Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00093/USCOURTS-ared-3_06-cv-00093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 151
Nature of Suit: Overpayments under the Medicare Act
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

1

42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2). 

2

Doc. No. 18-2, ps. 4-9. 

3

Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiatives, No. 4:06CV00629-GH, 2006 WL 3091324 (E.D.

Ark. October 20, 2006). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, on behalf of

the United States of America PLAINTIFF

v. 3:06CV00093-WRW

TRIAD HOSPITALS, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 13, 16) and Notice of Related Case

(Doc. No. 18). Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of the United States of America seeking to

recover monies he claims is owed Medicare under the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) statute.1

This action is one of many filed by Plaintiff in several jurisdictions,2 including an action with

virtually identical allegations that was dismissed on October 20, 2006, by United States District

Judge George Howard.3

I quote from Judge Howard’s opinion:

Plaintiff seeks to extend the MSP statute beyond that intended by Congress.

Plaintiff asserts that somewhere, sometime, somehow, some hospital or

hospitals owned by defendants must have caused some injury or illness to

one or more Medicare beneficiaries for which Medicare should be

reimbursed. Allowing plaintiff to proceed with this action would allow any

individual to sue any Medicare provider on the off-chance that some

Medicare recipient must have been injured by or harmed and that Medicare

Case 3:06-cv-00093-BRW Document 33 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 2
4

Id. 

is entitled to some as yet undetermined reimbursement. Certainly Congress

did not envision such a speculative cause of action.4

I agree with Judge Howard - - the MSP statute does not provide for a qui tam action.

Because Plaintiff has not suffered an injury, he does not have Article III standing. Accordingly,

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2006.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00093-BRW Document 33 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2