Opinion
Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California June 10, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02888-JSW. Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding.
For County of Santa Cruz, Plaintiff - Appellant: Dario de Ghetaldi, Attorney, Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle LLP, Millbrae, CA; Colleen Duffy-Smith, Attorney, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA; Dana Maureen McRae, Counsel, Santa Cruz County Counsel, Santa Cruz, CA.
For County of Sonoma, County of Santa Barbara, Plaintiffs - Appellants: Dario de Ghetaldi, Attorney, Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle LLP, Millbrae, CA; Colleen Duffy-Smith, Attorney, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA; Michael Gannon Reedy, Attorney, McManis Faulkner, San Jose, CA.
For County of San Diego, Plaintiff - Appellant: Dario de Ghetaldi, Attorney, Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle LLP, Millbrae, CA; Colleen Duffy-Smith, Attorney, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA; Deborah McCarthy, Esquire, C. Ellen Pilsecker, Senior Deputy County Counsel, Office of The County Counsel, San Diego, CA.
For County of San Luis Obispo, Plaintiff - Appellant: Dario de Ghetaldi, Attorney, Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle LLP, Millbrae, CA; Colleen Duffy-Smith, Attorney, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA; Susan Hoffman, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, Office of The County Counsel, San Luis Obispo, CA.
For County of Monterey, Plaintiff - Appellant: Dario de Ghetaldi, Attorney, Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle LLP, Millbrae, CA; Colleen Duffy-Smith, Attorney, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA; William M. Litt, Office of The County Counsel, County of Monterey, Salinas, CA; Michael Gannon Reedy, Attorney, McManis Faulkner, San Jose, CA.
For Theodore M. Mazer, M.D., Wolbers And Poree Medical Corporation, Plaintiffs - Appellants: Dario de Ghetaldi, Attorney, Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle LLP, Millbrae, CA; Colleen Duffy-Smith, Attorney, Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, San Jose, CA.
For KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee: Catherine H. Dorsey, Attorney, Melissa N. Patterson, Attorney, Michael Raab, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division - Appellate Staff, Washington, DC.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The California counties of Santa Cruz, Sonoma, San Diego, Marin, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Monterey, as well as Theodore M. Mazer and Wolbers & Poree Medical Corp., (collectively " Plaintiffs" ), brought this action against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (" the Secretary" ). Plaintiffs claim that the Secretary's failure to revise the " fee schedule areas," which determine the fees paid to the Plaintiffs for providing Medicare services, violated Plaintiffs' equal protection rights, and that 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-4(j)(2) (the " Fee Schedule" statute) and the regulation implementing this statute, 42 C.F.R. § 414.4, are unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs because the Fee Schedule statute and the related regulation deprived Plaintiffs of equal protection.
The district court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. We AFFIRM. Under our " highly deferential" rational basis review of such government classification under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause, Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 2004), the Secretary's decision to maintain the status quo in the fee schedule areas structure can be supported on the basis of minimizing administrative cost and burden. See Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S.Ct. 2073, 2083, 182 L.Ed.2d 998 (2012).
AFFIRMED.