Opinion ID: 409579
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction Over the Procedural Claims

Text: 11 Although the Secretary did not object to the exercise of jurisdiction over Appellees' APA claim at the district court level, he has apparently changed his position on appeal, contending that the district court was mistaken in concluding that it had jurisdiction over any of (Appellees') claims. 20 However, we can easily dispose of the jurisdictional issue with respect to the APA claim by relying on a prior decision of this court. 12 Section 405(h) of the Social Security Act provides: 13 The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who are parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or an officer or employee thereof shall be brought under sections 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter. 21 14 This section was incorporated into the Medicare Act to the same extent as (it is) applicable. 22 The Secretary contends that section 405(h) precludes the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the APA claim raised by Appellees. However, the law in this circuit is to the contrary. 15 In Humana of South Carolina, Inc. v. Califano, 23 this court held that section 405(h) does not bar a claim brought under the APA. The court noted that in terms (section 405(h) ) bars only actions brought to 'recover on any claim' arising under the Medicare Act. 24 Thus, the court concluded, when a suit is brought simply to vindicate an interest in procedural regularity, Section (405(h) ) is not summoned into play. 25 Finding that holding eminently logical, and discovering that at least one other court of appeals has followed it, 26 we see no reason to override it. 16 The Secretary argues that since Humana was decided, Congress has amended the Medicare Act to require that all challenges to reimbursement regulations, whether substantive or procedural, be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo rather than under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that accordingly, section 405(h) now precludes federal question jurisdiction over such claims. However, as we explain later, 27 the 1980 amendment referred to did not expand the scope of issues reviewable under section 1395oo, it merely provided expedited review for certain issues arising in reimbursement disputes that are otherwise reviewable under the statute. Accordingly, we hold that section 405(h) does not preclude claims challenging the Secretary's compliance with the APA.