(c) 2023 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Court Grants Motion to Reconsider Statute of Limitations in CMS Case

In order to avoid any "maifest injustice," the Court that had previously dismissed the Government's case against insurance companies and lawyers for failure to reimburse the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), has granted a motion to reconsider under the plaintiff's accrual theory.

"As its fourth ground for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the court erred in concluding that the Government inadequately raised a theory of continuing accrual against all defendants concerning the annual $2.5 million payments from 2004 through 2014 contemplated in the Abernathy Settlement Agreement. Admittedly, Plaintiff did not address this theory in its responsive briefing to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. At the September 13, 2010 hearing, the court granted verbal leave for Plaintiff to submit a motion to amend its complaint to more clearly articulate a claim on this issue. For whatever reason, Plaintiff has failed to do so, but argues in its motion to reconsider that it properly pled a theory of continuing accrual in its First Amended Complaint and raised it at the hearing. Though this theory should have been raised and argued in Plaintiff’s brief in response to the multiple motions to dismiss filed by Defendants, the court will allow Defendants an opportunity to respond in full to this issue to avoid any possible clear error. Therefore, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider as to the issue raised in part D regarding a continuing accrual theory and ORDERS that Defendants have until Tuesday, November 16, 2010 to respond as to whether the allegations pled in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are sufficient to state a claim for a theory of continuing accrual; and if so, whether the court committed clear error in dismissing Count VI of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

"Finally, the court RESERVES RULING as to the tolling issue raised in part E of Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. To avoid any possible clear error and/or manifest injustice, the court will allow Defendants until Tuesday, November 16, 2010 to respond as to: 1) whether the court should reconsider the issue of tolling; and 2) if the court does, whether it committed clear error in application of the appropriate burden of raising or pleading tolling in this context and in granting the motion to dismiss before discovery had yet occurred.

USA v James J. Strickler, et al CV 09=BE-2423-E

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.

Related articles