Free Stipulation - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 46

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 1 of 5

United States Court of Federal Claims

GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc., d/b/a BlueLincs HMO, Texas Health Choice, L.C., and Scott & White Health Plan, Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant.

No. 01-517C Judge Marian Blank Horn

Joint Statement of Issues of Law Pursuant to this Court's Order, dated September 19, 2005, Plaintiffs GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. d/b/a BlueLincs HMO ("BlueLincs"), Texas Health Choice, L.C. ("Texas Health"), and Scott & White Health Plan ("Scott & White"), and Defendant United States of America submit the following Joint Statement of Issues of Law for purposes of their respective motions for summary judgment:

1

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 46

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 2 of 5

BlueLincs 1. Is 48 C.F.R. §1652.216-70(b)(6) invalid on its face and/or as applied to

BlueLincs here? 2. If 48 C.F.R. § 1652.216-70(b)(6) is invalid, is BlueLincs entitled to recover

$369,127, the sum it would have received but for the application of 48 C.F.R. § 1652.21670(b)(6)? 3. Did OPM breach the OPM/BlueLincs Contract? Texas Health 4. Health here? 5. If 48 C.F.R. § 1652.216-70(b)(6) is invalid, is Texas Health entitled to Is 48 C.F.R. §1652.216-70(b)(6) invalid on its face and/or as applied to Texas

recover $622,246, the sum it would have received but for the application of 48 C.F.R. § 1652.215-70(b)(6)? Scott & White 6. White here? 7. If 48 C.F.R. § 1652.216-70(b)(6) is invalid, is Scott & White entitled to recover Is 48 C.F.R. §1652.216-70(b)(6) invalid on its face and/or as applied to Scott &

$3,625,782, the sum it would have received but for the application of 48 C.F.R. § 1652.21570(b)(6)?

2

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 46

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 3 of 5

United States 8. Whether plaintiffs are bound by the contracts they executed which included

the terms of the non-reconciliation regulation at issue, even if the non-reconciliation regulation is held to be invalid. 9. Whether plaintiffs, having performed the contracts, have waived their right to

object to the terms of the contract and/or the regulation, either on its face and/or as applied. Issues Not Agreed Upon 10. Plaintiff BlueLincs and Defendant United States were unable to agree to the

following statement of issue of law: a. Plaintiff BlueLincs proposed statement of issue of law: Is BlueLincs entitled

to recover $369,127 from OPM as a result of OPM's breach of the OPM/BlueLincs Contract? b. Defendant United States assertion: Defendant disagrees because the

statement assumes that OPM breached the contract, a legal conclusion to which defendant does not agree. Further, BlueLincs already agreed in the Joint Stipulation of Facts that, if any money is owed, it is $364,962, not the higher amount of $369,127.

3

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 46

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 4 of 5

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael S. Nadel ______________________ Michael S. Nadel McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 756-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Texas Health Choice, L.C. and Scott & White Health Plan /s/ Daniel B. Abrahams ___________________________ Daniel B. Abrahams Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 1227 25th Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington D.C. 20037 (202) 861-0900 Attorneys for Plaintiff GHS Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. d/b/a BlueLincs HMO Peter D. Keisler Assistant Attorney General

4

Case 1:01-cv-00517-MBH

Document 46

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 5 of 5

/s/ David M. Cohen ______________________ David M. Cohen Director

/s/ Jane W. Vanneman ______________________ Jane W. Vanneman U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 307-1011 Attorneys for Defendant United States

5