brief on appeal is devoid of any argument pertaining to an appeal from the June 21. This portion of the appeal is therefore deemed abandoned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0285p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The relevant facts are not in dispute. Up to four emergency medical technicians ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0605n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was covered by Unum Life Insurance. Disability income benefits for persons who are totally disabled as defined by the Plan. Nichols applied for disability benefits and was denied. Nichols was working as a nurse case manager at the Hospital when she applied for disability benefits in 2002. Her application for benefits was based largely on the diagnoses of her attending physician. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0089p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Husein alleged that her father was totally incapacitated due to the effects of several strokes that he had recently suffered. That the round the clock care that she provided both to him and to her three younger minor siblings was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0145n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We therefore REVERSE that aspect of the decision and hold that the district court abused its discretion and should have granted permissive intervention by the Banks. Liberte Capital LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0314p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0544n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were he not Romeo call'd. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/02-10018.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS (10/4/2002, NO. 02-10018)<BR></A><BR> He was entitled to a new trial. The petitioner would like to state that this is </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2755_043.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is satellite litigation emanating from the long running legal battle over the remapping of Chicago's aldermanic wards following the 1990 census. It is dressed up in constitutional clothing. The plaintiffs are Chicago aldermen who challenged the City's ward map in court and then claimed that the City's refusal to finance their legal expenses in that litigation violated their equal protection and free speech rights. Chicago's aldermen were divided (with a few exceptions) into two opposing camps during the political struggle over the new ward boundaries the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0307p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that no part of a qui tam relator's award granted under Section 3730(d) of the False Claims Act is excludable from gross income under Internal Revenue Code § 104(a)(2) because the award does not constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2839_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4128_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While that appeal was pending. Who have since been entitled to hold or sell as they please. The bankruptcy judge's injunction lapsed it was not formally vacated. The Trustee concedes that the underlying dispute was resolved in July 2003 by the shares' distribution to individual investors. The dispute is live because the investors deserve compensation for the loss they suffered between the time of the bankruptcy court's order (when United's stock traded for $1.06 per share) and the dissolution of the ESOP (when the market price had fallen to 76˘ per share). Although the price has since risen (it was $2.02 the day before this appeal was argued). That gain is inde No. 04 4128 3 pendent of the litigation: anyone who thought United a good investment could have purchased its stock in the open market. The injury was suffered by those who thought it a bad investment and sold as quickly as they could in June 2003. They lost 30˘ per share (plus the return on investments available between December 2002 and July 2003) compared with the financial position they would have enjoyed had the bankruptcy judge allowed them to sell earlier. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4329_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OE This opinion was originally issued as an unpublished order on November 17. The panel has determined that this decision should now issue as a published opinion. 2 No. 04 4329 Phillips and Fernandos Johnson were charged with health care fraud. After Phillips was indicted. To whom the case was assigned for trial. Over which our jurisdiction is established. The allegations of the superseding indictment are that Phillips owned and operated Health Care Creations (HCC). Defendant Johnson was employed by HCC as a therapist even though he was not licensed to conduct psychotherapy services. Medicare reimbursement checks were sent through the mail to HCC at an address in Bolingbrook. Through this scheme it is alleged in the superseding indictment Phillips defrauded Medicare to the tune of some $1. Five specific counts of fraud based on specific checks are set out. It is because the latter specific counts in the indictment allege fraud in the amount of $47. 947.87 that Phillips No. 04 4329 3 argues she is entitled to the release of property in excess of that amount. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1034_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that he was discriminated against because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul was born in India. Paul is not board certified by the American College of Surgeons in neurosurgery. Paul was a non board certified neurosurgeon. He was allowed to remain an active staff member after Theda Clark was designated a Level II Trauma Center in 1998. Paul was informed that his application for active status had been denied because as a non board certified neurosurgeon. The hearing committee stated that the denial was based solely on Dr. Paul filed a two count complaint in federal district court alleging that Theda Clark 1 (...continued) have been denied in 1999 and 2001. His status was mistakenly overlooked due to his inactivity at the hospital. Paul's patients were insured by Touchpoint. Care each physician is entitled to provide at Theda Clark. Staff membership is reflective of the level of patient involvement and administrative responsibilities of the physician. 4 No. 06 1034 discriminated against him by declining his application for active staff membership. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1327_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants are the representatives of a number of developmentally disabled people who were worried that they might have been unwilling members of a proposed class in a lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fearing that the remedy being sought by the plaintiffs was contrary to their wishes. Institutionalized care is the best plan. While others are best served by integration into the community. Olmstead established that it is a violation of the ADA to force developmentally disabled patients to reside in institutionalized settings when they are able to live more fully integrated into society at large and do not oppose doing so. The current suit was brought on behalf of a number of developmentally disabled people to hasten the state of Illinois down the road to communitybased care. The class would have consisted of those who live in institutions. Or are at risk of living in institutions. No. 06 1327 3 There were. Worrying that they were about to become members of a class that would be forced to live in community based care if the plaintiffs succeeded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3343_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Andrews was licensed by the State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation as a retail vehicle dealer. Andrews was required to follow Wisconsin Department of Transportation regulations governing the purchase and sale of vehicles. If a trade in vehicle is part of the transaction. The dealer determines how much he is owed upon completion of the transaction. Is then responsible for making sure that any lien appearing on the trade in's certificate of title is paid off and for certifying such payment to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The court stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0063n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fired when. He asked the State of Tennessee to cancel a computer access code that had been assigned to him and was being used (with the supervisor's approval) by another authorized employee. His theory was that the company's sharing of the access code breached the confidentiality of patients' records. We conclude that the material facts of the case are not in dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20292.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. R. 47.5.4. * </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021605.