Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Subject-matter jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Subject-matter jurisdiction. Show all posts

Thursday, September 5, 2013

9th Circuit Vacates MSP Injunction Against CMS for Medicare Reimbursement

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a Federal District Court Order enjoying CMS from seeking reimbursement for Medicare Conditional Payments under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP).

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
subchapter.
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 was
not presented to the agency. Because presentment is a
jurisdictional requirement under § 405(g) , the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the beneficiaries'
claim. 
Haro v Sebelius, ___F.3d____, No. 11-16606, 2013 WL 4734032, Decided Sept.4, 2013.

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  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.