• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Donate Now
  • Sign Up

Center for Medicare Advocacy

Advancing Access to Medicare and Healthcare

  • Eligibility/Enrollment
  • Coverage/Appeals
    • Medicare Costs (2021)
    • Self Help Materials – Toolkits & More
  • Topics
    • Basic Introduction to Medicare
    • COVID-19 and Medicare
    • Medicare Costs (2021)
    • Home Health Care
    • Improvement Standard and Jimmo News
    • Nursing Home / Skilled Nursing Facility Care
    • Outpatient Observation Status
    • Part B
    • Part D / Prescription Drug Benefits
    • Medicare for People Under 65
    • Medicare “Reform”
    • All Other Topics
    • Resources
      • Infographics
  • Publications
    • CMA Alerts
    • Fact Sheets & Issue Briefs
    • Infographics
    • The Medicare Handbook
    • SNF Enforcement Newsletter
    • Elder Justice Newsletter
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • Articles by Topic
  • Litigation
    • Litigation News
    • Cases
    • Litigation Archive
    • Amicus Curiae Activities
  • Newsroom
    • Press Releases
    • Editorials & Letters to the Editor
    • CMA Comments, Responses, and Letters
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • CMA in the News
  • About Us
    • Mission Statement
    • CMA FAQs
    • Personnel & Boards
    • The Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Connecticut Dually Eligible Appeals Project
    • Ossen Medicare Outreach, Education and Advocacy Project
    • National Medicare Advocates Alliance
    • National Voices of Medicare Summit
    • CMA Webinars
    • Products & Services
    • Testimonials
    • Career, Fellowship & Internship Opportunities
    • Contact Us
  • Support Our Work
    • Donate Now
    • Join the Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Take Action
    • Share Your Health Care Story
    • Tell Congress to Protect Our Care
    • Listen to Medicare & Health Care Stories
    • Sign Up

Fournier v. Leavitt

July 9, 2014

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 No. CV 08-2309-PHX-ROS (D.Ariz.), filed December 18, 2008. Appeal filed March 6, 2012 (No. 12-15478, 9th Cir.).

Issue: Whether the Secretary's exclusion of coverage for dental care in extraordinary circumstances where the care is necessary to treat a medical condition violates the Medicare statute and policy provisions, and the Equal Protection Clause.

Relief Sought: Declaratory judgment that the policy is invalid, and a preliminary and permanent injunction against the application of the policy to an individual beneficiary.

Updated: July 9, 2014

Status: The district judge denied plaintiff Fournier's request for a preliminary injunction on the ground that he was not entitled to waiver of exhaustion.  Amended complaints allowing two other named plaintiffs to participate were permitted to be filed, with the court expressly recognizing that the venue requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) did not preclude non-residents of the district from participating as long as one plaintiff was from that district. 677 F.Supp.2d 1172. The court has allowed the plaintiff to engage in limited discovery. As requested by the court, the parties have fully briefed two discrete issues involving the merits and class certification, and are awaiting the court's action on those issues before the case proceeds further. After the tragic death of Chief Judge Roll in the Tucson shootings, Judge Silver, who was the judge on this case, became the Chief Judge.  She then reassigned the case to Senior Judge Carroll, but it was reassigned back to Chief Judge Silver in October.

On February 14, 2012, the court ruled adversely to the plaintiffs. 839 F. Supp. 2d 1077.  Mr. Fournier's claim was dismissed as moot, since he had received a favorable administrative law judge decision during the course of the litigation. For the claims of the other two beneficiaries, the court did not rule on the issue which they had raised in their complaint and for which the district judge had required briefing (whether coverage of non-routine dental care is permitted under the statute), but instead simply held that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's decisions below on their individual claims.  The judge also held that the putative class members could not satisfy the requirements for waiver of exhaustion.

Plaintiffs Berg and DiCecco appealed, and the appeal was briefed during the summer and fall of 2012.  On plaintiffs’ request, the court agreed to expedite oral argument, and the appeal was argued on March 5, 2013.  Because the government’s attorney introduced a Supreme Court decision in the oral argument that had not been briefed in the case, the court ordered supplemental briefing, which was completed on March 21, 2013. 

On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision below.  718 F.3d 1110.   It held that the statutory scheme was ambiguous and therefore considered whether "Chevron deference" should be applied to the Secretary’s policy.  Although the court recognized that manual provisions lack the force of law and therefore are not usually deferred to, it held that application of the provisions through the “process of adjudication” (i.e., the Medicare Appeals Council) gave them the force of law and entitled them to Chevron deference.  Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc disputing the court’s “process of adjudication” analysis and pointing out that decisions of the Medicare Appeals Council also lacked the force of law.  After the Secretary filed a court-ordered response and plaintiffs filed a reply, the court denied the petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc on October 22, 2013.

On January 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the case that is styled in the Supreme Court as Berg v. Sebelius, No. 13-859. The petition was limited to the issue of whether the Court of Appeals properly applied Chevron deference. The government waived its right to file a response.  AARP, the National Health Law Program, and the National Senior Citizens Law Center filed an amicus brief supporting the petition. On March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.  — S.Ct. —, 2014 WL 234967.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Archived Cases, Litigation

Primary Sidebar

Easy Access to Understanding Medicare

The Center for Medicare Advocacy produces a range of informative materials on Medicare-related topics. Check them out:

  • Medicare Basics
  • CMA Alerts
  • CMA Webinars
  • Connecticut Info & Projects
  • Health Care Stories
  • Se habla Español

Sign Up for CMA Alerts

Jimmo v. Sebelius

Medicare covers skilled care to maintain or slow decline as well as to improve.

Improvement Isn’t Required. It’s the law!

Read more.

Medicare: Build Back Better

By prioritizing Medicare beneficiaries and the health systems that serve them, we can avoid drastic national consequences. The Center for Medicare Advocacy proposes a five-part plan that will make Medicare a bulwark against the worsening health and economic challenges facing the American people.

learn more.

Latest Tweets

  • RT @johnahartford: Celebrate 35 Years of Medicare Advocacy and attend the 8th Annual National Voices of Medicare Summit & Sen. Jay Ro… https://t.co/OfBcjmtYo0, 12 hours ago
@CMAorg

Footer

Stay Connected:

  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Products & Services
  • Copyright/Privacy

© 2021 · Center for Medicare Advocacy