Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 123

529US1

Unit: $U32

[10-04-01 09:20:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

48

SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG
TERM CARE, INC.
Thomas, J., dissenting

tion, and seek judicial review of that order in the court of
appeals. These costs of presentment, we explained, were
“[q]uite obviously . . . tantamount to a complete denial of
judicial review for most undocumented aliens.” 498 U. S.,
at 496–497.

.

A similar predicament faces the nursing homes repre-
sented by respondent in the instant case, who contend that
the Secretary’s regulations (and manual) governing en-
forcement of substantive standards are unlawful in various
respects. The nursing homes’ “postenforcement” review
route is delineated by 42 U. S. C. § 1395cc(h)(1), which pro-
vides that “an institution or agency dissatisﬁed .
. with
a determination described in subsection (b)(2) of this sec-
tion shall be entitled to a hearing thereon by the Secretary
(after reasonable notice) to the same extent as is provided
in section 405(b) of this title, and to judicial review of the
Secretary’s ﬁnal decision after such hearing as is provided
in section 405(g) of this title.” While the meaning of “deter-
mination” in the referenced 42 U. S. C. § 1395cc(b)(2) (1994
ed., Supp. III) is not entirely free from doubt, the Secretary
has interpreted these provisions to mean that administrative
and judicial review is afforded for “any determination that a
provider has failed to comply substantially with the statute,
agreements, or regulations, whether termination or ‘some
other remedy is imposed.’ ” Ante, at 21 (quoting Reply Brief
for Petitioners 14 (emphasis in original)). Still, even under
the Secretary’s reading, an inspection team’s assessment of
a deﬁciency (for noncompliance) against the nursing home
does not sufﬁce to trigger administrative and judicial review
under § 1395cc(h). Presentment of a claim via § 1395cc(h) re-
quires the nursing home not merely to expose itself to an
assessment of a deﬁciency by an inspection team, but also
to forbear correction of the deﬁciency until the Secretary
(or her state designees) impose a remedy.

Respondent and its amici advance several plausible rea-
sons why such forbearance will prove costly—indeed, costly