We have a very active health care litigation practice. Representative matters include:
- TennCare Litigation.
For many years, we have successfully represented the State of Tennessee in a number of cases challenging the State’s broad-based reform of its Medicaid program. The State is a signatory to several consent decrees that arguably limit its ability to reform its medical programs. In one such case, the district court ruled that the consent decree barred implementation of changes to the eligibility requirements for the State’s Medicaid program. We convinced the Sixth Circuit to reverse two of the lower court’s orders within a span of three months. Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2005); Rosen v. Goetz, 129 Fed. Appx. 167, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6444 (April 12, 2005). In a second case, Grier v. Goetz, No. 79-3107 (M.D. Tenn.), we successfully convinced the district court, following a three week trial, to substantially modify a consent decree that placed onerous restrictions on the State’s ability to reform its Medicaid program. As a result of these and other victories, the State has saved billions of dollars.
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Thompson
362 F.3d 817 (D.C. Cir. 2004). We successfully represented the State of Michigan in defending a recent initiative whereby it seeks rebates from drug manufacturers in order to control the cost of prescription drugs under its Medicaid and non-Medicaid programs. PhRMA brought suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services in federal court, challenging his decision to approve the State’s initiative and requesting a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of it. We intervened and the district court granted our motion for summary judgment. The D.C. Circuit affirmed.
- New York Life Insurance Company v. United States
190 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We successfully represented New York Life Insurance Company in its challenge to the Health Care Finance Administration’s application of the Medicare as Secondary Payer Statute to require New York Life to provide primary health care coverage for $15 million in claims of its independent agents that New York Life contends should have been paid by Medicare. The court of appeals vacated the Court of Federal Claims ruling in favor of the agency’s interpretation, and held that the statute did not apply to independent contractors during the relevant period.
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius
Nos. 11-393, 11-398, 11-400 (U.S. 2012). We filed an amicus brief in challenge to constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act arguing that the individual mandate exceeded the scope of congressional authority and was not severable from the rest of the act.