THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court remanded the case for further consideration by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, agreeing with the parties that the issue should be resubmitted.
The University of Tennessee hospital disputed the Medicare reimbursement formula, arguing that including women in labor rooms in the daily census but …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medicare Reimbursement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*580] PER CURIAM.
This is a dispute between the University of Tennessee which operates a hospital as a part of its medical teaching service and the United States Health and Human Services Department which, through Medicare, reimburses hospitals like that at the University of Tennessee for certain hospital costs. The computation of those costs involves the designing of a formula for finding the daily costs of caring for a hospitalized patient in each hospital. When using this formula, the Secretary has required, hospitals to include women in the labor rooms as patients for purposes of the daily census. The hospital argues that although labor room patients are counted in the census, not all costs generated by these patients are taken into account in computing the total costs for all patients. This practice, the hospital argues, results in underpayment of medicare reimbursement.
This case was heard before Judge Robert Taylor in the Eastern District of Tennessee, 573 F.Supp. 795, who found that it was reasonable to include pregnant mothers in the calculus. We will not reach the merits of this complex issue since, in the midst of the oral argument, the Secretary’s representative agreed with the lawyer for the hospital that it would be desirable to resubmit this issue to the Secretary for further consideration probably particularly in the light of St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, et al. v. Schweiker, 718 F. 2d 459 (D.C.Cir.1983), wherein Judge McGowan wrote in favor of St. Mary’s on the identical issue presented here.
This court now adopts the remand suggestion as advanced by the parties and refers this case back to Judge Taylor for remand by him to the Health and Human Services Department for further consideration referred to above.
We also deal with the second issue in this case by reaffirming a decision already twice decided by this court in Harper-Grace Hospitals v. Schweiker, 691 F. 2d 808 (6th Cir.1982), reh’g denied, 708 F. 2d 199 (6th Cir.1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cmty. Hosp. OF Roanoke Valley v. Health & Human Servs., 770 F.2d 1257 (4th Cir. 1985)
-
ST. Mary of Nazareth Hosp. Ctr. v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
-
Cent. DuPAGE Hosp. v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Saint Mary OF Nazareth Hosp. Ctr. v. Schweiker, 718 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
- Harper-Grace Hosps. v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 808 (6th Cir. 1982)
- Harper-Grace Hosps. v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1983)