U.S. ex rel. Trinh v. Northeast Medical Services, Inc., C 10-1904 CW (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20140312c41
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2014
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE CITATION CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. On January 23, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. At that hearing, the Federal Government represented that Northeast Medical Services, Inc. (NEMS) had identified certain Medi-Cal enrollee visits in its supplemental payment requests 1 as "FQHC visits" but subsequently classified those visits as non-FQHC visits when it submitted its annual reconciliation requests. The
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE CITATION CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. On January 23, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. At that hearing, the Federal Government represented that Northeast Medical Services, Inc. (NEMS) had identified certain Medi-Cal enrollee visits in its supplemental payment requests 1 as "FQHC visits" but subsequently classified those visits as non-FQHC visits when it submitted its annual reconciliation requests. The F..
More
ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE CITATION
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
On January 23, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. At that hearing, the Federal Government represented that Northeast Medical Services, Inc. (NEMS) had identified certain Medi-Cal enrollee visits in its supplemental payment requests1 as "FQHC visits" but subsequently classified those visits as non-FQHC visits when it submitted its annual reconciliation requests. The Federal Government specifically referred to these visits as "visits that have already been identified as FQHC visits and have already been billed by NEMS to the State" in NEMS's supplemental payment requests. Docket No. 140, Jan. 23, 2014 Hrg. Tr. 10:25-11:5; see also id. 45:25-46:4 (referring to "visits already billed for" as part of the "Code 18 billing scheme"). The Governments, however, did not cite any evidence in the record of specific supplemental payment requests that NEMS submitted to the State during the relevant period.
Accordingly, if the record contains any specific examples of supplemental payment requests that NEMS submitted between 2001 and 2010, the Governments are directed to provide a citation to those requests within four days of this order. They shall not supplement the citation with any additional argument or evidence. If the record does not contain any examples of supplemental payment requests actually submitted by NEMS, the Governments shall submit a brief statement, not to exceed one page, saying that the record does not contain this evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Governments refer to these payments as "Code 18" payments.
Source: Leagle