Palomar Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 672 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Palomar Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 672 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Whitford, William v. Nichol, Gerald, No. 3:15-cv-00421 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 22, 2019)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1157 Inviting amicus briefs on Medicare claim reopening regulations3 citing cases
  • VITAL Pharm., INC. v. Berlin Packaging LLC, 632 F. Supp. 3d 780 (N.D. Ill. 2022).published
    Ltd., 672 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2012).
  • Bertrang v. Ivory Holdings, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-10519 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2021).
    Ltd., 672 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Miles v. California, 5 || 320 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2003)).
  • Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Kasich, No. 1:18-cv-00357 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2020).
    Ltd., 672 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2012); Miles v. California, 320 F.3d 986 , 988 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003); Hygienics Direct Co. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 33 F. App’x 621, 624-26 (3d Cir. 2002); Callicrate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 139 F.3d 133…
At page 1156 Cost awards under section 1919 discretion1 citing caseUnlike Rule 54(d)(1), . . . a cost award under § 1919 does not turn on prevailing party status and lies within the sound discretion of the district court.1 citing court put it this way
  • Whitford, William v. Nichol, Gerald, No. 3:15-cv-00421 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 22, 2019).
    (Unlike Rule 54(d)(1), . . . a cost award under § 1919 does not turn on prevailing party status and lies within the sound discretion of the district court.)
At page 1158 cited at this page1 citing case
  • First Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 646 (Fed. Cl. 2013).published
    Otay Land Co., 672 F.3d at 1158 (“[T]he strength of the plaintiff’s jurisdictional claim is a legitimate consideration, albeit not definitive,” in determining “just costs” under § 1919.) (citing Ericsson GE, 179 F.R.D. at 334 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary of Southern Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
10-56529.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 14, 2012.
Published opinion
672 F.3d 1152
2012 WL 833716
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00605-BEN-NLS, Southern District of California, San Diego.
Pregerson, Gould, Tallman.
Published

ORDER

The panel invites amicus briefs addressing the following questions:

(1) Do the regulations at 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.926(i) and 405.980(a)(5) bar administrative review of a contractor’s decision to reopen a Medicare claim, including the contractor’s compliance with the good cause standard for reopening set forth at 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.980(b)(2) and 405.986?
(2) If the regulations bar administrative review of a contractor’s decision to reopen, do federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce the agency’s compliance with the good cause standard for reopening?

Any person or entity wishing to file a brief as an amicus curiae in response to this order is granted leave to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a). Briefs responding to this order shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this order and shall not exceed 15 pages.