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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT