New Hampshire Hospital Association et al v. US Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 18 Motion to Dismiss. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire Hospital
Association, et al.
v.

Civil No. 15-cv-460-LM
Opinion No. 2016 DNH 068

Sylvia Matthews Burwell
et al.
O R D E R
Several New Hampshire hospitals and the New Hampshire
Hospital Association, a non-profit trade association, bring this
suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and the
Administrator of CMS, alleging that defendants have set forth
certain “policy clarifications” that contradict the plain
language of the Medicaid Act and violate the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”).
complaint.

Defendants move to dismiss the

See doc. no. 18.

Plaintiffs object.

Standard of Review
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, construe reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and “determine whether the
factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint set forth a
plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.”

Foley v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014)

(citation omitted).

A claim is facially plausible “when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
(2009).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

Analyzing plausibility is “a context-specific task” in

which the court relies on its “judicial experience and common
sense.”

Id. at 679.
Discussion

On the same date they filed their complaint, plaintiffs
moved for a preliminary injunction barring defendants from
enforcing the policy clarifications during the pendency of this
litigation.

See doc. no. 10.

Defendants objected to the

motion, arguing, in part, that plaintiffs were unlikely to
succeed on the merits of their claims.

In support of that

argument, defendants asserted that plaintiffs lacked standing to
pursue their claims and that the policy clarifications do not
violate the APA because they are consistent with the language of
the Medicaid Act and another regulation promulgated by CMS.
The court has granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction.

See New Hampshire Hosp. Assoc. v. Burwell, No. 15-

cv-460-LM, 2016 WL 1048023 (D.N.H. Mar. 11, 2016).

In that

order, the court held that plaintiffs were likely to show both

2

that they have standing to pursue their claims and that the
policy clarifications violate the APA.

See id. at 6-16.

While plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was
pending, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

See doc. no. 18.

In support, defendants assert that the court should dismiss the
complaint because plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
claims and because the policy clarifications are valid.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss incorporates by reference their
objection to the motion for preliminary injunction.

As such,

defendants advance the same arguments they raised in their
objection to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
For the reasons stated in the court’s order granting
plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs have
adequately alleged that they have standing to pursue their
claims and that the policy clarifications were promulgated in
violation of the APA.

Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss

is denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss
(doc. no. 18) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
March 28, 2016
3

cc:

Holly J. Barcroft, Esq.
Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq.
James C. Luh, Esq.
Gordon J. MacDonald, Esq.

4