Basem Abdulla Attum v. Xavier Becerra

Case No. 2:22-cv-04044-ODW (JCx), Document 23 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · March 8, 2023 · No. 2:22-cv-04044-ODW (JCx)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Defendant Xavier Becerra’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss claims concerning the denial of Basem Abdulla Attum’s Medicare supplier enrollment and placement on the Medicare Preclusion List. The court held that the claims arose under the Medicare Act and that Attum had not fully exhausted the administrative appeals process, but it judicially waived the exhaustion requirement because the claims were collateral, irreparable harm was alleged, and further exhaustion would be futile.

Holdings

  1. Attum's claims arose under the Medicare Act because their standing and substantive bases depended on HHS policies implementing the Medicare Act and processing Medicare enrollment applications, notwithstanding their constitutional framing and request for declaratory and injunctive relief.
  2. Attum did not fully exhaust the Medicare Act's administrative appeals process because he failed to allege that he sought Departmental Appeals Board review of the ALJ's decision.
  3. Attum satisfied the nonwaivable presentment requirement by presenting to the agency his claim that his enrollment should not be denied and that he should not be placed on the Preclusion List based on the subsequently withdrawn plea agreement.
  4. The court waived the requirement that Attum fully pursue the prescribed administrative remedies because his claims were collateral to entitlement, he showed a colorable risk of irreparable harm, and exhaustion would be futile.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Attum's constitutional and mandamus claims arose under the Medicare Act even though he sought declaratory and injunctive relief rather than Medicare benefits.
  2. Whether Attum failed to exhaust the Medicare Act's administrative appeals process by not seeking Departmental Appeals Board review of the ALJ decision.
  3. Whether the court should waive the exhaustion requirement because Attum satisfied the presentment, collaterality, irreparability, and futility requirements.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (18)

  • United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Sopcak v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 605 (1984)(followed)
  • Kaiser v. Blue Cross of Cal., 347 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 12-14 (2000)(followed)
  • Arriva Med. LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 239 F. Supp. 3d 266, 278 (D.D.C. 2017)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 918, 921-22 (9th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Star Fabrics, Inc. v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. 17-cv-5877-PA (PLAx), 2017 WL 10439691, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…