Anna Mae Skibinski v. Kathleen Sebelius

475 F. App'x 646

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anna Mae Skibinski appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5). Upon careful consideration of Skibinski’s arguments for reversal, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s determinations that Skibinski lacked standing to seek some of the relief she identified, see Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.2006) (reviewing de novo district court’s determination as to standing); and that the sole basis for Skibinski’s challenge to the decision to terminate coverage for post-hospital extended care services for her now-deceased mother was not cognizable in this action, see McAdams v. McCord, 584 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir.2009) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state claim). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1 . The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.