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MALTAS Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Concluding that there was no evidence to support a finding of a confidential relationship or the exercise of undue influence. Because we find that there is a material issue of fact in dispute. Were married in 1942. Virginia was responsible for conducting the family's financial affairs and managing their assets until her death in 1991. Was substituted as plaintiff in this action. 1 MALTAS v. While Ben was in Alaska. Legal fees were satisfied. Michael and Mary Ellen were looking to purchase a home but could not afford to do so on their own. Ben was aware that his money was being used in this manner. Mannion was asked to draft a quit claim deed (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0356p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing in her brief that (1) the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused her husband's death as part of a scheme to defraud. Since the briefs were filed in this case. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3676_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The prosecution's theory was that any politically motivated departure from state administrative rules is a federal crime. When either the mails or federal funds are involved. Thompson was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and compelled to begin serving that term while her appeal was pending. After concluding that Thompson is innocent. This opinion is the explanation that our order of April 5 promised. Adelman Travel was the low bidder. A low price for lousy service is no bargain. Is a mystery. Adelman Travel must have made a bad presentation. The prosecution's theory is that Omega should have received the contract on the spot but that for political No. 06 3676 3 reasons Thompson ordered a delay. Which is based on the East Coast. Adelman Travel's score was 1026.6. While Omega World Travel's score was 1027.3. As the difference was trivial compared to the amount of subjectivity and variance in the committee members' evaluations Thompson employed a tie breaking procedure. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the name of a logical error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1379.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0297p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Relator Yuhasz was employed as a laboratory manager for Brush at Brush's bronze alloy manufacturing facility in Lorain. Other specialty alloys </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0161p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wells's claims have merit. The district court was clearly aware of its discretion to depart downward: it noted that it had received numerous letters on Dr. Because the district court was aware of its discretion to depart downward. Its refusal to do so is not reviewable by this court. Wells also argues that this was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012206.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the FDA did not act unlawfully in approving the generics for an indication that was no longer protected by market exclusivity under the Act. I. Sigma Tau Pharmaceuticals developed a drug to treat a rare condition known as carnitine deficiency in people with inborn metabolic disorders.1 The FDA designated Sigma Tau's levocarnitine drug an Carnitine is a naturally occurring amino acid derivative produced by the liver and kidneys and found in red meat and dairy products. Sigma Tau was entitled to seven years of market exclusivity to sell its drug. Sigma Tau later received FDA approval for use of its levocarnitine drug for the prevention and treatment of a second rare condition carnitine deficiency in patients with end stage renal disease ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012090.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062811np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Lee was employed by Appellee. David Milbourne was also an employee at this site. He was sexually harassed by Milbourne. While Lee and Milbourne were in the car transporting two of Comhar's clients to a workshop. Lee maintains that while he was demonstrating a leg stretching technique on Milbourne in front of several other co workers. As his shift ended and he was planning to leave the residence. Milbourne was standing in front of the door talking to someone on the steps outside. Lee again met with Murrill and said to her: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7172.html">RANDALL C. SCARBOROUGH V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> For claimant appellant.</span></span><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Peter J. For respondent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. This court s mandate was vacated. The case was returned to the panel. We have reconsidered this case and. The clerk of the Veterans Court filed Scarborough s EAJA application.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The application contained a showing that: (1) Scarborough was the prevailing party pursuant to the July 1999 remand order. The Government filed a motion to dismiss the EAJA application for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Government argued that Scarborough had failed to satisfy all of the jurisdictional requirements under the EAJA statute because the application was missing an allegation that the Government s position in the underlying litigation lacked substantial justification.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On December 9. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1379T.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054898p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044124p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have an appeal by an employer from an adverse verdict in favor of an employee (here independent contractor) on his claim of unlawful termination in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. Our task is to review the law applied by the District Court on a plenary basis and ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. 2 I. Gregg Sylvester was the Secretary of DHSS from October. Was an independent contractor at the DPC from July 1. These were introduced into evidence at trial as Plaintiff's Exhibits PX 1 through 5. We summarize them below but because they are central to the issues before us they are included verbatim in the Appendix to this opinion. The memorandum charges that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee Sun Ship Inc. *This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 USC § 46(d) **Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31. 2 alleging both false claims and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042589np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Teaching hospitals are entitled to reimbursement for the indirect cost of operating a medical residency program. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042550p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Citizens allege that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023603p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving a $44.5 million nationwide settlement agreement between DuPont and the fixed co pay consumers and out of pocket consumers (collectively. Accordingly we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Factual History Warfarin sodium is a prescription oral anticoagulant medication sold in tablet form that is taken by more than 2 million Americans to treat blood clotting disorders. Fixed co pay consumers refer to those insured consumers who paid the same price for prescription drugs regardless of whether the drugs were name brand or generic. Out of pocket consumers refers to individuals who paid different prices for prescription drugs depending on whether they were name brand or generic. When a generic version of warfarin sodium was released onto the market following approval by the U.S. Class action plaintiffs have alleged that DuPont. DuPont's alleged violations are said to have begun when Barr Laboratories. On the grounds that the methods in place for determining bioequivalence were sufficient. </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <!-- End of real page content --> <!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer --> <P></P> <!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer --> <!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) --> <div id="footer"> <div class="footerNav"> <div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know --> <ul> <li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li> <li><a href="/tour.html" class="nav" id="liisitemaplink" title="lii sitemap">sitemap</a></li> <li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li> <li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">terms of use</a></li> </ul> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ridiculous div --> </div><!-- close footerNav --> </div><!-- close footer --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) --> <!-- end of included footer --> </BODY> </HTML> <!-- end of HTML --> <!-- code from here on down --> <!-- input arguments are: a query (optional) --> <!-- to begin with... This init block sets up and runs the query. --> <!-- select correct options based on scope -->