RONALD E. PAYNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
JOHN R. BLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, V. JAMES J. COLLINS, MOVANT-APPELLANT-INTERVENOR
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 held that the government agency's failure to follow the law, as established by Congress and its own regulations, is a basis for liability, distinct from estoppel claims.
The plaintiffs alleged and the district court found that a government agency failed to act in accordance with the law and its own regulations. The Sup…
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.
PER CURIAM:
On October 1, 1984, the United States Supreme Court vacated our decision in this case, 714 F. 2d 1510 and 721 F. 2d 741, and remanded, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 65, 83 L.Ed.2d 15. We were directed to reconsider our decision in light of Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984).
The question presented in Heckler, supra was “whether the government is es-topped from recovering these funds because respondent relied on the express authorization of a responsible government agent in making the expenditures.” Id. 104 S.Ct. at 2220. The respondent community agency received CETA funds with which it hired extra employees to provide additional home health care services for Medicare patients. It billed the Medicare program for these same employee salaries upon advice of a government agent that CETA funds were “seed money” properly reimbursable within the meaning of the Provider Reimbursement Manual. This ad- . , , ,, vice proved erroneous and the government f, „ . s ~ sought recovery of the funds. The SuPreme Court held that the government.was not e+St°PPed *?m ^covering the funds m Q^tion since the respondent had not demonstrated that the traditional elements of an estoppel were present. See 104 S.Ct. at 2226 and notes 17-21.
We have considered the opinion of the Supreme Court and conclude that it does not control the decision in the case sub judice. The liability of the United States Department of Agriculture in this case is based upon the failure of its agency, The Farmers Home Administration, to follow law enacted by Congress, and its own regulations. The plaintiffs did not seek relief based on reliance upon agency action that created an estoppel The plaintiffs alleged and proved to the satisfaction of the district court that the agency failed to act in accordance with the law. Holding that government agents must be aware of the law and must obey it, just as private agencies were required in Heckler, supra, we abided by the opinions of the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681 (1954) (Board of Immigration Appeals must afford that due process required by the regulations) and Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 1074, 39 L.Ed.2d 270, 293 (1974) (“Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This is so even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.” 415 U.S. at 235, 94 S.Ct. at 1074).
Having carefully reviewed our prior opinions and the opinion in Heckler v. Community Health Services, supra, we adhere to our prior decision which is hereby reinstated.
The decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926 (U.S. 1986)…at 61. The Court of Appeals, observing that petitioners’ liability was premised not on a theory of equitable estoppel but on the agency’s failure to follow its own regulations, adhered to its prior views and reinstated its decision. Block v. Payne, 751 F. 2d 1191 (1985). Because the decision below exposes the Federal Government to substantial potential liability and because its reasoning implicates important questions about a federal court’s [*935] remedial powers, we again granted certiorari. Block v. Payn…
-
Simmons v. Block, 782 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1986)….1969); Payne v. Block, 714 F. 2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1983), clarified on rehearing, 721 F. 2d 741, cert. granted, judgment vacated, and remanded sub nom., Block v. Payne, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 65, 83 L.Ed.2d 15 (1984), on remand sub nom., Payne v. Block, 751 F. 2d 1191 (11th Cir.1985), cert. granted sub nom. Block v. Payne, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 57, 88 L.Ed.2d 46 (1985). We are in complete agreement with the decision of the district court to strike down the agency’s acceptance of Buckeye’s lower cash bid. Absent t…
-
Brown v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 775 F.2d 383 (D.C. Cir. 1985)…precludes his maintenance of an estoppel claim. See INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 103 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982). See generally Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984). But cf. Payne v. Block, 751 F. 2d 1191 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that subsequent decision of Supreme Court in Heckler did not require reversal of its prior holding that federal agency was precluded from enforcing valid regulation because of agency’s failure to comply with instruction publ…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1954)
- Morton v. Ruiz et ux., 415 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1974)
- Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs. of Crawford Cnty., Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1984)
- Heckler v. DAY, 467 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1984)
- Payne v. Block, 714 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Payne v. Block, 721 F.2d 741 (11th Cir. 1983)