Tennessee Hospital Association et al v. Burwell et al

Filing 85

ORDER:For the reasons stated in the Memorandum, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 62 ) is GRANTED as to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint and DENIED as to Count III; and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alter native, Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 67 ) is DENIED as to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint and GRANTED as to Count III. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/21/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ab) Modified on 6/22/2017 (ab).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TENNESSEE HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
THOMAS PRICE, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:16-cv-03263
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Plaintiffs= Motion for Judicial Notice of Facts Not Subject to Reasonable Dispute (Doc.
No. 61) is GRANTED as unopposed.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, Plaintiffs= Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED as to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint and
DENIED as to Count III; and Defendants= Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 67) is DENIED as to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint
and GRANTED as to Count III. The Court finds that the policies reflected in FAQs 33 and 34
were instituted and enforced against Plaintiffs in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,
specifically 5 U.S.C. ' 706(2)(A), (C) and (D). Defendants are permanently enjoined from
enforcing the policies reflected in FAQs 33 and 34 against Plaintiffs, for the fiscal years 20122016.
Any request for attorneys’ fees and/or costs shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule
54.01.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE