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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
