Download complaint here.
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Files Complaint Against IHS
Download complaint here.
Download complaint here.
Here are the materials in Maniilaq Assn. v. Burwell (D.D.C.):
Download job summary and instructions here.
The Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (OGC) is seeking applications for several general attorney positions in its San Francisco Regional Office. The San Francisco Office of OGC provides legal services to four administrative areas of the Indian Health Service (IHS), which delivers health care to American Indians/Alaska Natives. Persons selected for some or all of these positions will have responsibility for providing legal advice and support to the IHS. More information about the positions and the nature of our work is in the attached vacancy announcement.
Download complaint and exhibits in the matter of Friends of Toppenish Creek v. IHS (W.D. Wash.) here.
Job announcement and description here.
Here.
Opening sentences:
The Tribe brings this action against the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and its agency, the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) seeking redress for their decision to use $1.6 million in funds appropriated for the Pine Ridge Service Unit, which provides health services to tribal members and other Indian beneficiaries, to fund a settlement of overtime pay that the IHS reached with unions. The IHS intends to use these funds to pay for the settlement even though the funds are required by law to be used to make improvements in the programs of the IHS operated by or through the Pine Ridge Service Unit which may be necessary to achieve or maintain compliance with the applicable conditions and requirements of Medicare and Medicaid.
Here is the order list. From the order list:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the D. C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled that the Tribe was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?
Here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
From the opinion:
Finally, the Court will grant the MSJ on two grounds. First, the Court will deem the Claim denied, because Dayish has not given Sage Hospital a “date certain” by which he will decide the Claim; rather, he conditioned his October 21, 2015, deadline upon Sage Hospital’s cooperation. Second, even if Dayish had given Sage Hospital a date certain by which he will decide the Claim, his proposed fourteen-month period for deciding the Claim is unreasonably long under the CDA. [4] Accordingly, even if the Court did not deem the Claim already denied, it would order Dayish to approve or deny the Claim by July 25, 2015.
Here is the government’s brief:
An excerpt:
The court of appeals correctly held that neither the Tribe’s erroneous prediction of the outcome of litigation, nor its expectation that the government would deny its administrative claims, warrants equitable tolling of the CDA’s six-year limitations period. That decision, however, squarely conflicts with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arctic Slope Native Ass’n v. Sebelius, 699 F .3d 1289 (2012), which found tolling appropriate on materially similar facts. In the government’s view, certiorari is warranted.
Cert petition is here.
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.