Supreme Court Nixes "Equitable Tolling" for Hospitals Seeking to File Late Appeals of Medicare Underpayments
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.24.13
In Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, the Supreme Court on January 22nd, 2013 rejected hospital arguments and found that equitable tolling did not extend the deadline for hospitals to appeal within HHS a government decision on their reimbursement under the Medicare program. The Court also found, though, that the underlying statute setting a 180 day limit for filing appeals was not "jurisdictional" in nature so that the Secretary of HHS had acted lawfully in adopting by regulation a "good cause" exception permitting an appeal within 3 years. In this case, appeals were filed only after 10 years or more, but the hospitals claimed that the Secretary had prevented a timely appeal by suppressing the information the hospitals would have needed in order to know they had a basis for appeal. The Court noted that the parties involved were "'sophisticated' institutional providers" who are "repeat players" in the Medicare system, while noting that equitable tolling may well be appropriate in other contexts involving government programs. The Court's ruling was 9-0 to reverse a lower court ruling in the hospitals' favor. The decision appears to confirm a general administrative law principle that, where consistent with congressional intent, courts should grant deference to an agency rule extending an agency filing deadline to a non-arbitrary time certain, and should not then undermine the agency rule by judicially imposing equitable tolling that might better fit a court's sense of reasonableness.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
