Shalala

Queen of Angels/Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center v. Shalala

Good Law
65 F.3d 1472·95 Daily Journal DAR 12370·1995 WL 542453·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25955·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7253
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 14, 1995No. 94-55561California6,061 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lay, J.

Queen of Angels/Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center brought this class action on behalf of all hospitals (“the Hospitals”) that have participated in the Medicare program (a health insurance program for the aged and disabled) since July 1, 1991, against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”). The Hospitals challenge the Secretary’s interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc(a)(l)(F)(i) relating to costs incurred during reviews by peer review organizations (“PROs”). The Hospitals claim that the Secretary refuses to comply with the statute and that her rule regarding payments to hospitals for costs incurred in duplicating medical records (“the Photocopy Rule”) is inconsistent with the statute and therefore invalid. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, concluding her interpretation of the statute and the regulation is reasonable. The Hospitals now appeal.

BACKGROUND

In 1982, Congress enacted the Peer Review Improvement Act (with additional amendments in 1983); the Peer Review Organization (“PRO”) system became operational in 1984. PROs are private medical review entities under contract with the Secretary that determine whether…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.