Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_08-cv-00168/USCOURTS-alnd-7_08-cv-00168-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

WESTERN DIVISION

COMMUNITY HOME HEALTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

et al.

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

} 

Case No.: 7:08-CV-00168-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this action, Plaintiff Community Home Health seeks judicial review of the administrative

decision of Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) terminating

Plaintiff's Medicare Provider Agreement. The magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation

on February 24, 2010 (Doc. #32), recommending that the Defendant DHHS's decision be reversed

and that the matter be remanded to it for further proceedings. On March 10, 2010, objections to the

Report and Recommendation were filed by Defendant DHHS (Doc. #36) and by Defendants

Alabama State Board of Health, Alabama State Committee on Public Health, State of Alabama

Department of Public Health, Donald E Williamson, M.D. (the "State Defendants") (Doc. #35).1

Having carefullyreviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including

the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court has reached an independent

conclusion that the magistrate judge's report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED and the

The State Defendants' objection regarding the magistrate judge's failure to rule on their 1

motion to dismiss based upon immunity grounds is moot. The State Defendants are not being

required to defend themselves in this court. If this matter is ever appealed again, and the State

Defendants are named in that appeal, they will be free to raise the immunity defense again. The

court expresses no opinion as to the merits of that issue now. 

FILED

 2010 Mar-23 AM 11:35

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:08-cv-00168-RDP Document 37 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 2
recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, this action is due to be remanded to DHHS for

further proceedings. A separate order remanding the case will be entered. 2

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2010.

___________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

The court notes that the magistrate judge recommended that DHHS's motion to strike (Doc.

2

#31) be granted. The motion addresses evidence that should have been raised at the administrative

appeal level. The court has not considered that evidence in reaching its conclusions. However, as

the court is remanding this action to DHHS for further proceedings, Plaintiff will have the

opportunityto present additional evidence at the administrative hearing for which this matter is being

remanded. 

2

Case 7:08-cv-00168-RDP Document 37 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2