|
|
http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/966154.html |
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
S U M M A R Y O R D E R
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of September, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six.
Present: HONORABLE THOMAS J. MESKILL,
HONORABLE RALPH K. WINTER,
HONORABLE FRANK X. ALTIMARI,
Circuit Judges .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VALLEY VIEW MANOR NURSING HOME; LAKESHORE NURSING HOME; SYLCOX NURSING HOME AND HEALTH RELATED FACILITY; NORTONIAN NURSING HOME; ELCOR NURSING HOME; WATERVIEW HILLS NURSING CENTER, INC.; WALNUT MOUNTAIN CARE CENTER; RIDGE VIEW MANOR NURSING HOME; MANOR OAK SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, BUFFALO; MANOR OAK SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, JAMESTOWN; MANOR OAK SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, WARSAW; CREST MANOR NURSING HOME; CAMPBELL HALL HEALTH CARE CENTER; BLOSSOM HEALTH CARE CENTER; PONTIAC NURSING HOME; BRAE LOCH MANOR HEALTH CARE FACILITY; NOR LOCH MANOR HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HORNELL NURSING HOME AND HEALTH RELATED FACILITY; HURLBUT NURSING HOME; PENFIELD NURSING HOME; CONESUS LAKE NURSING HOME; ELM MANOR NURSING HOME; WEDGEWOOD NURSING HOME; WESTGATE NURSING HOME; WOODSIDE NURSING HOME; AVON NURSING HOME; AUBURN NURSING HOME; AURORA PARK HEALTH CARE CENTER; BERKSHIRE NURSING HOME; BETSY ROSS NURSING HOME; BIRCHWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER; BLOSSOM VIEW NURSING HOME; BROOKHAVEN HEALTH CARE FACILITY; CARRILON HOUSE NURSING FACILITY; CEDAR MANOR NURSING HOME; CEDAR LODGE NURSING HOME; CREST HALL NURSING CENTER; EAST NECK NURSING CENTER; EDEN PARK NURSING HOME (CATSKILL); EDEN PARK NURSING HOME (COBLESKILL); EDEN PARK NURSING HOME (HUDSON); FIDDLERS GREEN NURSING HOME; FISHKILL HEALTH CENTER; HALLMARK NURSING CENTRE (GLENS FALLS); HALLMARK NURSING CENTRE (MINOA); HALLMARK NURSING CENTRE (TROY); HALLMARK NURSING CENTRE (SCHENACTADY); HALLMARK NURSING CENTRE (CARTHAGE); HALLMARK NURSING CENTRE (ROTTERDAM); HARDING NURSING HOME; HARR-WOOD NURSING HOME; HIGHLAND NURSING HOME; HILLCREST NURSING HOME; HOUGHTON NURSING CARE CENTER; HOWD NURSING HOME; HUDSON VALLEY NURSING CENTER; INDIAN RIVER NURSING HOME; LITTLE FLOWER NURSING HOME; LONG BEACH GRANDELL CO.; LONG ISLAND CARE CENTER; MAPLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER; MARRS NURSING HOME; MAYFAIR NURSING HOME; MONTGOMERY NURSING HOME; NEW SANS SOUCI NURSING HOME; NYACK MANOR NURSING HOME; OAK HOLLOW NURSING CENTER; ORCHARD MANOR; ORCHARD PARK HEALTH CARE CENTER; PALATINE NURSING HOME; PARK VIEW NURSING HOME; PARK SHORE HEALTH CARE CENTER; PATCHOGUE NURSING CENTER; ROCKVILLE NURSING CENTER; ROCKVILLE RESIDENCE MANOR; ROSS NURSING HOME; SALAMANCA NURSING HOME; SALEM HILLS NURSING CARE CENTER; SENECA NURSING HOME; SKY VIEW HAVEN NURSING HOME; SOMERS MANOR NURSING HOME; ST. JOHNLAND NURSING CENTER, INC.; ST. JAMES NURSING HOME; ST. REGIS NURSING HOME; SULLIVAN PARK HEALTH CARE CENTER; SUNHARBOR MANOR; SUNREST HEALTH FACILITIES; SUNSET NURSING HOME; THREE RIVERS HEALTH CARE CENTER; UNITED HELPER (CANTON); UNIVERSITY NURSING HOME; VAN ALLEN NURSING HOME; VICTORY LAKE NURSING CENTER; WESTFIELD HEALTH CARE CENTER; WOODBURY NURSING HOME; WOODHAVEN NURSING HOME,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees ,
- v. - Nos. 96-6154(L), 96-6168(XAP)
BARBARA A. DEBUONO, Commissioner of Health of the State of New York; BRIAN WING, Acting Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York; PATRICIA WOODWORTH, as Director of the Budget of the State of New York,
Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Appearing for Appellants: Thomas G. Smith, Harter, Secrest & Emery, Rochester, New York.
Appearing for Appellees: Victor Paladino, Assistant Attorney General, Albany, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, Judge ).
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York and was argued.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.
A group of nearly one hundred nursing facilities located throughout New York State appeals from Judge Telesca's decision denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and cross-motions for summary judgment. Appellants challenge the rates of reimbursement for health care services rendered to indigent patients. Specifically, they claim that New York's Medicaid rate-setting methodology violates the procedural requirements of the Boren Amendment, a measure enacted by Congress to help control rising nursing home costs by providing incentives for more economically efficient facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A).
We review the district court's grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See, e.g. , Resolution Trust Corp. v. Elman , 949 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1991). Generally a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish: (a) irreparable harm and (b) either (i) a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim or (ii) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of the claim as to make it a fair ground for litigation and a balance of the hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant. Sweeney v. Bane , 996 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1993).
In the instant case, however, appellants are required to show a likelihood of success because the less rigorous "fair-ground-for-litigation" standard does not apply where the injunction "seeks to stay governmental action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme". Plaza Health Labs., Inc. v. Perales , 878 F.2d 577, 580 (2d Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs appear to be able to meet the fair-ground-for-litigation standard, but fail to meet the required likelihood-of-success standard.
Plaintiffs and defendants dispute the validity of the methodology used by the state to make findings justifying a change in reimbursement rates, as required under the Boren Amendment. Each side has presented its own expert to analyze the data and point out economic and mathematical flaws in the other party's approach, but, as Judge Telesca emphasized in his opinion, "[q]uestions of fact abound." Valley View Manor Nursing Home v. DeBuono , 89-CV-0706, 89-CV-0744, at 11 (W.D.N.Y. May 1, 1996). We cannot say, therefore, that Judge Telesca abused his discretion in denying preliminary relief.
Similarly, both parties' cross-motions were properly denied by the district court because of the existence of genuine issues of material fact. See id. , 89-CV-0706, 89-CV-0744, at 11-12.
The judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.