Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-05262
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Judge Rogers denied Ferguson’s motion to alter or amend a judgment dismissing his complaint as untimely.
Rollington Ferguson’s case against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the court’s denial left the earlier dismissal based on the 60-day deadline in place.
What happened
Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services involved Rollington Ferguson’s request for judicial review of a Department of Health and Human Services appeals decision. He alleged violations of due process and unjust enrichment. The court had previously dismissed his complaint because he filed it after a 60-day deadline.
Ferguson asked the court to change that judgment under a federal rule allowing limited correction of a judgment. He relied on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services manual excerpt and information from the agency’s website, arguing that they showed the court had calculated the filing dates incorrectly and that refusing to consider them would be unfair.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion. She ruled that the manual did not apply to the deadline for seeking federal judicial review of the provider-enrollment decision at issue, and that Ferguson had not shown a clear error or serious unfairness. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the agency.
The detailed version
- Ferguson v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services · No. 4:19-cv-05262
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 2, 2020
Background
Rollington Ferguson, representing himself, sued the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) seeking judicial review of a decision by the Departmental Appeals Board of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He alleged violations of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and unjust enrichment.
The court had previously dismissed Ferguson’s complaint because the 60-day statute of limitations had expired. Ferguson then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a court to alter or amend a judgment in limited circumstances. CMS opposed the motion.
Ferguson’s Arguments
Ferguson argued that the judgment should be changed to correct factual and legal errors and to prevent manifest injustice. He relied on an excerpt from CMS Manual Publication 100-04 and a statement on CMS’s website concerning judicial review. The manual described a presumption that a party received a determination notice five days after the date on the notice unless the party showed later receipt. Ferguson argued that this material affected the calculation of the dates relevant to his case.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the CMS manual did not provide a basis for changing the judgment. It described the manual as guidance about administrative procedures for requests for review of Medicare-benefit entitlement determinations by or to the Medicare Appeals Council. The court said the guidance did not apply to calculating the deadline for federal judicial review in this case. It also stated that the receipt-date rule did not apply to provider-enrollment determinations, which are handled by the Departmental Appeals Board under 42 C.F.R. Part 498.
The court separately found Ferguson’s arguments procedurally improper to the extent they could have been raised earlier. The court acknowledged that Ferguson had tried to submit the manual for judicial notice after briefing on the earlier motion to dismiss had ended. Even after considering the submitted materials, however, the court found that they did not justify a different result. Ferguson had shown continued disagreement with the earlier judgment, but not a clear error or manifest injustice.
Disposition
The court DENIED Ferguson’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of CMS and stated that the order terminated Docket Number 46. This order addressed Ferguson’s request to change the earlier judgment; it did not alter the court’s earlier dismissal based on the 60-day deadline.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.