MAINE MEDICAL CENTER v. SEBELIUS
Plaintiff: MAINE MEDICAL CENTER
Defendant: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Case Number: 2:2013cv00118
Filed: April 2, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Maine
Office: Portland Office
County: Cumberland
Presiding Judge: JOHN H. RICH
Presiding Judge: JOHN A. WOODCOCK
Nature of Suit: Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER denying 13 Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record; granting 14 Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Maine District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MAINE MEDICAL CENTER v. SEBELIUS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MAINE MEDICAL CENTER
Represented By: BENJAMIN E. FORD
Represented By: WILLIAM H. STILES
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?