United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
GREGORY A. PRESNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. 82) filed by the Plaintiff, MSPA
Claims 1, LLC (henceforth, “MSPA”), and the
response in opposition (Doc. 96) filed by the Defendant,
Halifax Health, Inc. (“Halifax”). MSPA seeks
reconsideration of this Court's order of March 2, 2018
(Doc. 75) dismissing, with prejudice, its double-damages
claim against Halifax under 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A).
MSPA is asserting the claim as the assignee of Florida
Healthcare Plus, Inc. (“FHPI”), which is alleged
to have overpaid Halifax by $10, 000. The claim was dismissed
on the grounds that the statute only authorizes such claims
against primary insurers rather than health care providers
such as Halifax.
Motions for Reconsideration
the federal rules do not specifically provide for the filing
of a “motion for reconsideration, ” Van
Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.
1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828, 113 S.Ct. 89, 121
L.Ed.2d 51 (1992), it is widely known that Rule 59(e)
encompasses motions for reconsideration. 11 Charles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure 2d § 2810.1 (2007). However,
due to the need to conserve scarce judicial resources and in
the interest of finality, reconsideration is an extraordinary
remedy that is to be employed sparingly. U.S. v.
Bailey, 288 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1267 (M.D. Fla. 2003). The
decision on whether to alter or amend a judgement is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court.
O'Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th
authorities generally recognize four basic grounds upon which
Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:
First, the movant may demonstrate that the motion is
necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon
which the judgment is based. Second, the motion may be
granted so that the moving party may present newly discovered
or previously unavailable evidence. Third, the motion will be
granted if necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Serious
misconduct of counsel may justify relief under this theory.
Fourth, a Rule 59(e) motion may be justified by an
intervening change in controlling law.
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice & Procedure 2d § 2810.1 (2007).
parties may not use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old
matters, Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington,
Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005), or to raise
new legal arguments which could and should have been made
during the pendency of the underlying motion, Sanderlin
v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 243 F.3d 1282, 1292 (11th
Cir. 2001). To avoid repetitive arguments on issues already
considered fully by the court, rules governing reargument are
narrowly construed and strictly applied. St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co. v. Heath Fielding Ins. Broking
Ltd., 976 F.Supp 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Medicare Advantage Organizations and Secondary
originally constituted, Medicare paid for all medical
treatment within its scope and left private insurers to pick
up whatever expenses remained. See Humana Medical Plan,
Inc. v. Western Heritage Insurance Company, 832 F.3d
1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2016). In 1980, in an effort to curb
the rising costs of Medicare, Congress enacted the MSP Act,
42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b) [the “MSP”], which made
other insurers covering the same treatment the primary payers
and Medicare the secondary payer. Id. To accomplish
this, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A) forbids Medicare from
making payments - with one exception - for any item or
service when payment has been made (or can reasonably be
expected to be made) by another form of insurance, such as a
group health plan, worker's compensation law, or
automobile insurance. These other forms of insurance are
referred to as “primary plans.” 42 U.S.C. §
exception is found in 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B), which
authorizes Medicare to make a “conditional
payment” if a primary plan “has not made or
cannot reasonably be expected to make payment with respect to
such item or service promptly”. Any such payments are
“conditioned on reimbursement” to Medicare. 42
U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(i). A primary plan - and an
entity that receives payment from a primary plan - must
reimburse Medicare for any conditional payment “if it
is demonstrated that such primary plan has or had a
responsibility to make payment with respect to such item or
service.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(i).
To facilitate recovery of conditional payments, the MSP
provides for a government action against any entity that was
responsible for payment under a primary plan, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii), and subrogates the United States
to the rights of a Medicare beneficiary to collect payment
under a primary plan for items already paid by Medicare,
§ 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iv). The MSP also creates a private
right of action with double recovery to encourage private
parties who ...