D.C. Circuit Refuses to Remedy Hospital Wage Data Errors by Medicare
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.14.05
By Robert L. Roth
Despite finding that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) had arbitrarily and capriciously denied the Palisades General Hospital's wage data correction requests and that the denials caused the Hospital not to qualify for $4 million from a geographic reclassification, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in an October decision refused to grant relief restoring the hospital to the position it would have achieved had CMS acted properly. Palisades General Hospital Inc. v. Leavitt, 426 F.3d 400 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
"[T]he district court had jurisdiction only to vacate the Secretary's decision rejecting the hospital's revised wage data and to remand for further action consistent with its opinion," Court of Appeals Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote. "It did not, as the hospital contends, have jurisdiction to order either reclassification based upon those adjusted wage data or an adjusted reimbursement payment that would reflect such a reclassification." CMS has made clear that, on a remand, it would not provide the relief sought by the Hospital. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit's decision seems to have effectively precluded the relief that the Hospital was seeking.
In light of this decision, hospitals that believe a CMS wage data determination will prevent them from properly qualifying for geographic reclassification need to act expeditiously so that a district court will have the authority to grant necessary relief.
Crowell & Moring partner Robert Roth represented the Hospital in the litigation.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
