Court Opinion

ID: 9918830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 18:01:13.800055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:10.603703
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 16 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY OLSEN,                                   No.    23-35052

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00326-TOR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the United States Department
of Health and Human Service,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                    Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 9, 2024**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: SILER,*** CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Appellant Jeremy Olsen uses a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) to assist

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
in the management of his Type I Diabetes. He is insured through Medicare Part B.

Three of his once-denied claims for CGM supplies, which have since been approved

and paid, are at issue in this appeal. But Olsen’s appeal has much less to do with the

substance of these claims and much more to do with his failure to establish that he

was injured in fact. In dismissing Olsen’s claims for lacking standing, the district

court relied on documents which showed all of Olsen’s claims had been paid. We

review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo

and its finding of facts for clear error. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129,

1130 (9th Cir. 2000). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount

them here. We affirm the district court’s dismissal.

      1. Olsen has not established an injury in fact and, thus, lacks standing. To

have standing, a plaintiff must “have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly

traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be

redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330,

338 (2016). An injury in fact must be “actual or imminent” rather than “conjectural

or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal

quotations omitted).

      Olsen has not suffered any injury in fact because, four months before Olsen

filed suit for CMS’s failure to pay his claims, CMS paid his claims. Olsen argues

that CMS could, in the future, recoup the payment. “[A]llegations of possible future

                                           2
injury are not sufficient” to establish standing. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568

U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (internal quotations omitted). But future injuries “may suffice

[for standing] if the threatened injury is certainly impending, or there is a substantial

risk that the harm will occur.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158

(2014) (internal quotations omitted).

      Several bars stand between Olsen and recoupment. First, the district court in

Olsen’s first CGM-related suit required CMS to approve and pay for Olsen’s CGM

claims. Olsen v. Cochran, No. 2:20-cv-00374, 2021 WL 711469, at *4 (E.D. Wash.

Feb. 23, 2021). CMS complied and approved Olsen’s claims in a binding revision.

Second, CMS now covers CGMs, and would therefore have no reason to recoup the

payment. See CMS-1738-R. And third, in the “highly unlikely” event that CMS

were to reopen and deny Olsen’s already-approved claims, he would have the

opportunity to seek administrative and judicial review of those denials. See 42

C.F.R. § 405.984(g). Although Olsen repeatedly urges that he will be “financially

liable,” he does not elaborate on how he could be liable, when CMS already

approved and paid his claims. Because recoupment of Olsen’s approved claims is

by no means “certainly impending,” he has not suffered an injury in fact and does

not have standing. Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 158.

      Since Olsen has not suffered any injury in fact, he also lacks standing to assert

his due process claim. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1209 (9th Cir.

                                           3
2001) (concluding that plaintiff lacked standing to assert her due process claim since

she failed to allege an injury).

      2. Olsen next argues that the district court erroneously considered materials

that should not have been included in the administrative record. He takes issue with

two items: emails between CMS and its claims contractor concerning payment of

Olsen’s CGM claims and notice sent by the claims contractor to the CGM supplier

confirming that Olsen’s claims had been paid.

      Whether these items were properly part of the administrative record is

irrelevant. Courts can consider extra-record evidence to determine whether the

plaintiff has standing. See Northwest Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin.,

117 F.3d 1520, 1527-28 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Because Article III’s standing requirement

does not apply to agency proceedings, petitioners had no reason to include facts

sufficient to establish standing as a part of the administrative record. We therefore

consider the [extra-record] affidavits . . . to determine whether petitioners can satisfy

a prerequisite to this court’s jurisdiction.”).      The materials the district court

considered demonstrated that CMS paid Olsen’s claims—therefore nullifying his

alleged injury and, in turn, his standing. Since the district court properly considered

these materials in determining that Olsen did not have standing, his argument fails.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           4