American Hospital Association v. Bowen case brief summary
834 F.2d 1037 (1987)
CASE FACTS
In this case, the court was faced with the issue of whether the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in implementing the system of peer review of Medicare outlays called for by Congress in its 1982 amendments to the Medicare Act, erred in not first undertaking the notice and comment rulemaking generally prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 533. More specifically, the issue was whether the various pronouncements made by HHS in the course of its implementation of the peer review program fell within the first class of exception in § 533: those for interpretive rules, procedural rules, or general statements of policy.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The court reversed the judgment of the district court, which held that a number of HHS's communications were invalid for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements. The court held that the directives issued and contracts entered into by HHS constituted mere procedural rules or general statements of policy that did not substantially alter the rights or interests of regulated hospitals.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
834 F.2d 1037 (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) sought review of a decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, which held that a number
of HHS's communications were invalid for failure to comply with the
Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements, and
that peer review organization request for proposals, and the
contracts entered into thereunder, were violative of 5 U.S.C.S.
§ 553.CASE FACTS
In this case, the court was faced with the issue of whether the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in implementing the system of peer review of Medicare outlays called for by Congress in its 1982 amendments to the Medicare Act, erred in not first undertaking the notice and comment rulemaking generally prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 533. More specifically, the issue was whether the various pronouncements made by HHS in the course of its implementation of the peer review program fell within the first class of exception in § 533: those for interpretive rules, procedural rules, or general statements of policy.
DISCUSSION
- Because the court concluded that the directives issued and contracts entered into by HHS constituted mere procedural rules or general statements of policy that did not substantially alter the rights or interests of regulated hospitals, the court held that HHS satisfied the requirements of § 553 of the APA.
- Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.
OUTCOME
The court reversed the judgment of the district court, which held that a number of HHS's communications were invalid for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements. The court held that the directives issued and contracts entered into by HHS constituted mere procedural rules or general statements of policy that did not substantially alter the rights or interests of regulated hospitals.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment