NB ex rel. Peacock v. D.C., Corp., 11–7084.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtTATEL
Citation401 U.S.App.D.C. 184,682 F.3d 77
PartiesNB, by her parent and next friend, Michelle PEACOCK, et al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 11–7084.,11–7084.
Decision Date08 June 2012


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:10–cv–01511).

Bruce J. Terris argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Kathleen L. Millian, Jane M. Liu, and Jane Perkins.

Rochelle Bobroff was on the brief for amicus curiae Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, et al., in support of appellants.

Richard S. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General.

Before: TATEL and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

TATEL, Circuit Judge:

Five Medicaid recipients filed this class action against the District of Columbia, alleging that the District systematically denies Medicaid coverage of prescription medications without providing the written notice required by federal and D.C. law. The district court dismissed the case on the pleadings, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Because we believe that the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to establish standing, we reverse.


Medicaid is a “cooperative federal-state program that provides federal funding for state medical services to the poor.” Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 433, 124 S.Ct. 899, 157 L.Ed.2d 855 (2004). States electing to participate in Medicaid must comply with requirements imposed by federal law. Id. As relevant here, federal regulations mandate procedural protections for Medicaid recipients, including provision of written notice [a]t the time of any action affecting [a Medicaid recipient's] claim.” 42 C.F.R. § 431.206(b), (c)(2). Such notice must contain a statement of what action the state intends to take, the reasons for that action, the specific regulations supporting the action, the individual's right to a hearing, and an explanation of the circumstances under which coverage will be continued if a hearing is requested. Id. § 431.210. District of Columbia law imposes the same requirements. D.C.Code § 4–205.55.

In the District, the Department of Health Care Finance (DHCF) implements much of the Medicaid program, including prescription drug coverage. As permitted under federal law, DHCF places restrictions on the medications covered by Medicaid. In particular, for certain medications—including medications not on DHCF's Preferred Drug List, medically necessary brand-name medications with generic equivalents, and medications with quantity limits—DHCF imposes a prior authorization requirement, meaning that the prescribing physician must obtain approval from DHCF before it will cover the prescription. See ACS Solutions Center, District of Columbia Pharmacy Benefits Management Prescription Drug Claims System (X2) Provider Manual Version 0.09, at 8, 11–12, 15 (2012), available at http:// www. dcpbm. com/ documents/ DC% 20MAA% 20Provider% 20Manual% 20v9.pdf; see also42 U.S.C. § 1396r–8(d)(1)(A), (d)(5) (permitting prior authorization programs, subject to certain requirements). According to the allegations in the complaint, DHCF contracts with a company called Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) to process claims for prescription drug coverage using an electronic claims management system. Compl. ¶ 29. Under this system, when a Medicaid recipient presents a prescription to a pharmacy, the pharmacy submits an electronic claim to ACS, and ACS immediately provides an automatic reply indicating whether Medicaid will cover the prescription.If coverage is denied, ACS gives the pharmacy a “rejection code” identifying the reason for the denial. Id. at ¶ 30.

Plaintiffs allege that the District, in violation of both federal and D.C. law, systematically fails to provide Medicaid recipients with timely and adequate written notice of the reasons for prescription coverage denials or reductions, the right to request a hearing, and the circumstances under which coverage will be reinstated if a hearing is requested. Deprived of these procedural protections, plaintiffs claim they have no opportunity to prevent or challenge denials or reductions of coverage or to obtain reinstated coverage pending appeal. This, they argue, leaves them with two choices: (1) forego medically necessary prescriptions, at least temporarily, or (2) pay for the prescriptions with money needed for other life necessities. In their complaint, plaintiffs recount multiple instances in which they were denied prescription coverage without written notice of either the reason for the denial or their procedural rights. In some cases, plaintiffs allege, they had to pay out-of-pocket in order to obtain necessary medications; in other cases, they were eventually able to obtain their medication at a different pharmacy or at a later date. Plaintiffs seek no compensation for either the expense or inconvenience caused by DHCF's failure to provide adequate notice. Instead, they request declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the District to provide the procedural protections that they claim are mandated by statute and by the Due Process Clause.

