Woods Psychiatric Institute v. U.S., 90-5092
| Citation | 925 F.2d 1454 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5092,90-5092 |
| Parties | 65 Ed. Law Rep. 1069 WOODS PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Appealed from: U.S. Claims Court; Robert J. Yock, Judge.
Patric Hooper, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant.
Richard P. Nockett, Atty., Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Sharon Y. Eubanks, Asst. Director. Also on the brief was Roberta R. Herrick, Asst. Gen. Counsel, OCHAMPUS, of counsel.
Before NIES, Chief Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
Woods Psychiatric Institute appeals the judgment of the United States Claims Court which concluded that the final decision of the Director of the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) was not arbitrary or capricious, was based on substantial evidence and was correct as a matter of law. Woods Psychiatric Inst. v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 324 (1990). Specifically, the Claims Court in a detailed analysis determined that two CHAMPUS regulations, 32 C.F.R. Secs. 199.10(b)(1)(iv) and 199.10(f)(5) (1985), * are procedurally and substantively valid, that the alleged untimeliness of CHAMPUS's actions in recouping overpayments did not unduly prejudice Woods, and that CHAMPUS's recoupment actions were not barred by the statute of limitations. Id.
We affirm the judgment for reasons stated in the Claims Court's opinion, which we adopt, except with respect to the court's discussion of the statute of limitations issue. That issue is not an issue in the appeal.
AFFIRMED.
* We cite the 1985 edition of the regulations, because as the Claims Court noted below, "The parties have agreed to and relied on (and cited) the 1985 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, which contains the pertinent regulations that were in effect during the relevant period of this case." Woods, 20 Cl.Ct. at 327 n. 1.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trauma Service Group v. Keating
...4 The cases cited defendants are not to the contrary. Woods Psychiatric Instit. v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 324 (1990), aff'd, 925 F.2d 1454 (Fed. Cir.1991) and Grant Assocs. v. United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 816 (1987) merely stand for the proposition that CHAMPUS is a federal question. King v. ......
-
Smith v. OFFICE OF CIV. HEALTH AND MED. PROGRAM, IP 94-1396 C.
...and capricious standard. Wheeler v. Dynamic Engineering, Inc., 850 F.Supp. 459, 464 (E.D.Va.1994) (citing Woods Psychiatric Institute v. U.S., 925 F.2d 1454 (Fed.Cir. 1991). In applying this standard, this "court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevan......
-
Wheeler v. Dynamic Engineering, Inc.
...The proper standard of review in the action against CHAMPUS is the arbitrary and capricious standard. Woods Psychiatric Institute v. United States, 925 F.2d 1454 (Fed.Cir.1991). IV. A. Defendant Dynamic As was already discussed, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer in Novembe......
-
Wilson v. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN HEALTH & MED. PROGRAM
...as established by the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). (YEAR). See also Woods Psychiatric Institute v. United States, 925 F.2d 1454 (Fed.Cir.1991). Generally, under the APA this Court must find the decision of the Department of Defense denying coverage for HDC/PS......