The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction:
"... we conclude that the***
beneficiaries' claim was not adequately presented to the
agency at the administrative level and therefore the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g) .
" Federal question jurisdiction does not extend to most
claims arising under the Medicare Act. The Medicare Act
incorporates 42 U.S .C. § 405(h) , which provides:
No findings of fact or decision of the
[Secretary] ... shall be reviewed by
any person, tribunal, or governmental
agency except as herein provided.
No action against the United States,
the [Secretary] ..., or any officer or
employee thereof shall be brought
under section 1331 ... of title 28 torecover on any claim arising under this
42 U.S.C. § 405(h) ; 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii .
"We decline to adopt the extraordinarily broad reading of***
Eldridge that the beneficiaries invite. We conclude that the
named plaintiffs' reimbursement disputes did not provide an
opportunity for the Secretary to consider the claim that her
interpretation of the secondary payer provisions exceeded
her authority. Their requests for redetermination of their
respective amounts of reimbursement did not constitute
presentment of their policy challenge.
" We conclude that the beneficiaries' claim wasHaro v Sebelius, ___F.3d____, No. 11-16606, 2013 WL 4734032, Decided Sept.4, 2013.
not presented to the agency. Because presentment is a
jurisdictional requirement under § 405(g) , the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the beneficiaries'
Read prior posting about this case:
May 18, 2011
Haro v. Sebelius, 2010 WL 1452942 (A. Ariz.) CV 09-134 TUC DCB, Decided April 12, 2010.The plaintiffs were permitted discovery beyond the administrative record. The class action is challenging the recovery procedures of ...
May 25, 2011
The MSPRC is still working cases, and the RAR and Demand letters will be mailed out once appropriate revisions have been made." This follows a recent US District Court ruling enjoining CMS's collection procedures. Haro v.
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman 1.973.696.7900 firstname.lastname@example.org have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.