ILNews

Contract termination ends health care provider’s eligibility for federal funds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that the status of the grant holder had changed, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Citizens Health Corp. is no longer eligible for Section 330 federal monies.

The 7th Circuit upheld the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, in Citizens Health Corporation v. Kathleen Sebelius, Sectary of Health and Human Services, et al., 12-3924. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of all defendants based on the conclusion that Citizens had no contractual, statutory, or constitutionally perceivable interest in the grant funds.

Citizens Health Corp. had been receiving a Section 330 grant to support its Indianapolis medial center that served the indigent population. When Health and Hospital Corp. decided to end its relationship with Citizens Health Corp., Health and Hospital also relinquished the grant.

Concerned it would loss the federal funds, Citizens filed suit against Health and Hospital, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, and other defendants seeking to enjoin the defendants from terminating the Section 330 grant.

The health care provider argued that HRSA’s decision to allow Health and Hospital to relinquish the grant was both contrary to law and a violation of Citizens’ procedural due process rights.

The 7th Circuit rejected Citizens’ argument, finding that the health care provider’s grant status had changed. When Citizens partnered with Health and Hospital, the latter organization became the sole grantee with the responsibility to receive, manage and disburse Section 330 grant funds.

Citizens’ entitlement to the grant funds existed only by contract with Health and Hospital. Once that contract ended, Citizens was no longer eligible for the Section 330 grant.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT