Opinion ID: 720639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Attorneys' Fees under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act

Text: 87 Lancaster General, Orthopedic Associates, and the individual defendants argue the district court should have awarded them attorneys fees under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act's fee shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. § 11113. 11 They assert the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing defendants is mandatory under the Act. We disagree. [T]he appropriate standard of review of a district court's decision regarding the award of attorney fees and costs under the [Act] is abuse of discretion. Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422, 431-32 (6th Cir.1995); see also Smith v. Ricks, 31 F.3d 1478, 1487 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1400, 131 L.Ed.2d 287 (1995); Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 964 F.2d 116, 123 (2d Cir.1992). 88 To recover under § 11113 defendants must establish (1) that they are among the persons covered by § 11111; (2) that the standards set in § 11112(a) were followed; (3) that they substantially prevailed; and (4) that [plaintiff's] claims or conduct during the litigation were frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation or in bad faith. Wei v. Bodner, 1992 WL 165860 at  2 (D.N.J.). Defendants have concededly established the first three elements. The district court denied fees on the grounds that Dr. Mathews' suit was not frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation or in bad faith. It concluded, [t]he majority of the case law was not sufficiently established for us to say that plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith. It also noted that [n]ot all of the facts were known to plaintiff at the filing of this case, and [p]laintiff's state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. See Order, Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., Nos. 93-6774, 94-4647 (June 9, 1995). 89 We believe that it is important ... [to] resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d at 432. The district court carefully considered whether Dr. Mathews' suit was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith. It correctly pointed out the dearth of case law on the Act at the time Dr. Mathews filed suit. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorneys' fees. 12