The district court dismissed the complaint, finding plaintiffs lacked standing to seek such relief. In its view, because “in many of the instances alleged by plaintiffs, they were, in fact, ultimately able to obtain their prescriptions at no cost,” there was “no injury.” NB v. District of Columbia, 800 F.Supp.2d 51, 56 (D.D.C.2011). And though acknowledging that plaintiffs may have suffered a cognizable injury based on the various out-of-pocket expenses incurred after being denied coverage,” the district court concluded that these injuries were neither traceable to defendants nor likely to be remedied by a favorable ruling. Id. at 57. Our review is de novo. LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777, 785 (D.C.Cir.2011) (We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of standing[.]).


Several well-accepted principles of standing govern our review of the district court's decision. As we have explained, [t]he mere violation of a procedural requirement ... does not permit any and all persons to sue to enforce the requirement.” Fla. Audubon Soc'y v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 664 (D.C.Cir.1996) (en banc). Our jurisdiction is limited to “actual cases or controversies between proper litigants,” and if this suit is to proceed, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have “constitutional standing to invoke the authority of an Article III court.” Id. at 661. As the Supreme Court explained in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, to establish constitutional standing, plaintiffs must satisfy three elements: (1) they must have suffered an injury in fact that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”; (2) the injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (alteration, omission, and internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, plaintiffs seek to enforce procedural (rather than substantive) rights, they must establish that “the procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of [theirs] that is the ultimate basis of [their] standing.” Id. at 573 n. 8, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Once plaintiffs establish that a law “accord[s] a procedural right to protect [their] concrete interests,” however, they “can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy.” Id. at 572 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2130;see also Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. Dep't of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152, 1157 (D.C.Cir.2005) (“Where plaintiffs allege injury resulting from violation of a procedural right afforded to them by statute and designed to protect their threatened concrete interest, the courts relax—while not wholly eliminating—the issues of imminence and redressability[.]). In assessing plaintiffs' standing, we must assume they will prevail on the merits” of their claims, LaRoque, 650 F.3d at 785—in this case, that the Constitution, federal regulations, and D.C. law require written notice when DHCF denies coverage of prescription medications. Moreover, because the district court dismissed the complaint at the pleadings stage, “the burden imposed” on plaintiffs to establish standing “is not onerous,” Equal Rights Ctr. v. Post Props., Inc., 633 F.3d 1136, 1141 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.2011), and “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130.

This case turns primarily on the injury element of standing. Because plaintiffs seek only forward-looking injunctive and declaratory relief, “past injuries alone are insufficient to establish standing,” and plaintiffs must show that they “suffer[ ] an ongoing injury or face[ ] an immediate threat of injury.” Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499, 501 (D.C.Cir.2011). As the District points out, none of the plaintiffs expressly allege an imminent threat of future injury in the complaint. This failure, however, is not by itself fatal. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, we “treat the complaint's factual allegations as true ... and must grant [plaintiffs] the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” In re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 629 F.3d 213, 216 (D.C.Cir.2010) (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question, then, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
96 cases
  • Brewer v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 11–cv–1206 KBJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 22, 2015
    ...the defendant's observation of proper procedure will necessarily result in plaintiff's desired outcome. SeeNB ex rel. Peacock v. District of Columbia,682 F.3d 77, 86 (D.C.Cir.2012)(“[A] ‘plaintiff who alleges a deprivation of a procedural protection to which he is entitled never has to prov......
  • Black Lives Matter District Columbia v. Trump
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • June 21, 2021
    ...plaintiffs the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged," NB ex rel. Peacock v. District of Columbia , 682 F.3d 77, 82 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted), the complaint plainly challenges ongoing restrictions on access to Lafayett......
  • Virginia v. Ferriero
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 5, 2021
    ...purposes of assessing standing, courts assume that plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims. NB ex rel. Peacock v. District of Columbia , 682 F.3d 77, 82 (D.C. Cir. 2012)."A State's standing depends on the capacity in which it initiates a lawsuit." Gov't of Manitoba v. Bernhard......
  • Maloney v. Carnahan
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 8, 2022
    ...and the constitutionality of the statute that provides the source of their asserted legal claim. See NB ex rel. Peacock v. District of Columbia , 682 F.3d 77, 82 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ; Maloney , 984 F.3d at 58.The central mistake that the dissenting opinions make is trying to force the injury-i......
  • 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