1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Appeals Court Ruling Permits "Disproportionate Share Payment" Reopenings and Authorizes "Mandamus" Review of Medicare Action

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 | 3 min read | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....