Cases

798 F.Supp. 69 (1992) Robert C. LENZ v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Civ. No. 84-194-D. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. August 17, 1992. Order on Motion for Reconsideration September 23, 1992. *70 Raymond J. Kelly, Manchester, N.H., for plaintiff. Gretchen Leah Witt, Asst. U.S. A

ORDER DEVINE, Chief Judge. In this Social Security appeal, the Court, under date of September 28, 1984, remanded to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) for the taking of addi*145tional evidence from a vocational expert. In accordance with usual procedure, judgment on the aforesaid decision was entered on the same date, and subsequent

235 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2000) DEERBROOK PAVILION, LLC, APPELLANT,V.DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; NANCY-ANN MIN DEPARLE, ADMINISTRATOR, HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION; JOE L. TILGHMAN, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION; THOMAS W. LENZ, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR DIVISION OF MEDICAID AND STATE OPERAT

WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge. Young brought this action seeking attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1) as the prevailing party in an action against the United States. The district court rejected the request for attorney fees, finding that the position of the United States was substantially justified. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

ORDER DEVINE, Senior District Judge. Presently before the court is plaintiffs motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and (d) (EAJA). The Secretary objects on various grounds. I. Background1 As the result of an injury sustained in September

OPINION AND ORDER PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge, sitting by designation. This case presents two issues which have engendered a myriad of judicial decisions from numerous courts throughout the nation. First, whether a district court’s remand, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. sec. 405(g), so that a rehearing before the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) may take place, automatically

PER CURIAM. This case compels us to enter the fray which has arisen in the wake of Melkonyan v. Sullivan, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), concerning the timeliness of attorney’s fees applications in so-called “sentence four” Social Security remands. The district court read that decision as creating a “procedural no-man’s land” — as mandating tha

ORDER GIERBOLINI, Chief Judge. Plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of judgment so that he could apply for attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, as a prevailing party. We referred this motion to the magistrate for a report and recommendation. The magistrate filed a report and recommendation on August 4, 1992 in which he concluded that a final judgm

ORDER DEVINE, Chief Judge. In this action, plaintiff Joann Clay ultimately succeeded in her lengthy effort to procure Supplemental Security Income benefits (“SSI”) pursuant to Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383. While waiting for her benefits award, she was required to accept welfare benefits from the State of New Hampshire, and, accordingly, when the award was made the defendant reimbursed plaintiff’s

Opinion for the Court filed by GARLAND, Circuit Judge. GARLAND, Circuit Judge: When a Medicare beneficiary files a complaint with a Peer Review Organization (PRO) about the quality of medical services that he or she has received, the Peer Review Improvement Act requires the PRO to “inform the individual ... of the organization’s final disposition of the complaint.” 42 U.S.C. § 1320c-3(a)(14). According to th

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00083-CV W. G., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee NO. 03-23-00084-CV C. G. and W. G., Appellants v. Texas De

538 U.S. 644 PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICAv.WALSH, ACTING COMMISSIONER, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. No. 01-188. Supreme Court of United States. Argued January 22, 2003. Decided May 19, 2003. A State participating in Medicaid must have a medical assistan

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: Large changes in the delivery systems for medical services, including the growth of health maintenance organizations (“HMOs”) and managed care organizations (“MCOs”), came as rapid responses to rising costs for medical services and to the growth of medical expense reimbursement for employees. These new entities injected an intermediary between doctor and patient in setting medical care

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves an effort on behalf of some 230,000 participants in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program to re*48sist — indeed to reverse — the government’s efforts to recover payments mistakenly made to those participants. The district court issue

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS. HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge: Appellant Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”), an association of drug manufacturing and research firms, challenges a Medicaid demonstration project administered by the State of Maine under the auspices of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary” or “HHS”). Maine’s program offers

BAXTER, J., Dissenting. The Medicare Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq.) (hereafter sometimes referred to as Medicare or the Act) is a massive federally insured program that covers health services for the elderly and disabled. Congress has decreed that any enrollee of a Medicare health maintenance organization (HMO) plan who wishes to challenge the HMO’s denial of health services under Me

BARFIELD, Judge. Florida Power Corporation (FPC) appeals an order of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) denying its application for a wetland resource permit, contending that DER improperly rejected the hearing officer’s determination that FPC’s project would have no adverse impacts and was not contrary to the public interest. This controversy focuses on the distinction between forested wetlands and herbaceous

808 F.Supp. 1347 (1992) Jose OLIVARES, Plaintiff, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. No. 92 C 3784. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. December 15, 1992. *1348 Deborah Susan Spector, Ellyn Hershman, Spector & Lenz, P.C., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Ann L. Wal

735 F.Supp. 286 (1990) Susan M. SANCHES, Plaintiff, v. Louis J. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. No. 89 C 7003. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. April 24, 1990. *287 Deborah Spector, Ellyn Hershman, Spector & Lenz, P.C., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Ira H. Raphaelson,

766 F.Supp. 627 (1991) Aritha PARKS, Plaintiff, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. No. 90 C 5019. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. June 6, 1991. *628 Deborah Spector, Ellyn Hershman, Spector & Lenz, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Carol Davilo, Asst. U.S. Atty.