HILBURN v. BUTZ

9 Citing cases

  1. Peterson v. Weinberger

    508 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1975)   Cited 139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant was liable under the FCA although services billed to Medicare were performed by qualified people, where the claim forms falsely certified that the defendant was the provider

    Since the funds were no longer held by the Government, this removes this case from the parameters of Goldberg. In any event, Dr. Peterson's argument is laid to rest by our decision in Hilburn v. Butz, 5 Cir. 1972, 463 F.2d 1207. There, the Hilburn family were concededly owed money under various Department of Agriculture programs.

  2. Langhorne Gardens, Inc. v. Weinberger

    371 F. Supp. 1216 (E.D. Pa. 1974)   Cited 7 times

    In addition to an evidentiary hearing plaintiff also seeks to enjoin defendants from withholding payment on any of the disputed claims or from withholding payment upon undisputed claims as a set off against the determined overpayments. There are no allegations set forth by plaintiff that would indicate that either this particular provider of services or that providers of services as a class under the Medicare Act will suffer the type of grievous loss envisioned by Goldberg v. Kelly, supra. As stated in Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1972): "The result in Goldberg v. Kelly was based on a judicial notice of the fact that welfare recipients as a class would be deprived of their very means of existence while awaiting the outcome of a post-termination hearing.

  3. United States v. Batson

    782 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1986)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that appellant presented no evidence indicating that hearing officer's mind was irrevocably closed or from which to infer bias

    Id. at 598, 70 S.Ct. at 872. Cf. Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1972) (due process does not require the ASCS to give notice and hearing before withholding legitimately earned subsidies pending resolution of a disputed overpayment in a previous year).But see Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1018, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (pretermination hearing required where the termination of welfare "may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits.")

  4. United States v. O'Neil

    709 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1983)   Cited 209 times
    Holding that if severances were improper "recourse was to challenge the district court's action on direct appeal or by mandamus" rather than "disregard the district court's action, and then later attempt to attack it in an appeal from another judgment in a different case"

    Further, it appears in any event that the notice of appeal was untimely and that there was likely no district court judgment whatever, partial or complete, in the case dismissed on appeal. A strikingly similar case to those presently before us is Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 942, 93 S.Ct. 1359, 35 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973). There the plaintiffs brought suit in the district court seeking a mandamus against the Secretary of Agriculture to require him to remit them sums due under Department of Agriculture programs for the years 1968 through 1970, payment of which the Secretary had withheld because of administrative determinations that plaintiffs had been overpaid by at least the same amount under these programs for the years 1964 through 1967.

  5. Mount Sinai Hosp. of Gr. Miami, v. Weinberger

    517 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1975)   Cited 75 times
    Upholding post-treatment recoupment review for Medicare reimbursement because it does not interfere with "the provider's decision" of "[w]hether certain treatment reasonably appears to be medically necessary at the time of" treatment

    United States v. Wurts, 303 U.S. 414, 415, 58 S.Ct. 637, 638, 82 L.Ed. 932, 934 (1938); United States v. Barlow, 132 U.S. 271, 279-280, 281, 282, 10 S.Ct. 77, 79-80, 33 L.Ed. 346, 351-352 (1889); Weiss v. United States, 296 F.2d 648 (CA 5, 1961). United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 91 L.Ed. 2022 (1947); Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207 (CA 5, 1972); see also United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 40 U.S. (15 pet.) 377, 400-401, 10 L.Ed. 774, 783 (1841), in which defendant in an assumpsit action by the United States was denied a setoff where the claimed credit on which it was based was not authorized.

  6. Rio Home Care, LLC v. Azar

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:17-CV-116 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 598, 70 S.Ct. at 872. Cf. Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir.1972) (due process does not require the ASCS to give notice and hearing before withholding legitimately earned subsidies pending resolution of a disputed overpayment in a previous year).Batson, 782 F.2d at 1315 (addressing administrative determinations ordering refund overpayments of cotton subsidies) (footnote omitted).

  7. Dunn Black, P.S. v. U.S.

    366 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (E.D. Wash. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    The government possesses the same self-help right of recovery through setoff as any other creditor. See United States v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234, 239, 108 Ct.Cl. 765, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 91 L.Ed. 2022 (1947); Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 942, 93 S.Ct. 1359, 35 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973); Burlington Northern Inc. v.United States, 199 Ct.Cl. 143, 462 F.2d 526 (Ct.Cl. 1972); Aetna Ins. Co. v. United States, 456 F.2d 773 (Ct.Cl. 1972); United States v. Cohen, 389 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1967). Thus, the United States can assert a right of setoff independent of a statutory grant of authority.

  8. Atwater v. Roudebush

    452 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Ill. 1976)   Cited 10 times
    Distinguishing between setoff and garnishment

    The Fifth Circuit has also denied the right to pre-deprivation hearings in cases involving withholding of payments for services under agricultural and Medicare programs. See Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir. 1972); Peterson v. Weinberger, 508 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1975). If the need for a pre-action hearing turns upon the severity of the deprivation, a second line of decisions offers more solid support for the proposition that a hearing of some sort was required before the set-off was imposed in the present case.

  9. Mercy General Hospital v. Weinberger

    410 F. Supp. 344 (E.D. Mich. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Thus, while this Court concludes that due process does not require a hearing prior to the termination of payments, it is of the opinion that a post-termination review is most appropriate. Coral Gables Convalescent Home Inc. v. Richardson, 340 F. Supp. 646, 650 (S.D.Fla. 1972); Langhorne, supra, at 1219; Russi, supra, at 1353; Wilson Clinic Hospital, Inc. v. Blue Cross of South Carolina, 494 F.2d 50, 54 (4th Cir. 1974); Hilburn v. Butz, 463 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1972). The procedure and requisites for the hearing process before the intermediary, subsequent to the audit determination, are set forth at 20 C.F.R. ยง 1801, et seq.