No.
C06-02841-TEH (N.D.Cal.), filed April 26, 2006
Updated: July 18, 2008
Issue: Whether CMS' failure to correctly implement the Part D
prescription benefit for hundreds of thousands of dual eligibles
violates the Medicare statute and the Due
Process Clause.
Relief sought: A nationwide class of dual eligibles has been
alleged. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to
ensure that dual eligibles receive the full benefits of Part D.
Status:
The complaint was filed on April 26, 2006. After
extensive discovery on the jurisdictional question raised by the Secretary's
motion to dismiss, the district court granted that motion in part and denied
it in part. See 2006 WL 3734373 (N.D.Cal. 2006). The court
concluded that the Secretary had not demonstrated that most of the
individual plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the issue. It
dismissed two of the organizational plaintiffs outright, but allowed two
others to remain in the case while they attempted to demonstrate that they
had standing to proceed on behalf of their membership.
A few weeks
later, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
holding that the "presentment" requirement was met by any individual who
had complained to the Secretary, to a Part D plan, or to a state
Medicaid agency. See 240 F.R.D. 551 (N.D.Cal. 2007). The court held that all the factors necessary for class
certification had been met, rejecting the government's contention that
the case was not proper for certification because plaintiffs challenged
a systemic failure to comply with the law rather than challenging a
stated policy. Significantly, the court agreed with plaintiffs
that a nationwide class should be certified.
In June 2007, plaintiffs' co-counsel from the Center for
Medicare Advocacy, Inc. and the National Senior Citizens Law
Center were joined by attorneys in the Palo Alto office of a
private firm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who are
acting pro bono.
On June 19, 2008, a
settlement agreement was
filed in federal court in San Francisco. The
settlement, if approved, would require CMS to take a number of
steps to improve the efficiency of the Low Income Subsidy (LIS)
process, including one-business day processing by CMS of
eligibility files received from the states and liberalizing the
standards for beneficiaries to demonstrate their LIS status.
On July 9, the court preliminarily approved the settlement,
setting October 6 for the fairness hearing at which class
members may comment on the proposed settlement. The court could
then give final approval to the settlement. The
court's order of preliminary approval
and the
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and of Fairness
Hearing are available for review.
|