Opinion ID: 457907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Propriety of Ruling on the ICF-IMD Issue.

Text: 38 HHS argues that the district court's order erroneously decided the broader issues of Minnesota, concerning the nature of ICFs and IMDs, which were not before it. In our prior opinion in Granville, we stated: 39 After granting the motion to consolidate, the district court subsequently held in the companion case that by institution for mental disease Congress meant those institutions which provided primarily long-term care for the mentally ill by administering psychiatric treatment for its residents on the premises.    An appeal by HHS from that decision is presently pending before a different panel of this Court.    40 The narrower question presented in the instant case is whether chemical dependency is properly characterized as a mental disease under the Medicaid statute. 41 Granville, 715 F.2d at 1296, n. 5 (citations omitted). 42 We remanded this issue to HHS, and the Grant Appeals Board emphasized that it was only considering whether alcoholism is a mental disease. 43 In Minnesota, this Court ruled on the broader IMD question and remanded to HHS, where the matter is still pending. Minnesota, 718 F.2d at 866. We thus hold that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the Minnesota proceeding and that it erred in enjoining HHS from denying Medicaid funds to any ICF in Minnesota on the ground that it is an IMD until HHS promulgates new IMD standards. 44