Anderson v. Dooley
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:15-cv-05120
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Anderson v. Dooley, Judge Gilliam invited the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to file a brief and stayed proceedings pending input before ruling on summary judgment.
The stay and scheduling changes affected the plaintiffs and defendants in Anderson v. Dooley. The invitation was directed to CMS or the Department of Health and Human Services Office of General Counsel, and the order concerned California’s process for nursing-home residents appealing transfer or discharge decisions.
What happened
Anderson v. Dooley concerns whether California’s process for nursing-home residents to challenge transfer or discharge decisions complies with federal law. The plaintiffs bring a civil-rights claim alleging violations of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act.
The court invited the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of General Counsel, to file a brief addressing whether California’s process provides adequate relief and enforcement. The court also asked whether either agency would participate in a settlement conference.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. stayed all proceedings until May 21, 2021, vacated the scheduled pretrial conference and trial, and postponed a ruling on the defendant’s pending summary-judgment motion. The order did not decide the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. Dooley · No. 4:15-cv-05120
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The case challenges California’s process for nursing-home residents to appeal transfer and discharge decisions. The plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges that California violated requirements of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act and its implementing regulations, including 42 C.F.R. § 431.246. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the federal agency responsible for issuing the regulations at issue.
Both sides contended that CMS supported their respective positions. The defendant had a motion for summary judgment pending, meaning a request for judgment without a trial because the moving party claims the undisputed facts and law require that result.
Court’s Action
Before ruling on the summary-judgment motion, the court invited CMS or the Department of Health and Human Services Office of General Counsel to submit an amicus curiae brief. An amicus brief is a submission from a nonparty offering information or legal views that may assist the court.
The court asked the agency to address whether California’s process provides the relief required by federal law for residents who were wrongfully transferred or discharged; whether federal law requires an administrative process to enforce successful appeals and ensure readmission; and whether a private action under California law is enough to provide a meaningful appeal. The court also asked about alleged failures by California agencies to enforce decisions, whether those failures would make available remedies insufficient, why federal funds had not been withheld if the process was inadequate, and whether CMS would participate in a magistrate judge settlement conference.
Disposition and Effect
The court invited the brief to be filed by May 21, 2021, directed the Clerk to serve the order on CMS’s regional office, and accepted the defendant’s offer to contact the Department of Health and Human Services Office of General Counsel. If a brief were filed, both parties would receive an opportunity to respond through supplemental briefing.
All proceedings were stayed until May 21, 2021, pending a response from CMS. The May 25, 2021 pretrial conference and June 14, 2021 trial were vacated. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.’s order did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motion or otherwise decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.