United States v. Robert Alfred St. Thomas, M.D.

966 F.2d 476, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4722, 92 Daily Journal DAR 7497, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12320, 1992 WL 117157
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 1992
Docket91-55427
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 966 F.2d 476 (United States v. Robert Alfred St. Thomas, M.D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Robert Alfred St. Thomas, M.D., 966 F.2d 476, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4722, 92 Daily Journal DAR 7497, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12320, 1992 WL 117157 (9th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

NOONAN, Circuit Judge:

The United States filed a claim asserting that Robert Alfred St. Thomas was indebted to it in the amount of $163,140.05, representing “Health Education Assistance Loans,” as evidenced by an attached “Certificate of Indebtedness.” The certificate, signed by a claims agent in the Public Health Service, set forth certain facts as to federal scholarship aid to St. Thomas and his asserted breach of contract in regard to them leading to the alleged indebtedness. St. Thomas denied the debt and urged affirmative defenses including laches and es-toppel. The district court gave summary judgment for the United States. We now affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

FACTS

In 1977 St. Thomas was a student of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee. On August 11, 1977 he received a scholarship award of $11,181.25 for the period July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978. The scholarship award was by the Public Health and National Health Service Corps (PH/NHSC) under Public Law 92-585, 86 Stat. 1290-1295 (1972).

St. Thomas signed an agreement accepting the award, one condition of which was that he agreed “to fulfill the service obligation” as specified by the Public Health Service Act and the pertinent regulations. This condition was part of the printed boilerplate in the award and was also separately typed opposite his name. In the boilerplate the following was added:

If for any reason a participant fails to complete an active date service obligation, such participant shall be liable for the payment of an amount equal to the scholarship payment, tuition and other educational fees paid, plus interest at the maximum legal prevailing rate running from the date such payments were made.

It was further stated that this amount should be paid to the United States within a three year period beginning on the date on which a breach occurred.

St. Thomas also received scholarship aid of $6058 for 1978-1979 and $12,671 for 1979-1980 under a different program, the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program, 42 U.S.C. § 254i. In receiving these awards St. Thomas was required to enter into a written contract with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) providing that he would serve a “period of obligated service” for at least two years as a provider of primary health services “in a health professional shortage area (designated under § 254e of this title) to which he is assigned by the Secretary as a member of the Corps”. 42 U.S.C. § 254Z(f). The contract also provided, by statute, a statement of “the damages to which the United States is entitled, under § 254o of this title, for the individual’s breach of the contract.” Id.

Section 254o, which deals with breach of the contract, provides that if the individual “breaches his written contract by failing (for any reason not specified in subsection (a) of this section or § 254p(d) of this title) either to begin such individual’s service obligation ... or to complete such service obligation,” the United States will be able to recover three times the amount awarded *478 plus the interest “which would be payable if at the time the amounts were paid they were loans bearing interest at the maximum legal prevailing rate.” 42 U.S.C. § 254o.

“Obligated Service Under Contract” is dealt with under 42 U.S.C. 254m. This statute declares that, except as provided in § 254n, each individual who enters a written contract with the Secretary under § 254i “shall provide service in the full-time clinical practice of such individual’s profession as a member of the Corps for the period of obligated service provided in [the] contract.” § 254m(a).

The rest of section 254m(a), “Obligated Service Under Contract,” specifies what the Secretary, shall do as to an individual required to provide obligated service. The Secretary is to determine if the individual shall provide such service as a member of the Corps who is an officer or who is a civilian employee of the United States or as a member of the Corps who is not such an officer or employee. The Secretary is to notify the individual of such determination. The period of obligated service is considered to have begun on the date the individual is appointed as an officer or is designated as a member of the Corps who is not an officer or employee or in the case of an individual who has entered into an agreement with the Secretary under § 254n, on the date specified in such agreement, whichever is earlier. § 254m(c). Importantly for our purposes, the Secretary “shall assign” participants to “health professional shortage areas.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 254m(d), 254e(a)(l).

Section 254n, to which reference is made by § 254m(c), provides that the Secretary “shall release” an individual from his service obligation “if the individual applies for such a release under this section and enters into a written agreement with the Secretary” that the individual will serve in full-time private clinical practice in a health professional shortage area selected by the Secretary. § 254n(a).

By letter dated October 23, 1981 St. Thomas was notified that he had been assigned to a position at the Federal Bureau of Prisons to fulfill his service obligation. Because of budget reductions, however, this position became unavailable, and he was informed by letter of December 28, 1981 that he was now reassigned either to the National Health Service Corps or to the Indian Health Service. On March 3, 1982 St. Thomas was notified by letter from the regional office of the Secretary that he had been “assigned to the National Health Service Corps,” Region IX, and might now begin the process of identifying a federal or non-federal position in which to fulfill his service obligation. The same notice “strongly encouraged” him to investigate the possibility of serving his obligation “in a private practice status” in the assigned region. He was instructed to contact the regional staff of the Secretary in San Francisco for assistance in matching to a site. He was advised that if he did not match to a site by May 4, 1982 he would be assigned to a site.

St. Thomas was not matched to a site by May 4, 1982. No assignment was made. Late in May 1982 the regional office asked him by mailgram to contact the office about his placement plans. On June 11, 1982 he informed the regional office by telephone that he had been offered a position in a clinic in Watts. The regional office sent him an application for a Private Placement Option (PPO). He did not return it. The regional office advised him on July 1, 1982 that he “would be recommended for default.” He was so recommended to the central office of the Secretary, and on September 15, 1982 he was informed that he was in default, effective August 6, 1982.

On October 28, 1982 St. Thomas telephoned the regional office saying he was employed at a clinic in Watts but had misplaced his PPO application. In early November 1982 he did file a PPO application, which was incomplete.

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

Related

United States v. Maldonado
867 F. Supp. 1184 (S.D. New York, 1994)
United States v. Barbara Vanhorn
20 F.3d 104 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Ledwith
805 F. Supp. 371 (E.D. Virginia, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
966 F.2d 476, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4722, 92 Daily Journal DAR 7497, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 12320, 1992 WL 117157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-alfred-st-thomas-md-ca9-1992.