Indian Self-Determination Contract

Background: Pedestrian who allegedly slipped and fell in a gas station convenience store owned by tribal development corporation, which was an entity of Indian tribe, brought action against, inter alia, insurer for the Indian tribe and insurer’s administrator, seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of the slip-and-fall. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Holdings: The District Court, Howard D. McKibben, J., held that:

(1) pedestrian lacked standing to enforce the Indian tribe’s contract with insurer under Nevada law, and (2) pedestrian lacked standing to assert claim against insurer for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Nevada law.

Motions granted.

Seneca Nation Sues Feds over IHS Self-Determination Funding

September 17, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Seneca Nation of Indians v. HHS (D. D.C.):

Seneca v HHS Complaint

Navajo DPS Employee Claims for Wages under 638 Contract Dismissed

November 19, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Boye v. United States (Fed. Cl.) — Boye v United States

An excerpt:

In the above-captioned action, plaintiffs allege that they have not been paid the wages and benefits to which they are entitled pursuant to various self-determination contracts executed by their employer, the Navajo Nation, and the United States Department of the Interior (“Department of the Interior”). They bring their claim as purported third-party beneficiaries. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). As explained in more detail below, the court grants defendant’s motion.

MHA Nation Survives Motion to Dismiss Claims for Contract Support Costs from IHS

July 29, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Three Affiliated Tribes v. United States (D. D.C.) — MHA Nation v. US DCT Order

An excerpt:

laintiff Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (“Three Tribes”) brings this action against the United States of America, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert G. McSwain, Director of the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), and Charlene M. Red Thunder, Acting Area Director of the IHS, in their official capacities (collectively, “defendants”). The dispute arises from a contract proposal Three Tribes submitted to defendants to provide health services within its reservation pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. Three Tribes claims that defendants improperly declined two portions of that proposal: (1) inclusion of contract support costs (“CSCs”) in Three Tribes’ annual funding agreement (Count I); and (2) permission to provide health care services to non-Indians pursuant to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (“IHCIA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1680c(b) (Count II). Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.

The materials:

IHS Motion to Dismiss

MHA Opposition Brief

IHS Reply Brief