Supreme Court

Subscribe to Supreme Court via RSS

This post was co-authored by Ben Jensen, member Robinson+Cole’s Technology Industry Team.

On July 25, 2023, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an opinion in High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health that addresses the subject of the right to file an appeal of a Certificate of Need (CON) decision under the Connecticut Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (APA). High Watch involved a case where a party was allowed to intervene in a CON proceeding after the state CON agency had already elected to hold a discretionary hearing on the application at issue. A trial court declined to hear the appeal, and the Appellate Court affirmed that declination, on the basis that there was no “contested case” and no right to appeal the decision in Superior Court because the intervenor never expressly requested a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed this holding, concluding that intervention in opposition to the application was sufficient to render the case contested without need for the intervenor to request a hearing that was already scheduled. The ruling is significant in that it rejects a rigid application of the statutes governing CON procedures and instead focuses on the substance of the public hearing at issue in assessing whether a contested case is presented. Understanding the distinction between mandatory and discretionary hearings is an essential consideration for parties to CON proceedings to avoid foreclosing potential appellate rights.Continue Reading Connecticut Supreme Court Addresses Contested Case Issue in Ruling on Certificate of Need Appeals

On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in three cases asking the court to resolve a circuit split regarding the application of the particularity pleading requirement for allegations of fraud in False Claims Act (FCA) cases, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The cases are: Johnson, et al. v. Bethany Hospice, 21-462; U.S., ex rel. Owsley v. Fazzi Associates, Inc., et al., 21-936; and Molina Healthcare, et al. v. Prose, 21-1145. Molina also presented a second question over which circuits had split, regarding the correct interpretation of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar and whether a request for payment without specific representations can be actionable under an implied false certification theory. (Petition for Writ of Certiorari).Continue Reading Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Three FCA “Particularity” Cases

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of “340B” hospitals in a notable statutory interpretation case concerning how the federal Medicare program reimburses hospitals for prescription drugs. The case, which was brought by the American Hospital Association, arises from reimbursement reductions imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2018 and 2019 on hospitals participating in the 340B program (which the Court noted are hospitals that “generally serve low-income or rural communities”). In those years, HHS sought to impose reductions in reimbursement due to favorable pricing available to 340B hospitals under that program. The hospitals challenged those reductions based on the process HHS followed when setting the reimbursement rates, claiming that HHS’s failure to conduct a survey of hospitals’ average acquisition costs for the drugs prevented HHS from varying reimbursement rates for this distinct group. Therefore, according to the hospitals, HHS was required to pay them based on the average sales price charged by manufacturers for the drugs.Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides in Favor of 340B Hospitals Regarding Medicare Reimbursement Methodology

In a 7-1 decision released June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a proposal of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would have had the effect of significantly reducing Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments to thousands of hospitals for care furnished to low income patients in 2012.

In Azar v. Allina Health Services, Et Al., the Supreme Court held that HHS needed to comply with statutory notice and comment rulemaking procedures under the Social Security Act (Act) when making interpretive changes, because HHS sought to establish or change substantive legal standards.  As a result, HHS was required to publish its proposal to change the DSH payment calculations for 2012 for notice and comment, and its unilateral determination regarding the calculation of those payments was invalid.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rejects HHS Proposal that Could Have Significantly Lowered Certain Medicare DSH Payments to Hospitals

On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (H.R. 1625), an omnibus spending bill that includes the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (the CLOUD Act). Among other provisions, the CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712, hereinafter the SCA) by adding a new § 2713 which states as follows:
Continue Reading Congress Enacts CLOUD Act within Omnibus Spending Bill to Address Overseas Storage of Electronic Data, Potentially Mooting Supreme Court’s Pending Microsoft Case

In May 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit relied on the “heightened materiality standard” endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2016 Escobar decision in dismissing a False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblower suit filed against pharmaceutical giant Genentech related to its billion dollar cancer drug Avastin. In Escobar, the Supreme Court upheld the validity—“at least in some circumstances”—of the “implied false certification” theory of FCA liability, and provided that this theory can attach where at least two conditions are met: a defendant must (1) make a specific representation on a claim for payment to the government, and (2) fail to disclose noncompliance with a material requirement for payment, which failure renders that representation a “misleading half-truth” (even if the representation is true on its face).
Continue Reading Third Circuit Recognizes Escobar “Heightened Materiality Standard” in Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Tied to Avastin

On Monday, June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that manufacturers making biosimilars of biologic drugs did not have to wait until after gaining federal approval of the biosimilar to notify the manufacturer of biologic reference products (Sponsor) that they intend to commercially market a biosimilar drug. The Court’s decision addresses two cases in the same opinion: Sandoz v. Amgen and Amgen v. Sandoz. 
Continue Reading Supreme Court Decision Allows Faster Marketing of Biosimilars

On May 12, 2017, Anthem Inc. announced that it had terminated its merger agreement with Cigna Corporation, a deal that would have united the second and third largest sellers of health insurance to large companies in the country. Anthem’s termination of the merger came two weeks to the day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Anthem’s appeal of an injunction blocking the merger issued by a U.S. District Court earlier this year. Anthem terminated the merger one week after filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court that sought guidance on the viability of the “efficiencies defense” under antitrust law.

Anthem and Cigna initially entered into a merger agreement in July, 2015 that was subsequently challenged on antitrust grounds by the Department of Justice, eleven states, and the District of Columbia. The government alleged that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §18) by substantially lessening competition in the insurance markets for (i) national accounts (i.e., insurance purchased by employers with 5000+ employees), and (ii) large group employers (those with 50+ employees) in various geographic areas throughout the country.
Continue Reading Anthem Terminates Cigna Merger Following D.C. Circuit Setback