The D.C. Circuit releases opinions on Tuesdays and Fridays. We read them all so you don’t have to. On Friday (June 29), the court issued four opinions:
Saint Francis Medical Center v. Alex Azar. Nearly 300 hospitals argued that the Department of Health and Human Services is using faulty data from the 1980s to calculate Medicare reimbursements that the federal government pays to the hospitals. The hospitals want to challenge the use of that data in the department’s administrative appeals process. The government interpreted a 2013 regulation to bar such challenges. The court’s newest member, Judge Katsas, wrote his first opinion (joined by Chief Judge Garland and Judge Kavanaugh) and rejected the government’s interpretation. Kavanaugh concurred, saying he would have struck down the regulation altogether. Circuit Breaker has more in-depth coverage of the opinion here.
Jennifer Campbell v. District of Columbia. In an opinion by Judge Griffith (joined by Judges Pillard and Edwards), the court held that a party—in this case the District of Columbia—cannot raise a new argument after a jury verdict that it did not make during trial. Campbell, who worked as a health care administration director for the D.C. government, claimed that the District unlawfully fired her and leaked untrue allegations about her to the press. The jury agreed with Campbell on one of her claims. The District made several arguments before, during, and after the trial attempting to dismiss the case, but its primary argument on appeal was one it had not properly raised below. The court refused to consider it.
Anica Ashbourne v. Donna Hansberry. Ashbourne was fired from her job at the Internal Revenue Service just shy of the end of her one-year probationary period. She sued the government in federal court alleging due process violations, among other claims. At the same time, she filed race and gender discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in an administrative proceeding. She lost in both proceedings. In an opinion by Judge Millett (joined by Judges Tatel and Srinivasan), the D.C. Circuit said that’s not allowed, and it “fits res judicata doctrine to a T”—meaning a plaintiff doesn’t get a second bite at the apple in federal court when she should have brought the claims the first time around.
United States v. Gregory Sitzmann. A convicted drug conspirator raised numerous challenges to his conviction, including a claim that the government had inappropriately “lured” a co-conspirator and a claim that he had ineffective counsel. In a per curiam opinion from Judges Griffith, Katsas, and Edwards, the court denied the challenges. In his second opinion of the day (and ever), Katsas concurred in the denial of the ineffective counsel claim because it was not properly preserved below. Edwards dissented on that point because, when criminal defendants fail to preserve ineffective counsel claims, the D.C. Circuit typically remands to the district court and allows them to pursue the claims there.
