Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01691/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01691-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Michael O. Leavitt has been appointed to serve as Secretary of Health and

Human Services, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

2

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S.

Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1691

___________

John M. Volkert, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of * District of Minnesota.

Health and Human Services,1 *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2005

Filed: April 12, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this action for Medicare reimbursement for home health care expenses for

periods in 1996 and 1998, John Volkert appeals the district court’s2

 order granting

Appellate Case: 04-1691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2005 Entry ID: 1889696
-2-

summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the United States Department of

Health and Human Services. Following careful review, we agree with the district

court that Volkert cannot seek review in federal court of unexhausted Medicare

claims for reimbursement for his home health care expenses for the period April 18

to November 30, 1996. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 764 (1975); Anderson

v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 690, 692-93 (8th Cir. 1992). Jurisdiction to review Volkert’s

related due process argument is also lacking, because it is inextricably intertwined

with, if not identical to, his claim for benefits. See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602,

605, 610-15 (1984). As to Volkert’s unsuccessful claim for Medicare benefits for

November 1998 home health care services, we decline to consider his constitutional

challenge, raised for the first time on appeal, to the definition of “intermittent” found

in 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(m). See Liberty State Bank v. Minn. Life and Health Ins. Guar.

Ass’n, 149 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Like the district court, we find substantial evidence supports the denial of

Medicare benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (standard of review); 42 U.S.C.

§ 1395ff(b)(1) (incorporating § 405(g)).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2005 Entry ID: 1889696