Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06568/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06568-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE NADER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC D. HARGAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06568-KAW 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 49

On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff Denise Nader filed this appeal from the ruling of the 

Medicare Appeals Council, considering whether Medicare was entitled to reimbursement of all 

care expenses paid for Mr. Ferdinand Nader. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On October 29, 2018, the 

parties stipulated to remand the case for re-adjudication before the Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”). (Dkt. No. 40 at 3.) The reason for the remand was due to the administrative record 

being incomplete, as it lacked a transcript of the administrative hearing before the ALJ. (Id. at 2.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff had determined that facts developed since 2012 were not part of the 

administrative record. (Id.)

On November 2, 2018, the Court granted the stipulation. On August 16, 2019, the ALJ 

ruled against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 48 at 1; Dkt. No. 49 at 1.) At the hearing, the ALJ informed 

Plaintiff’s counsel that if she was to appeal to the Medicare Appeals Council, “it would likely take 

the [Medicare Appeals Council] another five to six years before it would render its decision on 

that appeal.” (Dkt. No. 49 at 1.) Based on this, and the fact that the Medicare Appeals Council 

already took five years to process the earlier appeal, Plaintiff argues that any appeal of the ALJ’s 

decision would be effectively futile and constitute a denial of due process. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff 

requests that the Court set a briefing schedule and hearing on the issue of whether the Court may 

Case 4:17-cv-06568-KAW Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

take immediate jurisdiction over this matter. (Id. at 2.)

On the facts, it appears Plaintiff has a sound argument regarding futility, especially when 

the ALJ’s original decision was issued on February 15, 2012, over seven years ago. (Compl. ¶ 

17.) The instant proceedings were then delayed due to the administrative record not being 

complete, including the government’s inability to include a transcript because “the agency cannot 

obtain a functioning copy of the audio from that hearing.” (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) To now require 

Plaintiff to wait an additional five to six years for an appeal to be rendered would appear to raise 

due process concerns.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer as to whether the Court 

should take immediate jurisdiction over this matter. If the parties are unable to stipulate, the Court 

SETS the following briefing schedule: Plaintiff’s motion shall be due on September 26, 2019, and 

Defendant’s opposition shall be due on October 3, 2019. No reply or hearing will be set unless the 

Court deems it necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06568-KAW Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 2