HCR, Inc. v. Sebelius

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting Defendant's Motion (Re: 26 ) to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The Opinion and Order entered 9/29/2011 (Re: 23 ) is altered and amended to vacate the portion of the opinion which limits Defendant on remand to a specific money amount. Remainder of the Opinion and Order remains in full force and effect. (neh, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HCR, INC., an Oklahoma
corporation,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CIV-10-323-KEW

v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary
of United States Department
of Health and Human Services,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before this Court on Defendant's Motion to
Alter or Amend the Judgment (Docket Entry #26).

Without belaboring

the record with an extensive recitation of the numerous relevant
facts in this case, this Court granted Plaintiff's summary judgment
motion on September 29, 2011.
the following relief:
418.309(b)

under

which

(1)

In so doing, Plaintiff was granted

the regulation found at 42 C.F.R.

Plaintiff's

reimbursement

amount

calculated by Defendant was found to be invalid on its face;
Defendant's

calculation

of

Plaintiff's

liability made for the fiscal
vacated;

cap

and

§

was
(2)

reimbursement

year ending October 31,

2008 was

(3) the matter was remanded to Defendant for the purpose

of recalculating the reimbursement amount and issuing a new Demand
for Reimbursement to Plaintiff in accordance with the proportional
calculation provided by 42 U.S.C.

§

1395f(i) (2) (C).

However, the

Court determined that the amount assessed by Defendant could not
exceed Plaintiff's calculation of $416,636.37 plus interest since

Defendant did not object to that amount in the summary judgment
process;

(4)

enforcing

the

Defendant

was

application

hereby

permanently

42

§

of

C.F.R.

enjoined

418.309(b)

from

against

Plaintiff at any time in the future; (5) Defendant was enjoined from
charging interest on the reimbursement amount until such time as
Defendant issues a new Demand for Reimbursement; (6)

all payments

made by Plaintiff under the invalid calculation was ordered to be
applied to the new calculation; and (7) Plaintiff would be required
to file a separate motion for attorney's fees and costs associated
with this action.
Defendant's

sole

request

in her Motion

is

to vacate that

portion of the Opinion and Order which limited her calculation of
Plaintiff's cap and reimbursement liability for the fiscal year
ending October 31, 2008 to $416,636.37 plus interest.

Defendant

contends no other court has placed this type of restriction on the
government on remand.

Further, Defendant contends Plaintiff never

requested this portion of the relief granted - a limitation upon
the repayment calculation.
have

been

forced

to

Defendant also states that she would

introduce

extra-record

evidence

in

this

administrative review proceeding in order to combat Plaintiff's
calculation.

Defendant

asserts

that

she

implicitly

opposed

Plaintiff's calculation by challenging its methodology.
A review of the briefing on summary judgment reveals that
Plaintiff did not request the limitation on the calculation imposed

2

by the Court.

Based solely upon this fact and none of the other

bases for altering the order proffered by Defendant, the limitation
in the calculation shall be vacated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Alter or
Amend

the

Judgment

(Docket

Entry

#26)

is

hereby

GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Opinion and Order entered September 29, 2011 is
hereby ALTERED AND AMENDED to vacate the portion of the opinion
which limits Defendant on remand to a specific money amount.

The

remainder

and

of

the

Opinion and Order

in

full

force

~

effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

remains

/

-g -day

of June, 2012.

WEST
TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3