Ca-Hhs

MEMORANDUM **

North East Medical Services appeals the district court’s decision denying it injunc-tive and declaratory relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The district court incorrectly determined that the Eleventh Amendment barred North East’s requested relief. We nevertheless affirm on a different ground, as explained below. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) (“If the result reached by the district court is correct, we will affirm even if the district court relied on an erroneous ground.”).

The district court erred by applying the “date of service” test to hold that North East was seeking retrospective monetary relief. Under the date of service test, “whether relief is prospective or retrospective in the Medicaid payment context turns on the date of service, not on the date of payment.” Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644 , 661 n.19 (9th Cir. 2009) vacated sub. nom. Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 565 U.S. 606 , 132 S.Ct. 1204 , 182 L.Ed.2d 101 (2012). We used this test in Independent Living Center, 572 F.3d at 660-61 , because granting an injunction would have had the practical…

concurring:

I agree with my colleagues that because North East had unclean hands, it is not eligible to receive the equitable relief it requests. That is a sufficient, independent basis to affirm the decision of the district court. I write separately because I also agree with the conclusion of the district court that the claims presented by North East are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. That conclusion is based on my view that the date of service test should be applied in determining the potential liability of a state to make reimbursements under Medicaid.

Under the date of service test, “whether relief is prospective or retrospective in the Medicaid payment context turns on the date of service, not the date of payment.” Indep. Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644 , 661 n.19 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc., 565 U.S. 606 , 132 S.Ct. 1204 , 182 L.Ed.2d 101 (2012). “Therefore, an order enjoining payment reductions for services that had been delivered ... is retroactive.” Id. The basis for the test is the principle that healthcare providers’ “liability accrues—and therefore any…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NOV 10 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES, No. 14-16776

INC.,

D.C. No. 4:10-cv-02433-CW Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES; DAVID

MAXWELL-JOLLY, Director of California Department of Health Care Services, Health and Human Services Agency, State of California; THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 19, 2016 San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT,** District Judge.

North East Medical Services appeals the district court’s decision denying it

injunctive and declaratory relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1291. The district court incorrectly determined…