Rapport v. Leavitt

564 F. Supp. 2d 186 (2008)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Rapport v. Leavitt

United States District Court for the Western District of New York
564 F. Supp. 2d 186 (2008)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Ruth Rapport (plaintiff) was enrolled in Preferred Care, a Medicare Advantage (MA) program authorized under Part C of the Medicare Act. In January 2006, Preferred Care sent an Evidence of Coverage (EOC) to Rapport detailing all plan benefits and limitations for the 2006 calendar year, including that skilled-nursing-facility (SNF) care would only be covered if immediately preceded by a three-day inpatient hospital stay. In December 2006, at age 90, Rapport broke her ankle. Rapport’s fracture was treated in the hospital, and Rapport was discharged that same day to the Jewish Home and Infirmary, a SNF. Rapport’s treating physician certified a care plan requiring four weeks of skilled nursing care. Preferred Care denied coverage for Rapport’s SNF care because she did not have the prerequisite three-day inpatient hospital stay immediately preceding her admission to the SNF. Rapport petitioned for reconsideration, asking that the prerequisite be waived because SNF care was medically necessary. Preferred Care affirmed the denial, and Rapport petitioned for independent review. After the independent reviewer confirmed the denial of coverage, Rapport requested a hearing before an administrative-law judge (ALJ). Because the Medicare Act allowed MA programs to waive the three-day inpatient stay prerequisite for SNF coverage, the ALJ held that Preferred Care was required to waive the prerequisite and cover Rapport’s SNF care. Preferred Care appealed to the Medicare Appeals Council (MAC). MAC held that Preferred Care could deny coverage for Rapport’s SNF care because it had properly notified Rapport that a three-day inpatient stay was a prerequisite for SNF coverage. The MAC’s findings became the final decision of Michael Leavitt (defendant), the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Rapport appealed the secretary’s final decision in federal district court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Telesca, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership