Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Luther C. Parente and Eric L. Stewart sued the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) and its staff for failing to properly treat their preexisting medical conditions. They alleged various federal and state constitutional, statutory, and common law bases for relief, including a claim under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990 (RICRA). The plaintiffs claimed that RIDOC's medical and correctional staff failed to meet their medical needs, resulting in harm and discrimination.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied RIDOC's motion for summary judgment on Eleventh Amendment grounds as to the RICRA claim. The district court held that Rhode Island's general waiver of sovereign immunity under the State Tort Claims Act applied to RICRA claims, reasoning that discrimination actions under RICRA sounded in tort. RIDOC appealed this decision, arguing that the district court erred in holding that violations of civil rights under RICRA were subject to the general waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and determined that there was a "special reason" to certify the underlying state-law issue to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The appellate court noted that the question of whether RICRA claims are "actions of tort" under the State Tort Claims Act is a matter of state law that has not been definitively resolved by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Therefore, the First Circuit certified the question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine whether discrimination claims under RICRA are covered by the general waiver of sovereign immunity under the State Tort Claims Act. The First Circuit retained jurisdiction over the issue pending resolution of the certified question. View "Parente v. Lefebvre" on Justia Law

James Lowe appealed a decision by Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) regarding the denial of his request for continued opioid medication exceeding 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) daily. Lowe argued that WSI abused its discretion in denying his request for approval of the medication.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, reviewed the case and affirmed WSI's decision. The court found that WSI had not acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously in its decision-making process. The court also noted that Lowe's medical provider had not provided sufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for exceeding the 90 MME limit, as required by the new law effective July 1, 2022.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that WSI had conducted a full review of Lowe's request and had properly applied the guidelines governing long-term opioid pain management. The court concluded that WSI did not abuse its discretion in denying Lowe's request for continued opioid medication in excess of 90 MME daily. The court affirmed the district court judgment affirming the managed care binding dispute resolution decision by WSI. View "Lowe v. Workforce Safety and Insurance" on Justia Law

Dr. Fares Jeries Rabadi, a licensed physician in California, had his certificate of registration to dispense controlled substances revoked by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA initiated an investigation into Rabadi in April 2018 due to his high-risk prescribing practices. In March 2020, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration, alleging that Rabadi issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose to seven individuals. Rabadi requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), which took place in September 2020. The ALJ found Rabadi's testimony not credible and recommended revoking his registration. The DEA Administrator adopted the ALJ's recommendations with minor modifications and revoked Rabadi's registration.Rabadi petitioned for review, arguing that the DEA's revocation was invalid because DEA ALJs are unconstitutionally insulated from removal by two layers of "for-cause" protections. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Rabadi's argument failed under Decker Coal Co. v. Pehringer, which found similar ALJ removal protections constitutional. The court noted that DEA ALJs perform purely adjudicatory functions, Congress does not mandate the use of ALJs for DEA hearings, and DEA ALJ decisions are reviewed de novo by the DEA Administrator, who is removable at will by the President.Rabadi also argued that the DEA Administrator's order was arbitrary and capricious. The court rejected this argument, finding that the Administrator properly ignored Rabadi's unsupported defense regarding high dosages of prescribed drugs and appropriately analyzed the public interest factors, including Rabadi's lack of a conviction record. The Ninth Circuit denied Rabadi's petition for review, upholding the DEA Administrator's order. View "RABADI V. USDEA" on Justia Law

A federal inmate, Dustin Rowland, developed a hernia after a pretrial detention fight. A physician deemed the hernia "reducible and stable," recommending non-surgical treatments. Rowland, desiring surgery, utilized the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Administrative Remedial Program, which involves a four-step grievance process. His initial requests were denied, but a later appeal led to approval for a surgical consultation. However, Rowland's final appeal was denied for procedural reasons, and he did not correct the deficiency. He eventually received surgery but filed a lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs, seeking damages under Bivens, injunctive relief for post-operative care, and a negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Rowland's Bivens claim, granted summary judgment against his injunctive relief claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion. Rowland's motion for reconsideration was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Bivens claim, noting that Rowland's case presented a new context not covered by previous Bivens cases and that the BOP's Administrative Remedial Program provided an adequate alternative remedy. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the injunctive relief claim, as Rowland failed to exhaust administrative remedies specifically for post-operative care. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FTCA claim, emphasizing the jurisdictional requirement of exhausting administrative remedies before filing suit. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Rowland's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. View "Rowland v. Matevousian" on Justia Law

Richard Shreves, while incarcerated at the Montana State Prison, received medical care and subsequently filed a complaint against Dr. Paul Rees with the Board of Medical Examiners at the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI). The Correctional Health Care Review Team (CHCRT) reviewed the complaint and found no violation of law or practice rules by Dr. Rees, leading to the closure of the complaint without forwarding it to the Board of Medical Examiners. Shreves then petitioned for judicial review, challenging the CHCRT's decision and the lack of detailed findings in their response.The First Judicial District Court dismissed Shreves's petition, concluding that he lacked standing. The court reasoned that the CHCRT process did not implicate Shreves's legal rights, as it was designed to screen complaints for potential disciplinary action against the healthcare provider, not to adjudicate the complainant's rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The court held that Shreves did not have standing to petition for judicial review because the statute governing the CHCRT process did not authorize judicial review at the behest of the complainant. The court also found that Shreves's constitutional challenge to the CHCRT's authority did not confer standing, as he lacked a personal stake in the outcome. Additionally, the court determined that any alleged mishandling of filings by the District Court did not affect the outcome, as the legal conclusions regarding standing were correct. View "Shreves v. Montana Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

A group of healthcare and air-ambulance providers challenged certain agency rules regarding the No Surprises Act, which aims to protect patients from unexpected medical bills. The key issues involved the calculation of the "qualifying payment amount" (QPA), deadlines for insurers to respond to provider bills, and disclosure requirements for insurers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reviewed the case and held several provisions of the rules unlawful, vacating them. The court found that the rules conflicted with the Act's terms and were arbitrary and capricious. The defendant agencies appealed the decision regarding certain provisions, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the court's upholding of the disclosure requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's vacatur of the QPA calculation provisions, holding that the rules did not conflict with the Act and were not arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the district court's vacatur of the deadline provision, agreeing that it conflicted with the Act's unambiguous terms. The court also affirmed the district court's decision upholding the disclosure requirements, finding them reasonable and adequately explained.In summary, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on the QPA calculation provisions, affirmed the vacatur of the deadline provision, and upheld the disclosure requirements. The court concluded that the proper remedy for the unlawful deadline provision was vacatur, not remand, and rejected the idea of party-specific vacatur. View "Texas Medical Association v. Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The case involves Amaka Oji and Oji Fit World, LLC (OFW), who were approved as Medicaid providers by the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance (DHCF) in 2011. Between 2012 and 2015, they submitted over 24,000 claims for reimbursement for wellness services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. Investigations by DHCF, the Office of the Inspector General for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the FBI revealed that Oji and OFW regularly overbilled Medicaid, often charging for a full hour of service regardless of the actual time spent or whether the service was provided at all.The District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in April 2021 under the D.C. False Claims Act and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District, finding that Oji and OFW had submitted false claims and falsified records. The court awarded the District $1,001,362.50 in treble damages and $497,000 in civil penalties. Oji and OFW's various procedural defenses, including claims of laches and statute of limitations, were deemed waived due to their failure to raise them in a timely manner.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the summary judgment order. However, the court remanded the case for further consideration of the damages and penalties. The appellate court found that the Superior Court had not provided sufficient explanation or analysis for the awarded amounts, making it difficult to review the decision. The appellate court emphasized the need for the trial court to explain its reasoning in detail to permit adequate appellate review. View "Oji Fit World, LLC v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

The case involves the People of the State of California, represented by the San Diego City Attorney, who filed a complaint against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. The complaint alleged that Kaiser violated the unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL) by failing to maintain and update accurate health plan provider directories (PDs) as required by California Health and Safety Code section 1367.27. The People claimed that Kaiser’s inaccuracies in PDs misled consumers and harmed competitors.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment, exercising its discretion to abstain from adjudicating the action. The court reasoned that the legislative framework did not impose an accuracy requirement but rather outlined procedural steps for maintaining PDs. The court concluded that adjudicating the People’s claims would require it to assume regulatory functions and interfere with policy judgments already made by the Legislature and the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC).The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the doctrine of judicial abstention. The appellate court found that section 1367.27 sets forth clear mandates for PD accuracy, which the trial court could enforce through its ordinary judicial functions. The appellate court held that the People’s enforcement of these statutory requirements would not interfere with the DMHC’s regulatory functions and that the trial court’s abstention was based on a mistaken view of the law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter with directions to deny Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment. View "P. ex rel. Elliott v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan" on Justia Law

A group of skilled nursing facilities in New York and Rhode Island challenged a rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The rule allowed certain inspections of these facilities without the presence of a registered nurse, which the plaintiffs argued contradicted the Medicaid Act's requirement for a registered nurse to be part of the survey teams. The dispute arose after an incident at Avon Nursing and Rehabilitation, where a resident was injured, leading to an inspection by a team that did not include a registered nurse. The plaintiffs contended that the rule violated the statutory requirement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The court concluded that the Medicaid Act's registered nurse requirement applied only to surveys conducted under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(g)(2) and not to activities under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(g)(4), which were the subject of the challenged rule. The court also determined that even if the statute were ambiguous, the agency's interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the registered nurse requirement did not extend to complaint investigations and other enforcement activities under 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(g)(4). The court reasoned that the term "survey" in the statute referred specifically to annual standard surveys, extended surveys, and validation surveys, and not to the investigatory activities described in § 1396r(g)(4). Consequently, the rule allowing inspections without a registered nurse did not contradict the Medicaid Act. View "Avon Nursing & Rehabilitation v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucas Sirois and Alisa Sirois, who were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They sought to enjoin the Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting them, arguing that their conduct was in substantial compliance with the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act, which allows for the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana under state law. The defendants claimed that the DOJ's prosecution violated the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the defendants' request for injunctive relief. The court held a hearing where the government presented evidence that the defendants' operations, particularly a grow operation known as the "Shoe Shop," violated Maine's medical marijuana laws by operating as a collective and engaging in black-market sales. The court found that the government had met its burden of production, showing a substantial evidentiary basis for the prosecution. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the prosecution lacked a substantial evidentiary basis or was arbitrary or irrational.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were in substantial compliance with Maine's medical marijuana laws. The court noted significant evidence that the Shoe Shop operated as a collective and that Lucas Sirois engaged in black-market sales. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the DOJ's prosecution would prevent Maine from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws, as required under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. Therefore, the denial of the motion to enjoin the prosecution was affirmed. View "United States v. Sirois" on Justia Law