Case Name: M. Arthur Gordon, et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy, etc. v. The United States
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-12-04
Citations: 229 Ct. Cl. 639
Docket Number: Nos. 367-72, 374-72, 380-72, 401-72, 402-72, 403-72, 404-72, 406-72, 408-72, 411-72, 425-72, 426-72
Parties: M. Arthur Gordon, et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy, etc. v. The United States
Judges: Before Cowen, Senior Judge, Davis and Smith, Judges.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 229
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Nos. 367-72, 374-72, 380-72, 401-72, 402-72, 403-72, 404-72, 406-72, 408-72, 411-72, 425-72, 426-72.
December 4, 1981
M. Arthur Gordon, et al., Trustees in Bankruptcy, etc. v. The United States
Richard H. Gens, attorney of record, for plaintiffs. Gens & Gens, Charles R. Bennett, Jr., Riemer & Braunstein, of counsel.
Alexander Younger, with whom was Assistant Attorney General J. Paul McGrath, for defendant.
Before Cowen, Senior Judge, Davis and Smith, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated Medicare cases all concern the same issues of provider reimbursement for provider services under Part A of the Medicare program, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq. The years are 1967, 1968, and 1969. After the filing of these suits, plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies. Following a hearing, the hearing officer of the Blue Cross Association, the intermediary's agent, decided adversely to the providers. Appeal was timely taken to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Through a hearing officer of the Health Care Financing Administration, the Secretary affirmed (on August 25, 1980) the Blue Cross Association's decision. Both parties have now moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs ask us to overturn that final administrative decision of the Secretary. Defendant requests that we sustain the Secretary.
We hold that the Secretarial decision of August 25, 1980, was correct and cannot be upset. Nothing need be added to that decision. Insofar as factual findings are involved the Secretary's decision is sustained by substantial support in the record as a whole; the Secretary was correct in deciding all material issues of law; and the Secretary's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
For the reasons stated in the Secretarial decisipn, we grant defendant's motion for summary judgment, deny plaintiffs' motion, and dismiss the petitions.