Alameda Health System et al v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell et al

Filing 59

JUDGMENT. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/16/2018. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.

JUDGMENT

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID SERVICES, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-05903-PJH
Case No. 16-cv-06553-PJH

Defendants.

12
13

WHEREFORE this action came on for hearing before the court on August 23, 2017, Hon.

14

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge Presiding, on the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary

15

Judgment;

16

WHEREFORE in a letter dated January 11, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

17

Services (“CMS”) informed the California Department of Health Care Services that, except in

18

limited circumstances not applicable here, California could not include uncompensated care costs

19

incurred by hospital-based federally qualified health centers (“FQHCs”) in its calculations of

20

hospital-specific disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) limits pursuant to California’s Medicaid

21

state plan;

22
23
24
25

WHEREFORE the foregoing articulation of CMS’s position will be referred to as CMS’s
“Policy,” which was at issue in the present case;
WHEREFORE and the evidence presented having been fully considered, the issues having
been duly heard and a decision having been duly rendered,

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

2

1. For the reasons stated in the court’s “Order Re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment”

3

entered on December 18, 2017, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted and

4

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied;

5
6
7
8
9

2. The court declares that CMS’s Policy is a legislative rule that was not promulgated in
accordance with the requirements of notice-and-comment rulemaking;
3. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D), the court therefore declares CMS’s Policy as
applied in California to be unlawful and orders that it be set aside in California;
4. The court directs that, if the plaintiffs claim taxable costs, plaintiffs shall serve and file
a bill of costs no later than 14 days after judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

L.R. 54(D).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2018
______________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2