ILNews

7th Circuit rejects hospital's claims for $20M more in federal aid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Columbus Regional Hospital, which was flooded following heavy rains in southern Indiana in 2008, is not entitled to an additional $20 million in disaster relief funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in addition to the $70 million it already received, the 7th Circuit concluded Wednesday.

In Columbus Regional Hospital v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 12-2007, the federal appellate court tackled two issues: whether the District Court was the proper venue for the lawsuit and the merits of the suit.

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Indiana, but under the Tucker Act, suits seeking more than $10,000 in monetary damages are to move before the Court of Federal Claims. The judges concluded that the District Court was the right venue because it’s the only court that can serve as a forum for all of the hospital’s legal theories, which include claims under the Stafford Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The 7th Circuit rejected FEMA’s claim that everything it does is a “discretionary function” so there can never be an obligation to pay more than the agency decides is due. Switching focus to the lawsuit, the hospital contended that FEMA must cover the replacement cost of equipment and supplies destroyed by the flood, and that includes new equipment. The court found FEMA’s approach – to value property lost as cost (basis) less depreciation – to make sense in that it gives all victims the value of what they lost, and no more.

“Disaster benefits are a subsidy, and no one is entitled to a greater subsidy than the statute mandates,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote. “If a fast-food restaurant gets the depreciated value of a fryer or milkshake mixer, a hospital gets the depreciated value of a magnetic resonance imager.”

The second issue involves the proceeds the hospital received from insurance. FEMA concluded property damage represented roughly two-thirds of the hospital’s losses within the policy’s scope, so it attributed around $16 million of the $25 million in insurance proceeds to the property damage and deducted that amount from the federal funds. The hospital claims that no deductions should be made because it used the $25 million to cover expenses such as salaries and the cost of moving patients.

“ … as far as we can see nothing in the Stafford Act or any regulation prevents the agency from imputing all insurance proceeds to covered claims. FEMA did the Hospital a favor when it allocated a third of the proceeds to losses outside the scope of the Stafford Act, and thus deducted only $16 million rather than $25 million from the Hospital’s claim,” Easterbrook wrote.

“The Hospital tells us that it now has pursued its administrative remedies and filed a second suit under the FTCA. We expect it to be met with a defense of claim preclusion (res judicata) as well as the observation that the suit is substantively feeble, but we leave that to the court where the FTCA litigation is pending.”
 

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. Thank you, John Smith, for pointing out a needed correction. The article has been revised.

  2. The "National institute for Justice" is an agency for the Dept of Justice. That is not the law firm you are talking about in this article. The "institute for justice" is a public interest law firm. http://ij.org/ thanks for interesting article however

  3. I would like to try to find a lawyer as soon possible I've had my money stolen off of my bank card driver pressed charges and I try to get the information they need it and a Social Security board is just give me a hold up a run around for no reason and now it think it might be too late cuz its been over a year I believe and I can't get the right information they need because they keep giving me the runaroundwhat should I do about that

  4. It is wonderful that Indiana DOC is making some truly admirable and positive changes. People with serious mental illness, intellectual disability or developmental disability will benefit from these changes. It will be much better if people can get some help and resources that promote their health and growth than if they suffer alone. If people experience positive growth or healing of their health issues, they may be less likely to do the things that caused them to come to prison in the first place. This will be of benefit for everyone. I am also so happy that Indiana DOC added correctional personnel and mental health staffing. These are tough issues to work with. There should be adequate staffing in prisons so correctional officers and other staff are able to do the kind of work they really want to do-helping people grow and change-rather than just trying to manage chaos. Correctional officers and other staff deserve this. It would be great to see increased mental health services and services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in the community so that fewer people will have to receive help and support in prisons. Community services would like be less expensive, inherently less demeaning and just a whole lot better for everyone.

  5. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

ADVERTISEMENT