TOBY DOUGLAS, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, v. SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al.
![handle is hein.preview/prvwpepsime0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
U.S. Department of Justice Aw.s,, ,-,
Office of the Solicitor General
Washington, D.C. 20530
November 18, 2011
Honorable William K. Suter
Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
Toby Douglas, Director, California Department of Health Care Services v.
Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc., et al., S. Ct. No. 09-958
Toby Douglas, Director, California Department of Health Care Services v.
California Pharmacists Association, et al., S. Ct. No. 09-1158
Toby Douglas, Director, California Department of Health Care Services v.
Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, et al., S. Ct. No. 10-283 (Argued Oct. 3, 2011)
Dear Mr. Suter:
On November 4,2011, the Court directed the parties and the Solicitor General to address the
following question: What should be the effect, if any, of the developments discussed in the letter
submitted by the Solicitor General on October 28, 2011, on the proper disposition of this case? For
the reasons set forth below, it is the view of the United States that while those developments alter
the context in which the cause-of-action issue arises in these consolidated cases in a significant way,
it remains appropriate for the Court to resolve that issue.
1. As discussed in the October 28, 2011, letter, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) recently approved several modified State Plan Amendments (SPAs) submitted by
California that cover Medicaid provider rate reductions enacted by the California Legislature in
Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) and Assembly Bill 1183 (AB 1183), including certain rate reductions that
are currently subject to preliminary injunctions entered in the consolidated cases under review in
Douglas. California also withdrew its formal request for reconsideration of the remaining
disapproved SPAs at issue in the Douglas cases. As a result, for the time period prior to January 1,
2011, California is no longer seeking CMS approval for any of the rate reductions for the period
during which they had been preliminarily enjoined by a court order entered in the consolidated
Douglas cases. And, for the period of time beginning on or after January 1, 2011, CMS has now
approved many of the enjoined rate reductions for retroactive implementation (including recoupment
of amounts overpaid). See 10/28/11 Letter & Chart (detailing recent developments).
2. [A] federal court has no authority 'to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract
propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the
case before it.' Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting Mills v.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.preview/prvwpepsime0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
TOBY DOUGLAS, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, v. SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most