Umeze, MD v. New York State Department of Health
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-07425
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Umeze v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Vyskocil vacated a temporary restraining order and left the preliminary-injunction motion for a later ruling.
The order lifted the temporary protection that had required Healthfirst to keep Ben Umeze, MD, in its provider network. It affected Umeze, Healthfirst, and the State defendants, while leaving the preliminary-injunction request for a later ruling.
What happened
Ben Umeze, MD v. New York State Department of Health concerns Dr. Ben Umeze’s challenge to Healthfirst’s decision not to renew his provider contract, which was set to end January 1, 2025. Umeze is representing himself.
On December 27, 2024, the court temporarily ordered Healthfirst to keep Umeze in its provider network while the court considered his request for a preliminary injunction. Healthfirst argued that it had not terminated the contract, but had chosen not to renew it under the contract’s terms. The court held a hearing on January 8, 2025, with all parties present.
On January 10, 2025, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil vacated the temporary restraining order because no good reason had been shown to extend it beyond the time allowed by the federal rules. The court said it would separately rule on Umeze’s request for a preliminary injunction and set deadlines for any motions to dismiss and related responses.
The detailed version
- Umeze, MD v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:24-cv-07425
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
Ben Umeze, MD, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York State Department of Health; Dr. James V. Macdonald, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Amir Bassiri, New York State Medicaid Director; the New York State Office of Medicaid Management; the State of New York; Healthfirst PHSP Inc.; Healthfirst; and Pat Wang. The opinion refers to the state defendants collectively as the “State” and the Healthfirst defendants collectively as “Healthfirst.”
Umeze is a doctor who had provided care to Medicaid recipients through a contract with Healthfirst. On October 1, 2024, Healthfirst notified him that it would not renew the contract effective January 1, 2025. Umeze then sought emergency relief, including an order preventing the end of his relationship with Healthfirst.
On December 27, 2024, the court issued a temporary restraining order, or TRO, directing Healthfirst to temporarily keep Umeze in its provider network. The court scheduled a January 8, 2025 hearing on Umeze’s request for a preliminary injunction, which is a longer-lasting order issued while a case continues. Healthfirst opposed that request, arguing that it had exercised a contractual right not to renew the agreement rather than terminating it. Healthfirst relied on contract provisions allowing either party to decline renewal at the yearly expiration date with at least 60 days’ notice. The State also opposed the preliminary-injunction request.
The court held the hearing on January 8, 2025. Umeze submitted a reply brief and exhibits that had not been authorized, but the court accepted them and gave him an opportunity to present his arguments at the hearing.
Ruling
The court ordered that the December 27 TRO be vacated. Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a TRO generally expires after no more than 14 days unless good cause supports an extension. The court found that good cause had not been shown to extend this TRO.
The order did not decide Umeze’s motion for a preliminary injunction or the underlying dispute about Healthfirst’s nonrenewal decision. The court stated that it would issue a separate ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion, including findings of fact and legal conclusions. The court also set January 22, 2025, as the deadline for motions to dismiss; February 21, 2025, for Umeze’s opposition; and March 3, 2025, for any replies. The clerk was directed to terminate the emergency-relief motion at ECF No. 25 and mail Umeze a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.