Cleveland Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Califano, 78-1317

Decision Date30 March 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-1317,78-1317
Citation594 F.2d 993
PartiesCLEVELAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Grace Hospital Inc., Rutherford Hospital, Inc., and Nash General Hospital, Inc., Appellees, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of HEW, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC, Blue Cross Association, Provider Reimbursement Review Board, and Arthur P.Owens, Chairman of the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Michael Jay Singer, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice Washington, D. C. (Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., George M. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C., Robert E. Kopp and Judith S. Feigin, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellants.

John T. Williamson, Raleigh, N. C. (Maupin, Taylor & Ellis, P. A., Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge:

The single issue presented in this appeal is whether a group of medical care providers, appealing the denial of reimbursement under the Medicare program, may aggregate more than one cost report from each group member to meet the jurisdictional amount for group appeals to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board. The district court held that such aggregation is permitted under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395Oo (b). We affirm.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 Et seq., established the Medicare program which provides, among other things, health insurance for hospital and related post-hospital costs of persons aged 65 or over. Under this program certified "providers of services" 1 do not charge Medicare beneficiaries directly, but rather are reimbursed from the Medicare trust fund for all reasonable costs of providing services to those beneficiaries, either by the Secretary of H.E.W. directly or through a Each provider is reimbursed at least monthly on an interim basis, subject to later adjustment. At the end of the provider's fiscal year it submits a cost report for that year. The Secretary or fiscal intermediary later determines by audit the actual amount of reimbursement to which the provider is entitled for the year, and gives the provider a "notice of program reimbursement". This determination may be reopened and amended at any time during the three years following the notice of reimbursement. If there is a difference between the reimbursement determined to be due for a cost period (on the basis of either an initial audit or a redetermination) and the payments already made to the provider for that period, an appropriate adjustment is made in subsequent payments to the provider in order to recoup or repay the difference.

public or private organization called a "fiscal intermediary" which serves as the Secretary's agent.

A provider dissatisfied with a reimbursement determination by its intermediary may request a hearing by the intermediary if the amount of reimbursement in controversy is at least $1,000 but less than $10,000. 2 The intermediary's hearing decision is not subject to administrative or judicial review.

In 1972, Congress created the Provider Reimbursement Review Board to provide an independent reviewing body for certain intermediary decisions. The conditions for review by the Board, which form the basis for this appeal, are set out in 42 U.S.C. § 1395Oo, as follows:

§ 1395Oo. Provider Reimbursement Review Board-Establishment.

(a) Any provider of services which has filed a required cost report within the time specified in regulations may obtain a hearing with respect to such cost report by a Provider Reimbursement Review Board . . . if

(1) such provider

(A) is dissatisfied with a final determination of the organization serving as its fiscal intermediary . . . as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider . . . for the period covered by such report,

(2) the amount in controversy is $10,000 or more, and

(3) such provider files a request for a hearing within 180 days after notice of the intermediary's final determination . . . .

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply to any group of providers of services if each provider of services in such group would, upon the filing of an appeal (but without regard to the $10,000 limitation), be entitled to such a hearing, but only if the matters in controversy involve a common question of fact or interpretation of law or regulations and the amount in controversy is, in the aggregate, $50,000 or more.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are four North Carolina hospitals which provide services under the Medicare program. In late 1975 and 1976 each of the providers was notified by its fiscal intermediary (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina) that its claims for nursing education costs were not reimbursable under H.E.W. policy guidelines, and had been disallowed for each cost period in which they had been claimed. The disallowed claims at issue 3 are the following:

The hospitals sought a group hearing under § 1395Oo (b) before the Provider Reimbursement Review Board. The Board ruled that under § 1395Oo (a) the amount in controversy for an individual appeal is determined by the provider's claim for a single cost year, 4 that this provision was incorporated into § 1395Oo (b), and that a group of providers seeking a hearing under § 1395Oo (b) must therefore meet the $50,000 jurisdictional amount on the basis of only one cost report per provider. The Board noted however that if a group could meet this jurisdictional threshold, claims from additional cost years would then be considered as part of the appeal.

Since for each individual cost reporting year in issue here, the combined claims of the group failed to meet the $50,000 requirement, 5 the Board dismissed the appeal, but offered to hold four separate hearings on those individual claims which met the $10,000 requirement for single appeals.

The hospitals then brought this action in district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Board's interpretation of the jurisdictional requirement is not in accordance with applicable law, and an order directing the Board to hear the group appeal. The district court granted the hospitals' motion for summary judgment and entered the requested order.

DISCUSSION

We agree with the district court's conclusion that in enacting § 1395Oo (b) Congress intended to provide for review by the Board of the type of claims at issue here. The prerequisites for individual appeals under § 1395Oo (a), With the exception of the amount in controversy requirement, also apply to group appeals under § 1395Oo (b), so that each claim included in the group appeal must stem from an adverse final determination 6 by the intermediary based on a cost report which was filed by the provider within the applicable time requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 1395Oo (a)(1). In addition, a claim may be included in the group appeal only if the provider filed a request for a hearing within 180 days after notice of the intermediary's final determination on the claim. 7 42 U.S.C. § 1395Oo (a)(3).

The parties agree that the claims at issue here satisfy all these requirements and that they all involve a common question of law or fact. The only remaining prerequisite for a group appeal is that "the amount in controversy is, In the aggregate, $50,000 or more." 42 U.S.C. § 1395Oo (b) (emphasis supplied).

The claims involved in this appeal, all of which will be considered together by the Board in a group appeal if jurisdiction is established, total $104,733. We believe that this figure, the aggregate amount of the claims properly considered in a group appeal, is also the "amount in controversy" for purposes of determining whether the jurisdictional requirement is met. The Board's distinction, by which one figure determines the scope of the appeal and another determines jurisdiction, is without foundation in either the statute or the applicable regulation. 8 It is also unrelated to the purpose of the amount in controversy requirement, which is to ensure the substantiality of issues raised before the Board.

The legislative history of § 1395Oo, although relatively brief, shows a clear intent to provide an independent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • St. James Hospital v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 4, 1981
    ... ... White Memorial Medical Center v. Schweiker, 640 F.2d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir ... St. John's Hickey Memorial Hospital v. Califano, 599 F.2d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 1979) ... for that of the agency." Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285, ... 761 this court has jurisdiction of the case. Cleveland Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Califano, 444 F.Supp. 125 ... ...
  • Auburn Regional Medical Center v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 11, 2010
    ... ... known as "disproportionate share hospital" ("DSH") adjustments to hospitals that serve a ... § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi); Jewish Hospital, Inc. v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 19 ... Hosp. v. Califano, 457 F.Supp. 848 (N.D.Cal.1978). The court in ... 686 F.2d at 993 (discussing Cleveland Mem. Hosp. v. Califano, 444 F.Supp. 125 ... ...
  • Cambridge Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bowen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • March 4, 1986
    ... 629 F. Supp. 612 ... CAMBRIDGE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., formerly known as Memorial Hospital, ... Supp. 616 Inc. v. Califano, 457 F.Supp. 848 (N.D. Cal.1978); St. Joseph's Hospital ... for the Eastern District of North Carolina in Cleveland Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Califano, 444 F.Supp. 125 ... ...
  • Edgewater Hosp., Inc. v. Bowen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 9, 1989
    ... ... The EDGEWATER HOSPITAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., ... Sec. 1291. Accord Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435, 1443 n. 12 ... Services, 676 F.2d 230, 233-35 (6th Cir.1982); Cleveland Memorial Hospital v. Califano, 444 F.Supp. 125, 128 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT