• 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 (2020 & 2021)
    • Self Help Materials – Toolkits & More
  • Topics
    • Basic Introduction to Medicare
    • COVID-19 and Medicare
    • Medicare Costs (2020 & 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

Lodge v. Burwell

October 13, 2016

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No. 3:15-cv-00390-JBA (D.Conn.), filed March 17, 2015

Issue: Whether extraordinary dental care should be covered because the exclusion for coverage of dental care should be limited to routine dental care.

Relief Sought: Reversal of the Secretary’s decision denying coverage to the plaintiff and enjoining the Secretary from relying on a regulation that does not define the coverage limitation with the word “routine.”

Updated: October 13, 2016

Status: After the original complaint was filed challenging an individual denial of coverage for extraordinary oral care, but before the Secretary had answered, plaintiff obtained agreement from the Secretary to file an amended complaint adding an additional claim.  That amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2015.  The additional claim contends that the original regulation defining the dental exclusion explicitly used the word “routine” to describe the excluded care, but that, without notice-and-comment rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Secretary removed the word “routine” and thus expanded the scope of the exclusion.  Plaintiff therefore contends that, because the APA was not followed, the Secretary cannot apply the amended rule but must use the original rule that limits the exclusion to routine dental care.

Although the Secretary did move to dismiss on the ground that the time to challenge the change to the regulation had passed under the statute of limitations, she withdrew that motion before the Court could rule.  The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment were argued on September 23, 2016.

Filed Under: Article 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.

Latest Tweets

  • Our statement with @CANHR_CA and the Michigan Elder Justice Initiative recommends key issues of the Nursing Home Re… https://t.co/9nSwt3tAwT, Jan 15
@CMAorg

Footer

Stay Connected:

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

© 2021 · Center for Medicare Advocacy