Cases 1 - 10 of 564
Council for Medicare Choice et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 4:2024cv00446
Plaintiff:
Council for Medicare Choice, Fort Worth Association of Health Underwriters, Inc. and Vogue Insurance Agency LLC
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Xavier Becerra and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
McComb Childrens Clinic, LTD. v. Becerra et al
as 5:2024cv00048
Plaintiff:
McComb Childrens Clinic, LTD.
Defendant:
Xavier Becerra, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Melanie Fontes Rainer and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
Americans for Beneficiary Choice et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 4:2024cv00439
Plaintiff:
Americans for Beneficiary Choice and Senior Security Benefits, LLC
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Baylor All Saints Medical Center et al v. Becerra
as 4:2024cv00432
Plaintiff:
Baylor All Saints Medical Center doing business as Baylor Scott & White All Saints Medical Center - Fort Worth, Baylor Medical Center at Irving doing business as Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Irving, Baylor Medical Center at Waxahachie doing business as Baylor Scott & White Medical Center Waxahachie and others
Defendant:
Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
Roesel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 3:2024cv01104
Plaintiff:
Phillip Roesel
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Center for Innovations in Evaluative Medicine, LLC et al v. Becerra
as 3:2024cv00362
Defendant:
Department of Health and Human Services
Claimant:
Center for Innovations in Evaluative Medicine, LLC d/b/a Warner Orthopedics and Wellness
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00486
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
U.S. Anesthesia Prts TX v. HHS
as 24-10384
Plaintiff:
U.S. Anesthesia Partners of Texas, P.A., U.S. Anesthesia Partners of Florida, Incorporated, U.S. Anesthesia Partners of Colorado, Incorporated and others
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and others
Smith et al v. United States of America et al
as 4:2024cv00334
Plaintiff:
Jessica Smith, Joel Wallskog, M.D., Theodore Cabaniss, on behalf of his minor son, T.C. and others
Defendant:
United States of America, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, United States Health Resources and Services Administration and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment
D. v. Abbott
as 24-40248
Plaintiff:
M. D., by next friend Sarah R. Stukenberg, D. I., by next friend Nancy G. Pofahl, Z. H., by next friend Carla B. Morrison and others
Defendant:
Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Cecile Erwin Young, in her official capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission of the State of Texas and Stephanie Muth, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
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.
