NHH Assoc. v. US HHS

2016 DNH 068

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 28, 2016
• Docket: 15-cv-460-LM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire Hospital Association, et al.

v. Civil No. 15-cv-460-LM Opinion No. 2016 DNH 068 Sylvia Matthews Burwell et al.

O R D E R

Several New Hampshire hospitals and the New Hampshire

Hospital Association, a non-profit trade association, bring this

suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and the

Administrator of CMS, alleging that defendants have set forth

certain “policy clarifications” that contradict the plain

language of the Medicaid Act and violate the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”). Defendants move to dismiss the

complaint. See doc. no. 18. Plaintiffs object.

Standard of Review

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual

allegations in the complaint as true, construe reasonable

inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and “determine whether the

factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint set forth a

plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.” Foley v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A claim is facially plausible “when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009). Analyzing plausibility is “a context-specific task” in

which the court relies on its “judicial experience and common

sense.” Id. at 679.

Discussion

On the same date they filed their complaint, plaintiffs

moved for a preliminary injunction barring defendants from

enforcing the policy clarifications during the pendency of this

litigation. See doc. no. 10. Defendants objected to the

motion, arguing, in part, that plaintiffs were unlikely to

succeed on the merits of their claims. In support of that

argument, defendants asserted that plaintiffs lacked standing to

pursue their claims and that the policy clarifications do not

violate the APA because they are consistent with the language of

the Medicaid Act and another regulation promulgated by CMS.

The court has granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

injunction. See New Hampshire Hosp. Assoc. v. Burwell, No. 15-

cv-460-LM, 2016 WL 1048023 (D.N.H. Mar. 11, 2016). In that

order, the court held that plaintiffs were likely to show both

2 that they have standing to pursue their claims and that the

policy clarifications violate the APA. See id. at 6-16.

While plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was

pending, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. See doc. no. 18.

In support, defendants assert that the court should dismiss the

complaint because plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their

claims and because the policy clarifications are valid.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss incorporates by reference their

objection to the motion for preliminary injunction. As such,

defendants advance the same arguments they raised in their

objection to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

For the reasons stated in the court’s order granting

plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs have

adequately alleged that they have standing to pursue their

claims and that the policy clarifications were promulgated in

violation of the APA. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss

is denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss

(doc. no. 18) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Landya McCafferty United States District Judge March 28, 2016 3 cc: Holly J. Barcroft, Esq. Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq. James C. Luh, Esq. Gordon J. MacDonald, Esq.