Saint Vincent Indianapolis Hospital v. Kathleen Sebelius

District of Columbia

Saint Vincent Indianapolis Hospital v. Kathleen Sebelius

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1768

StatusPublished

This text of Saint Vincent Indianapolis Hospital v. Kathleen Sebelius (Saint Vincent Indianapolis Hospital v. Kathleen Sebelius) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saint Vincent Indianapolis Hospital v. Kathleen Sebelius, (D.D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) . SAINT VINCENT INDIANAPOLIS ) SEP 2 g 2015 HOSPITAL, ) Clerk U 8 Districts. 3 - - - ankr ) Courts for the District of Colil‘riigi’a Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No 1:13-cv-01768—RDM ) KATHLEEN SEBELIU S, SECRETARY, ) US. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES ) ) Defendant. ) ) 93%

Plaintiff Saint Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc, (“plaintiff”) ﬁled suit against Defendant Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“defendant”), alleging agency error in limiting the scope of administrative review to issues identiﬁed by providers in cost reports under the Medicare program established by Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as amended. Compl, ECF No. 1. Defendant ﬁled an answer, generally denying all factual allegations and referring the Court to statute and relevant case law for interpretations of legal points raised in the complaint. Answer, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff then ﬁled this motion for Summary Judgment. Mot. Summ. J ., ECF No. 17. Defendant ﬁled a cross motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support of summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Cross-Mot. Summ. J ., ECF No. 18, Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 18-1. Plaintiff then ﬁled a reply in opposition. Reply Opp’n Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 20. Lastly, defendant ﬁled a reply. Reply Opp’n. Mot.

Summ. J. Combined Opp’n. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. 1., ECF No. 23.

Upon consideration of the above referenced ﬁlings and for reasons given in the memorandum opinion issued this date, it is hereby:

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied;

ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted;

ORDERED that the Secretary’s ﬁnal decision dismissing plaintiff’ s PRRB appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed; and

ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2015

Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) . SAINT VINCENT INDIANAPOLIS ) SEP 2 g 2015 HOSPITAL, ) Clerk U 8 Districts. 3 - - - ankr ) Courts for the District of Colil‘riigi’a Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No 1:13-cv-01768—RDM ) KATHLEEN SEBELIU S, SECRETARY, ) US. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES ) ) Defendant. ) ) 93%

Plaintiff Saint Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc, (“plaintiff”) ﬁled suit against Defendant Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“defendant”), alleging agency error in limiting the scope of administrative review to issues identiﬁed by providers in cost reports under the Medicare program established by Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as amended. Compl, ECF No. 1. Defendant ﬁled an answer, generally denying all factual allegations and referring the Court to statute and relevant case law for interpretations of legal points raised in the complaint. Answer, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff then ﬁled this motion for Summary Judgment. Mot. Summ. J ., ECF No. 17. Defendant ﬁled a cross motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support of summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Cross-Mot. Summ. J ., ECF No. 18, Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 18-1. Plaintiff then ﬁled a reply in opposition. Reply Opp’n Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 20. Lastly, defendant ﬁled a reply. Reply Opp’n. Mot.

Summ. J. Combined Opp’n. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. 1., ECF No. 23.

Upon consideration of the above referenced ﬁlings and for reasons given in the memorandum opinion issued this date, it is hereby:

ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied;

ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted;

ORDERED that the Secretary’s ﬁnal decision dismissing plaintiff’ s PRRB appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed; and

ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2015

Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Saint Vincent Indianapolis Hospital v. Kathleen Sebelius, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saint-vincent-indianapolis-hospital-v-kathleen-seb-dcd-2015.