1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 275 F.3d
  5. 275 F.3d 823 (2002)
 

IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER v. THOMPSON

Nos. 99-56319, 00-15757.

275 F.3d 823 (2002)

IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. Arizona Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc., (Medical Provider No. 3-3026), dba Novacare Valley of the Sun Rehabilitation Hospital; Arizona Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc. (Medical Provider No. 03-5212), dba Novacare Valley of the Sun Rehabilitation Hospital, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Novacare Meridian Point Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc. (Medical Provider No. 03-3025); Tucson Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc. (Medical Provider No. 03-3028); Novacare Rehab Agency of Georgia, Inc. (Medical Provider No. 11-6533); Novacare Rehab Agency of Illinois, Inc. (Medical Provider No. 14-6518); Novacare Tri-State Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc. (Medical Provider No. 15-3025); Rehabilitation Corporation of Virginia (Medical Provider No. 49-3028) dba Novacare Rehabilitation Hospital of Virginia, Plaintiffs, v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed January 4, 2002.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jonathan P. Neustadter, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., Los Angeles, California, Ronald N. Sutter, Powers, Pyles, Sutter & Verville, P.C., Washington, D.C., for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Richard K. Waterman, Department of Health & Human Services, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge CANBY; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

CANBY, Circuit Judge:

This is a consolidated appeal brought by Medicare service providers against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("Secretary"). The plaintiffs contend that the Secretary acted unlawfully in repealing a regulation that had allowed providers to carry forward reasonable costs disallowed in a particular fiscal period to succeeding fiscal periods. In both actions,...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases