Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of San Carlos Apache Health Care Contract Support Costs Suit

Here is the opinion in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Beccera.

An excerpt:

A simplified example clarifies this scheme. Assume that a tribe administers a $3 million healthcare program for its members. It costs the tribe $500,000 in administrative costs to do so. IHS therefore will pay the tribe $3.5 million. Additionally, the tribe recovers $1 million for those procedures from outside insurers. It is statutorily required to spend that $1 million on health care as well.
But there is a hole in this statutory scheme. Who pays the CSC for that additional $1 million in health care that the tribe must provide with its third-party revenue? At the heart of this lawsuit is Plaintiff-Appellant San Carlos Apache Tribe’s (“the Tribe”) contention that IHS must cover those additional CSC.

Briefs here.

This guy’s not Apache but he’s happy for them.

D.C. Circuit Reverses Indirect Costs Judgment that Favored Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Here are the materials in Cook Inlet Tribal Council v. Dotomain:

D.C. Circuit opinion

Federal Brief

Tribe Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

D.C. Circuit Rejects Tribal Contract Support Costs Claim re: Insurance Money

Here is the opinion in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Becerra.

Briefs:

Swinomish Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Swinomish Reply

Lower court materials here.

 

Swinomish Loses Contract Support Costs Dispute with Indian Health Service

Here are the materials in Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Azar (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

21-2 Swinomish MSJ

27 US Cross-Motion

29 Swinomish Reply

32 US Reply

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The question in this case is whether, when a tribe collects its own third-party revenue pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1641(d)(1), its expenditures of those funds on health care services are eligible for CSC funding from the IHS under the ISDEAA, id. §§ 5325, 5388.

Materials in Cook Inlet Tribal Council Suit against Indian Health Service

Here are the materials in Cook Inlet Tribal Council v. Mandregan (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

13-1 Tribe MSJ

15 IHS Cross MSJ

18 Tribe Reply

21 IHS Reply

39 DCT Order

40 Tribe Bill of Costs

41 Tribe Motion for Atty Fees

42 IHS Response to 40

43 IHS Motion for Reconsideration

44 Tribe Reply in Support of 41

51 Tribe Cross Motion for Reconsideration

58 IHS Response to 41

60 IHS Reply in Support of 43

61 Tribe Reply in Support of 41

65 DCT Order

Navajo Nation Seeks Proposals to Assist with Claims for Unpaid Contract Support Costs

Here:

The Navajo Nation Department of Justice seeks outside counsel assistance in pursuing the Navajo Nation’s claims for unpaid contract support costs from P.L. 93-638 contracts entered into with the Indian Health Service (IHS).  This would include developing claims for unpaid contract support costs, entering into settlement negotiations with IHS and, if necessary, making recommendations to the Attorney General for litigation of those claims if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached.  Qualifications include experience in and knowledge of Federal Indian law, especially the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), P.L. 93-638, as amended, and experience filing claims for payment of contract support costs pursuant to the ISDEAA. 

Proposals must be received by email by the Navajo Nation Department of Justice by no later than 5:00 PM MT on September 16, 2016.  NO LATE PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

2016-08-29 – IHS CSC Counsel_Final RFP

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States Materials

Here are the materials in Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States.

Supreme Court Merits Briefs

Menominee Tribe Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

US Brief

Menominee Reply

Cert Stage Briefs

Cert Petition

US Brief

D.C. Circuit Materials

DC Circuit Opinion

Menominee Opening Brief 2013

IHS Brief

Menominee Reply Brief

District Court Materials

DCT Order Dismissing Menominee Claims

IHS Motion to Dismiss

Menominee Motion for Summary J

Earlier D.C. Circuit Materials

DC Circuit Opinion 2010