Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

-—--»~ 11..., T11!. · _
Case 3:03-cv-00689-PCD Document? Filed 05/19/ZOM Page11of2 ig
"
1 1
1 1 @1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 §Q
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT G yms _V.? I
———----——————--—————— - -—-—————~---— x . S Q1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
ex rei. KEVIN COSENS, ; l m ii] * i.;§i ns ‘u=—1
.1_ mi ..·- `· .;
- against - : No. 3:03CV6v9(GLG) i E
MEMORANDUM 'FP QISION1 _ .|
HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL, : 1; g
Defendant. : 1 QJ
```"```"```````“````”"```"`"`“````` X
Harper—Hutzel Hospital, one of the forty dei idants 'n the ng
MDL litigation, has filed a supplemental motion E L memo·.ndum @9

[Doc. # 5] in support of the Motions to Dismiss,m lich eiphasizes 11
the fact that the Government initially indicatedv ·at it las not ii
going to intervene in the case against Harper-Hui rl. It iurther if
1; 1 1
I 1 1 1
cites to the case of United States ex rel. Swaffw v v. Bma•ess .
1 `1
Medical Center, 98 F. Supp. 2d 822 (W.D. Mich. 21 N), afild, 2001 y
WL 1609913 (6th Cir. 2001) , cert. denied, 535 U. 1096 { 002) ,
1 ‘.
which it contends is binding precedent in the si} · Circ t where "
it is located. The Government has not filed any1 vparata is

opposition to this motion. 1 if
Initially we note that at oral argument, alc ·ounse were in if
agreement that the law of the Second Circuit conn mlled 1» the is
MDL litigation. Additionally, for the reasons si forth 'n our 1i

May 12, 2004 decision on the motions to dismiss 1 the Mm .{
litigation, United States ex rel. Swafford is di; ·nguisi-ble Ei
from the facts of the instant case. Lastly, we i not f` d that if
1 i*1
1 ; .1
1 : I1
1 I 1
1 1

— . .. - .. - ..__ . .. . .. S __ -2
-2--- V-r`--H V-r'--H -V-i-uu 7-* I--- +*- _— it iv hu H!-V V-- ur V-- V V I- V I- V `"V °`;""' V"‘;-~*_`_¤—-_-.'.Iri;'f§.`i_j,_·-7;;__r_»i2--:; -.-.*2,,;; -V-_i ___:; "-im-i`:-r`-:-- VM"---
__ gg ·· ~ ·· -- ··-- ··-- ---- --.. --.. --.. ..__ ..__ ..__ ____ ____ ____ ____ -___
-r#——— —e—.—c.i%%_ I no I-'' Illn Il`' Il`` Il`` '``‘ ``.‘‘ `_`_‘ i ‘1‘_ ‘‘_· jg_;-_;-3--_;.ifi.iT1i`TTT
.‘‘· · .‘‘- - .··. . '--. . --'_ ___ _ _ _` _Q - I H I H `'`‘ " ‘‘‘‘’ -·¤=~ -.-i- >;¢=¢; ,=.~ »··:: .-.~ . '--- 1.; _-_. V `... , ._.g.‘___ _ ·___
if " " ·’ ·· ____ ____ ____ __·- V-

......... . ;____________L__\u
U Case 3:03-cv-00689-PCD Document? Filed 05/19/2Q? Page of2 L ,·._
— ' F éql
the Government's initial declaration that it decli ed tol l`
intervene against Harper—Hutzel impacts our ruliwg. on t = id
motions to dismiss. It may have some bearing Ongp gjudj¤= ge
suffered by Harper—Hutzel, but that is a matter ihlt can •t be Eg
resolved on a motion to dismiss. i QQ
Accordingly, for these reasons and for the ieasons ~=t forth gi
in the Court’s Opinion of May l2, 2004 in the MDE litiga ion, in ge
re. Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation, 3:O3MDl5%5·GLG), he gi
Court adheres to its ruling in the MDL litigatiom and DE IES the gi
. I wifi
Motion to Dismiss in all respects except that thm lotion o Ei
Dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds is GRAéT=D as E! all ih
. . . I - ; ¥¥
common~law claims for payment by mistake, UHjUStj€¤flChm=¤t and ei
recoupment, which are based on Medicare claims f¥lvd pri• to in
March 3l, 1988. T gi
so oR0ERE0.
Date: May L, 2004.
Waterbury, Connecticut. { Eg
ll 2 ,n, E
.GERl%RD L. sosrrssi, I
United States District yuuge ;·

i Ri

e I il
. , ln