Bagnall et al v. Sebelius
| Richard Bagnall, Michael Savage, Lee Barrows, George Renshaw, Sarah Mulcahy, Shirley Burton and Denise Rugman |
| Kathleen Sebelius |
| 3:2011cv01703 |
| November 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Alvin W. Thompson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 0405 Public Health and Welfare HHS |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
503
ORDER. As stated in the attached, because I find that the Government's position was substantially justified, I must DENY the motion for attorneys' fees and costs (ECF Nos. 479, 487), as well as the motion for appellate attorneys' fees and costs remanded to me by the Second Circuit. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 1/31/2023. (Britt, Joshua)
|
|
Filing
439
ORDER. As set forth in the attached, I find that the Secretary is violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by denying the members of a modified class--including only those beneficiaries who were initially admitted as inpatients by the ir treating physician--the right to challenge the denial of their Part A coverage. Accordingly, the Secretary shall permit all members of the modified class to appeal the denial of their Part A coverage. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/24/2020. (Karpman, Michael)
|
|
Filing
388
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Court enters the following orders:(1) The Secretary's 379 motion for clarification and reconsideration is DENIED.(2) Having reviewed the parties' 384 , 385 supplemen tal briefs, I find that there is no "fundamental conflict" between the pre-October 2013 and post-October 2013 Plaintiffs, and that neither formal nor informal subdivision of the class is required.(3) The 330 , 337 , 340 , and [37 1] motions to seal are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The following documents may remain under seal: Plaintiffs' Exhibits 20-24, 27, 28, 30-37, and Supplemental Exhibit 5 (ECF Nos. 331-10 through 331-14; 331-17; 331-18; 331-20 through 331-2 7; and 372-3.) The Clerk is directed to unseal the following documents: Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (ECF No. 330); Plaintiffs' Unredacted Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Summary Judgment (ECF No. 331); Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement (ECF No. 331-1); Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 25, 26, 45, 46, 48, and Supplemental Exhibit 1 (ECF Nos. 331-2 through 331-9; 331-15; 331-16; 331-19; 331-28 through 331-30; 372-2); Plaintiffs' Supplemental Me morandum of Law in Opposition to Summary Judgment (ECF No. 372); Plaintiffs' Supplemental Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement (ECF No. 372-1); and Livanta's memoranda in support of continued sealing (ECF Nos. 337, 371). (4) The Plaintiffs s hall provide a copy of the attached memorandum of decision to third-party producers KEPRO and Livanta. Within 14 days, KEPRO may file a redacted version of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29 (ECF No. 331-19). If KEPRO does not file a redacted version, the Court will direct the Clerk to unseal the document in its entirety. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 6/4/2019. (Guevremont, Nathan)
|
|
Filing
378
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Secretarys second motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 319), motion for class decertification (ECF No. 323), and motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 370) are DENIED. As described in the attached, within 21 days, the Plaintiffs shall file a response on the docket (not to exceed 12 pages) addressing the issue raised in the ruling on the motion for class decertification. The Secretary may respond within 14 days in a brief not to exceed 12 pages. No replies will be allowed.The Court will hold a telephonic status conference on April 3, 2019 at 11:00 AM to discuss scheduling trial in the summer or early fall.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/27/2019. (Guevremont, Nathan)
|
|
Filing
242
ORDER. For the reasons explained herein, plaintiffs' motion 203 for class certification is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court hereby appoints plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel and orders that the following Rule 23(b)(2) clas s be certified: "All Medicare beneficiaries who, on or after January 1, 2009: (1) have received or will have received 'observation services' as an outpatient during a hospitalization; and (2) have received or will have received an initial determination that the observation services are covered (or subject to coverage) under Medicare Part B. Medicare beneficiaries who meet the requirements of the foregoing sentence but who pursued an administrative appeal and received a final decision of the Secretary before September 4, 2011 are excluded from this definition." Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/31/17. (Tegeler, D.)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER. As set forth herein, the Court DENIES the Secretary's Motion 160 for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion 166 for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Secretary's Motion 160 to Dismiss. The parties shall confer and submit a revised Rule 26(f) report within 14 days, including a timeline for completing any further discovery and for any further proceedings. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/8/17. (Tegeler, D.)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's 23 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' 2 51 Motions for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel and Defendant's 35 Motion to Stay Discovery are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/23/2013. (Best, Z)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
