Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Suit Opposing Recoupment of Medicare Payments Filed in Wrong Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims under Tucker Act jurisdiction because the issues raised in the suit arose under the Medicare Act, which places jurisdiction of claims arising under it exclusively in the federal district courts. Wilson v. U.S., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6816 (Fed. Cir. 4/21/05).
Prior to his death, plaintiff's husband received medical services that were paid for by Medicare. Following his death, the estate brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital and two doctors. After the estate settled the action and received payment from the defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on behalf of Medicare, claimed entitlement to a portion of the settlement, which plaintiff paid. She then filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover the payment. In the suit, she contended that the government's claim against her husband's estate was improper and therefore constituted an illegal exaction. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the suit, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because plaintiff's claim arose under the Medicare statutes and jurisdiction over such claims is vested exclusively in federal district court. Wilson v. U.S., 58 Fed. Cl. 760 (2003).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?