1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |COFC Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Health Plan in ACA Litigation

COFC Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Health Plan in ACA Litigation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.15.18

In Sanford Health Plan v. U.S. (October 11, 2018), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of Sanford Health Plan (a C&M client) in a lawsuit seeking to recover “cost-sharing reduction” (CSR) payments pursuant to Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act.  Following recent precedent in Montana Health, the Court held on the merits that (i) Section 1402 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Sanford is entitled to full payments owed to it under the statutory formula set forth in the ACA, and (iii) the federal government has a statutory obligation to provide Sanford with the CSR payments notwithstanding the purported lack of appropriations to fund such payments. The Court agreed with Sanford Health Plan that the obligation to make payment under a money-mandating statute is distinct from the appropriation used to fund it, and that the lack of an appropriation merely restricts the Government’s agents (here, HHS), but does not negate the United States’ statutory payment obligation.     

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177....