Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States

Federal Circuit

Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States

892 F.3d 1184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2018

Docket2017-1224

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 892 F.3d 1184 (Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinions

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Newman.

Prost, Chief Judge.

For the reasons stated in our decision in the companion case, Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States , No. 17-1994, the statutory and contract claims of appellant Land of Lincoln Mutual Health fail. Additionally, *1186because Land of Lincoln cannot state a contract claim, its takings claim fails to the extent it relies on the existence of a contract.

What remains is Land of Lincoln's takings claim to the extent that claim arises from its statutory entitlement to full payments. We have previously held that "no statutory obligation to pay money, even where unchallenged, can create a property interest within the meaning of the Takings Clause." Adams v. United States , 391 F.3d 1212, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States , 271 F.3d 1327, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (en banc) ). Land of Lincoln offers no basis for departing from that rule, and we see none. Accordingly, Land of Lincoln's takings claim fails.

Because we hold that the trial court correctly granted judgment for the government as a matter of law, we need not address whether the trial court properly reached that conclusion via judgment on the administrative record.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Newman.

Prost, Chief Judge.

For the reasons stated in our decision in the companion case, Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States , No. 17-1994, the statutory and contract claims of appellant Land of Lincoln Mutual Health fail. Additionally, *1186because Land of Lincoln cannot state a contract claim, its takings claim fails to the extent it relies on the existence of a contract.

What remains is Land of Lincoln's takings claim to the extent that claim arises from its statutory entitlement to full payments. We have previously held that "no statutory obligation to pay money, even where unchallenged, can create a property interest within the meaning of the Takings Clause." Adams v. United States , 391 F.3d 1212, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States , 271 F.3d 1327, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (en banc) ). Land of Lincoln offers no basis for departing from that rule, and we see none. Accordingly, Land of Lincoln's takings claim fails.

Because we hold that the trial court correctly granted judgment for the government as a matter of law, we need not address whether the trial court properly reached that conclusion via judgment on the administrative record.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 F.3d 1184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/land-of-lincoln-mut-health-ins-co-v-united-states-cafc-2018.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack