Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03788/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03788-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
HealthPartners
Appellee
Maxine D. King
Appellant
Michael Leavitt
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3788

___________

Maxine D. King, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Michael Leavitt, Secretary, Department * District of Minnesota.

of Health and Human Services; *

Healthpartners, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 14, 2005 

Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This action for review of an administrative claim for Medicare benefits was

brought by Maxine King (King), who died in August 2003. King’s daughter, Peggy

Anderson (Anderson), has filed a motion to be substituted as the appellant. Anderson

Appellate Case: 04-3788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986712
1

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

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L.

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

-2-

argues this appeal from the district court’s1

 adverse judgment is not moot. Following

careful review, we disagree.

Anderson does not seek monetary relief or reimbursement, but rather seeks to

challenge (1) the finding that King was not entitled to coverage under the Medicare

Act for skilled nursing care during some period in the past, and (2) the

constitutionality of certain provisions of the Medicare Act. Both issues were mooted

by King’s death, and an exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. See

Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc., 427 F.3d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 2005)

(“To come within [the capable of repetition, yet evading review] exception, . . . there

must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected

to the same action again, and . . . the challenged action must be of a duration too short

to be fully litigated before becoming moot.”); Schutz v. Thorne, 415 F.3d 1128, 1138

(10th Cir. 2005) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979))

(“Constitutional mootness exists ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or

the parties lack a legally congnizable interest in the outcome.’”). In addition,

Anderson lacks standing–in her own right or as her deceased mother’s representative–

to pursue this appeal on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries in general. See Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the pending motion is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986712