Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-319-JJB-SCR.
July 14, 2011
ORDER
HAVING CONSIDERED Defendants' Second Motion (doc. 129) to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion (doc. 129) be DENIED. In its Ruling on Defendant's Appeal (doc. 114) of the Magistrate Judge's Decision, this Court determined that it was without jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision to terminate Plaintiff's provider agreement and the constitutionality of the review process following the Secretary's decision. The Secretary also imposed civil monetary penalties and federal law provides that the Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review cases in which the Secretary does so. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a(e). See, e.g., Frounfelter v. Leavitt, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1332-33 (M.D. Fla. 2008). This Court found that were it to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff's non-civil monetary-penalty claims, it would run a serious risk of contradictorily ruling on the legality of the Secretary's decision and the process employed in reaching reach that decision. As such, the Court found that it no longer has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's motion is therefore moot.
Signed in Baton Rouge, LA this 13th day July, 2011.