Appeals Court Ruling Permits "Disproportionate Share Payment" Reopenings and Authorizes "Mandamus" Review of Medicare Action
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.28.01
In an important pro-hospital ruling secured by Crowell & Moring partner Bob Roth, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has required CMS to permit the plaintiff hospitals to reopen Medicare cost reports to effectuate the disproportionate share hospital ("DSH") policy change. On July 27, 2001, the Court decided Monmouth Medical Center v. Thompson. The Court overturned the part of Ruling 97-2 that barred hospitals from reopening cost reports to recalculate the DSH payment in accordance with the new methodology in the 97-2 ruling. Also important for its implications for future efforts to secure judicial review of Medicare agency action, the Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the lower court should have exercised mandamus jurisdiction to order the relief sought.
The Monmouth decision may be helpful for other hospitals, particularly those with potential claims relating to Notices of Program Reimbursement issued on or after February 27, 1994. Hospitals that qualify for relief under this decision may be able to proceed directly to court in the District of Columbia without having to exhaust administrative remedies. It is not yet clear what, if any, further appellate review the government might seek.
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
