Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/ca5/c353306/dr-john-t-macdonald-foundation-inc-dba-doctors-hospital-a-florida
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 09:33:51
Document Index: 394718005

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1331', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 405', '§ 1331', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 1491', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 10', '§ 1491', '§ 1255', '§ 1291', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 405']

dr-john-t-macdonald-foundation-inc-dba-doctors-hospital-a-florida, Fifth Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
dr-john-t-macdonald-foundation-inc-dba-doctors-hospital-a-florida , 571 F.2d 328 ( 1978 )
571 F.2d 328
Welfare, Blue Cross Association, an Illinois
Corporation and Blue Cross of Florida,
In the two previous panel opinions, the court held that review jurisdiction existed in the district court. Although the result was the same, the paths taken were different. In the first decision, reported at 534 F.2d 633 (1976), the court held that § 10 of the A.P.A. provided the district court with jurisdiction to review agency decisions. The court based its holding on the doctrine that if review procedures are statutorily provided they are exclusive, but if no mechanism is provided then non-statutory methods are available. The Supreme Court quickly disabused us of that notion, however, in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S. Ct. 980, 51 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1977), holding that § 10 does not provide an independent source of subject matter jurisdiction to review agency actions. The Court based its holding on the recent expansion of § 1331(a) jurisdiction that obliterated any necessity for § 10 review jurisdiction and therefore evidenced Congress' intent that § 10 was not an independent source of jurisdiction. Sanders necessitated the second panel attempt, reported at 554 F.2d 714 (1977). The court again held that review jurisdiction existed, not under the A.P.A., but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the basic grant of federal question jurisdiction. Although the court held that § 1331 provided jurisdiction, the court limited the availability of such review to the "time window" from 1968 until the Congress expressly provided review machinery in 1973.3 Again the Supreme Court has provided us with assistance, however. In Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S. Ct. 2457, 45 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1975), the Court held that § 405(h) precludes district court review of Social Security Act awards. The Court held not only that § 1331 review of the merits of the award was unavailable, but also that constitutional claims were precluded. Hence, this en banc determination.
The evolution of this issue in our court is reflected in the varied treatments of the same issue in the other forums. The Eighth Circuit has held that although § 405(h) precludes review of agency findings of fact and law, § 405(h) does not preclude jurisdiction to entertain constitutional claims. St. Louis University v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, 537 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 977, 97 S. Ct. 484, 50 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1977). The Second and Seventh Circuits have determined that § 405(h) precludes district court review of all claims arising under the Medicare Act, including constitutional claims. They did "hold," however, that review jurisdiction exists in the Court of Claims.4 South Windsor Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Mathews, 541 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1976); Trinity Memorial Hospital of Cudahy, Inc. v. Associated Hospital Service, Inc., 570 F.2d 660 (7th Cir., decided Dec. 16, 1977). To complete the spectrum, the Court of Claims has held that jurisdiction exists in the Court of Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491 to review the Secretary's decision, at least as to law and constitutional claims, despite § 405(h). Whitecliff, Inc. v. United States, 536 F.2d 347 (Ct.Cl.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969, 97 S. Ct. 1652, 52 L. Ed. 2d 361 (1977).
Because we hold that § 405(h) precludes review of appellant's claim in district court, we are forced to address appellant's claim that § 405(h) unconstitutionally denies due process to claimants precluded from seeking review of constitutional claims. This claim was not faced by the Supreme Court in Salfi because § 405(g) existed to provide review of constitutional claims arising under the Social Security Act. Because § 405(g) was not incorporated into the Medicare Act, its machinery is not available to review constitutional claims. Appellant bases this constitutional claim on Califano v. Sanders, supra, in which the Supreme Court held that § 10 of the A.P.A. was not an independent grant of jurisdiction. In dictum, the Court recognized that a statute precluding all review of constitutional claims would raise a serious constitutional question of the validity of the statute.6 See also Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. at 762, 95 S. Ct. 2457; Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 366-67, 94 S. Ct. 1160, 39 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1974). Additionally, as the court stated in Sanders, because the availability of judicial review over constitutional claims is presumed, the presumption would be rebutted only by "clear and convincing" evidence of Congress' intent. 430 U.S. at 109, 97 S. Ct. 980; Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. at 366-67, 94 S. Ct. 1160.
Happily, we need resolve neither Congress' intent to preclude review of constitutional claims nor the constitutionality of a statute so construed. We would face these issues only if all avenues of review were precluded. In Whitecliff, however, the Court of Claims determined it to have jurisdiction to review claims arising under the Medicare Act. This is a holding that we are powerless to overturn. The Court of Claims is an Article III court empowered to entertain constitution claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. See Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501, 45 S. Ct. 601, 69 L. Ed. 1067 (1925). Moreover, we have no review authority over the Court of Claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1255, 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Therefore, we have no authority to overturn the Court of Claims' determination of the scope of its own jurisdiction. Although we could hold that Congress intended § 405(h) to preclude review in all inferior federal courts, including the Court of Claims, such a holding would not be binding on the Court of Claims.7 Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. v. United States, 476 F.2d 1327, 1335, 201 Ct. Cl. 423 (1973). Thus, as a matter of fact, all review is not precluded and therefore the constitutionality of § 405(h) is not drawn into question.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in the panel opinion. Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc. v. Mathews, 554 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1977). The en banc court having decided the district court lacks jurisdiction, however, I would concur in the transfer of the case to the Court of Claims, which has decided it does have review jurisdiction in such cases. Whitecliff, Inc. v. United States, 536 F.2d 347 (Ct.Cl.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969, 97 S. Ct. 1652, 52 L. Ed. 2d 361 (1977). The check-and-balance theory that validates our system of government mandates against non-reviewable executive decisions.
In Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S. Ct. 2457, 45 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1975), the Supreme Court interpreted this language as precluding all review of the Secretary's decisions except as provided in § 405(g). 422 U.S. at 757, 95 S. Ct. 2457. Section 405(g) provides for neither district court nor Court of Claims review. Any doubt that could possibly remain as to Congress' intent is resolved by the legislative history of the Medicare Act.
The majority states that we are bound by the Court of Claims' determination that it has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision despite § 405(h). This Court is no more bound by decisions of the Court of Claims than the Court of Claims is bound by this Court's decisions. See Trinity Memorial Hospital of Cudahy, Inc. v. Associated Hospital Service, Inc., 570 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. decided Dec. 16, 1977); South Windsor Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Mathews, 541 F.2d 910, 914 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 518 F.2d 884, 886 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 977, 96 S. Ct. 1483, 47 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1976); United States v. Diamond, 430 F.2d 688, 691-92 (5th Cir. 1970). See also Thornton v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., 397 F. Supp. 476, 477 (N.D.Ga.1975); Johnson v. Helicopter & Airplane Services Corp., 389 F. Supp. 509, 522-25 (D.Md.1974).
Of course we do not address this issue in the course of this appeal and could not. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1947). We do, however, recognize that leave to amend their complaint to reflect their constitutional claim could be granted. Because the existence of a constitutional claim is pertinent to the question of preclusion of review, we will analyze the preclusion of review issue recognizing that appellant does have a claim of constitutional magnitude
At least as far as Supreme Court review, it would seem this question would be answered by Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1 Cranch 137, 1803), 2 L. Ed. 60
DocketNumber： 75-2966
Citation Numbers： 571 F.2d 328
Filed Date： 4/17/1978
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Power ... , 337 F.2d 249 ( 1964 )
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Power ... , 343 F.2d 905 ( 1965 )
United States v. Harold M. Diamond, Bernard Sacks, Sam ... , 430 F.2d 688 ( 1970 )
United States v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc. , 518 F.2d 884 ( 1975 )
dr-john-t-macdonald-foundation-inc-dba-doctors-hospital-a-florida , 534 F.2d 633 ( 1976 )
South Windsor Convalescent Home, Inc. v. David Mathews, ... , 541 F.2d 910 ( 1976 )
Dr. John T. MacDonald Foundation, Inc., D/B/A Doctors' ... , 554 F.2d 714 ( 1977 )
Johnson v. Helicopter & Airplane Services Corp. , 389 F. Supp. 509 ( 1974 )
Thornton v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. , 397 F. Supp. 476 ( 1975 )
Lion Health Services, Inc. v. Sebelius , 635 F.3d 693 ( 2011 )
albert-w-freeman-louise-freeman-substituted-and-stead-of-albert-w , 574 F.2d 264 ( 1978 )
the-american-association-of-councils-of-medical-staffs-of-private , 575 F.2d 1367 ( 1978 )
Moody Nursing Home, Inc. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., ... , 578 F.2d 1158 ( 1978 )
Rhode Island Hospital v. Joseph A. Califano, Etc. , 585 F.2d 1153 ( 1978 )
alabama-hospital-association-a-nonprofit-corporation-plaintiffs- , 587 F.2d 762 ( 1979 )
Sierra-Vista Hospital, Inc., Etc. v. Joseph Califano, ... , 597 F.2d 200 ( 1979 )
Hospital San Jorge, Inc. v. United States Secretary of ... , 598 F.2d 684 ( 1979 )
lt-jimmy-n-denton-lt-robert-c-ballard-lt-larry-r-aho-capt-david , 605 F.2d 484 ( 1979 )
Stanley L. Drennan, M.D. v. Patricia Harris (Successor to F.... , 606 F.2d 846 ( 1979 )
A. L. Rowan & Son, General Contractors, Inc. v. Department ... , 611 F.2d 997 ( 1980 )
Dr. Joseph G. Bussey, Jr., M. D. And Amy Jackson, P. A. v. ... , 611 F.2d 1001 ( 1980 )
Hospital San Jorge v. Secretary of Health, Education and ... , 616 F.2d 580 ( 1980 )
Homan & Crimen, Inc. v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary ... , 626 F.2d 1201 ( 1980 )
pacific-coast-medical-enterprises-a-california-corporation-plaintiff-and , 633 F.2d 123 ( 1980 )
Elaine Easley Russell v. Law Enforcement Assistance ... , 637 F.2d 354 ( 1981 )