Dartmouth-Hitchcock v. NHDHHS

2012 DNH 033

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 2, 2012
• Docket: Case No. 11-cv-358-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dartmouth-Hitchcock v . NHDHHS 11-CV-358-SM 3/2/12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, et a l . , Plaintiffs

v. Case N o . 11-cv-358-SM Opinion N o . 2012 DNH 033 Nicholas Toumpas, Commissioner, N.H. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Defendant

Preliminary Injunction

Pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the court hereby issues the following preliminary

injunction, enjoining the defendant, Nicholas Toumpas,

Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human

Services, as follows.

With respect to the 2008 reduced inpatient and outpatient

Medicaid reimbursement rates, carried forward to date, the

Commissioner is hereby ordered to provide notice of the

Commissioner’s intent to continue to apply the reduced

reimbursement rates and a fair opportunity for providers,

beneficiaries, their representatives, and interested residents of

the State of New Hampshire to comment in a manner fully

consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A).

Specifically the Commissioner shall provide adequate notice o f :

(1) the reduced inpatient and outpatient reimbursement rates and his intention to continue applying those reduced rates going

forward; (2) the precise methodologies used to establish those

rates; and (3) justifications for those rates. The required

notice shall be given within fifteen (15) days of the date of

this order, and a reasonable period to comment of not less than

thirty (30) days after notice is given shall be allowed.

Within 15 days after the comment period established by the

Commissioner closes, the Commissioner shall determine whether to

continue to employ said rates going forward and, if s o , he shall

publish the final rates, the precise methodologies underlying the

establishment of those rates, and justification(s) for those

rates.

Typically, Rule 65 requires parties obtaining injunctive

relief to post a bond sufficient “to pay the costs and damages

sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or

restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Here, however, the court

concludes that no bond is required. First, and perhaps most

importantly, defendant has not asked that plaintiffs post a bond.

See generally Aoude v . Mobil Oil Corp., 862 F.2d 8 9 0 , 896 (1st

Cir. 1988) (rejecting a challenge to an injunction because

“posting of a bond is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the

validity of a preliminary injunction, and because appellant did

2 not raise the matter below.”). Moreover, “[a]lthough the rule

speaks in mandatory terms, an exception to the bond requirement

has been crafted for, inter alia, cases involving the enforcement

of ‘public interests’ arising out of ‘comprehensive federal

health and welfare statutes.’” Pharmaceutical Soc’y v . New York

State Dep’t of Social Services, 50 F.3d 1168, 1174 (2d Cir. 1995)

(citing Crowley v . Local N o . 8 2 , Furniture & Piano Movers, 679

F.2d 9 7 8 , 1000 (1st Cir. 1982), rev’d on other grounds, 467 U.S.

526 (1984)). See also Ligotti v . Garofalo, 562 F. Supp. 2d 2 0 4 ,

227 (D.N.H. 2008) (concluding that the defendant would suffer

only negligible, if any, costs or damages from the injunction and

declining to require plaintiff to post security).

SO ORDERED.

/ s / Steven J. McAuliffe Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

March 2 , 2012

cc: Martha Van Oot, Esq. William L . Chapman, Esq. Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq. Emily Pudan Feyrer, Esq. Gordon J. MacDonald, Esq. W . Scott O’Connell, Esq. John E . Friberg, Jr., Esq. Erica Bodwell, Esq. Mitchell B . Jean, Esq. Nancy J. Smith, Esq. Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq. Laura E . B . Lombardi, Esq. Constance D. Sprauer, Esq.