|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-1231||D.C. Cir.||Dec 4, 2012||Jan 22, 2013||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2012|
Holding: The 180-day statutory time limit for a hospital to appeal a final Medicare reimbursement is not “jurisdictional,” but it is also not subject to equitable tolling.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on January 22, 2013. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 9 2012||Application (11A864) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 19, 2012 to April 18, 2012, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Mar 13 2012||Application (11A864) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until April 13, 2012.|
|Apr 13 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 14, 2012)|
|May 14 2012||Brief of respondent Auburn Regional Medical Center, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 14, 2012.|
|May 30 2012||Reply of petitioner Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 18 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.|
|Jun 25 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 23 2012||John F. Manning, Esquire, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the position that the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination made by a fiscal intermediary, 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a)(3), may not be extended for any period.|
|Aug 3 2012||The brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is to be filed on or before August 31, 2012.|
|Aug 3 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 11, 2012.|
|Aug 3 2012||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 16, 2012.|
|Aug 31 2012||Brief of Court-Appointed amicus curiae filed.|
|Sep 11 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Sep 11 2012||Brief of petitioner Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services filed.|
|Sep 14 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, December 4, 2012.|
|Sep 14 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Scott Dodson in support of neither party filed.|
|Oct 3 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for District f Columbia Circuit. (1 box)|
|Oct 5 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia is electronic.|
|Oct 16 2012||Brief of respondents Auburn Regional Medical Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 17 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Oct 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Tax Clinic filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Hospital Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Southwest Consulting Associates, LP filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Quality Reimbursement Services, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 23 2012||Motion of Court-Appointed amicus curiae for divided argument filed.|
|Nov 13 2012||Motion of Court-Appointed amicus curiae for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 15 2012||Reply of petitioner Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 15 2012||Reply of Court-Appointed amicus curiae filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 4 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-Appointed amicus curiae: John F. Manning, Cambridge, Mass. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Robert L. Roth, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 22 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Feb 25 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 2 2013||Record returned to U.S.C.A. for District of Columbia Circuit.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.