2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-12-2010 

# C o op e r U ni

v H o s p v . S ecr et a r y HHS

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 09-4095

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C oope r U niv H osp v . S e cr e t a r y H HS " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 452. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/4521 

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-4095

____________ COOPER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL Appellant

v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c)

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civil No. 1-08-cv-03781) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

____________ Argued: September 15, 2010

____________ Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: October 12, 2010)

____________ Mark H. Gallant, Esq. (Argued) Judy Wang Mayer, Esq. Cozen & O'Connor 1900 Market Street 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-00002

### -andThomas McKay, III, Esq. Cozen & O'Connor 457 Haddonfield Road Liberty View, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-0000 Counsel for Appellant Coop er University Hospital
Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Esq. (Argued) August E. Flentje, Esq. United States Department of Justice Civil Division Room 7529 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0000-andDavid L. Hoskins, Esq. Department of Health & Human Services Health Care Financing Division 330 Independence Avenue, S.W. Cohen Building Washington, DC 20201-0000-andElizabeth A. Pascal, Esq. Office of the United States Attorney Camden Federal Build ing & Courthouse 401 Market Street P.O. Box 2098, 4th Floor Camden, NJ 08101-0000 Counsel for Appellee Kathleen Sebelius Jeffrey A. Lovitky, Esq. Law Office of Jeffrey A. Lovitky 1776 K. Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 200063 

### Counsel for Amicus-Appellant Quality Reimbursement Services

____________ OPINION

____________ BARRY, Circuit Judge Cooper University Hospital has appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in this very complex and very important matte r. The case before the Hon. Jerome B. Simandle, and now the appeal before us, involved the amount of Medicare reimbursement that Cooper University Hospita l – a hospital in Camden, New Jersey, with a large low-income patient population – receiv es from the federal government for serving a disproportionate share of low-income patient s. Resolution of the difficult legal issue presented required an analysis of the inter action between, and th e intersection of, the Medicare and Medicaid statutes, described by a sister court as being “among the most completely impenetrable texts within human experience.” Rehab. Ass’n of Va., Inc. v. Kozlowski , 42 F.3d 1440, 1450 (4th Cir. 1994). Resolution of this issue will affect hospitals well beyond the one hosp ital party to this case. We have carefully considered the record and the submissions of the parties, and have heard oral argument. We have paid particular atte ntion to the patience and skill with which Judge Simandle ha s handled this case from it s very inception until its4 

### conclusion, when he rendered an Opinion that thoughtfully, thoroughly, and articulately decided what had to be decided. We could not do it bette r, and we will not try. Suffice it to say, substantially for the reasons set fo rth in Judge Simandle’s excellent Opinion of September 28, 2009, we will affirm.