throbber
(Slip Opinion)
`
`
`
` OCTOBER TERM, 2012
`
`
`Syllabus
`
`1
`
` NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
`
`
`
` being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
`
`
`
` The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
`
` prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
`
` See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
` Syllabus
`
`SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
`
`SERVICES v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL
`
`
`
`CENTER ET AL.
`
`
`CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
`
`THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
` No. 11–1231. Argued December 4, 2012—Decided January 22, 2013
`
`The reimbursement amount health care providers receive for inpatient
`
`services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries is adjusted upward for
`
`hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients.
`
`The adjustment amount is determined in part by the percentage of a
`
`hospital’s patients who are eligible for Supplemental Security Income
`(SSI), called the SSI fraction. Each year, the Centers for Medicare &
`
`
`Medicaid Services (CMS) calculates the SSI fraction for an eligible
`hospital and submits that number to the hospital’s “fiscal intermedi-
`ary,” a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contractor.
`The intermediary computes the reimbursement amount due and then
`sends the hospital a Notice of Program Reimbursement (NPR). A
`provider dissatisfied with the determination has a right to appeal to
`the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB or Board) within
`180 days of receiving the NPR. 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a)(3). By regula-
`tion, the Secretary of HHS authorized the PRRB to extend the 180-
`
`
`day limit, for good cause, up to three years. See 42 CFR 405.1841(b)
`(2007).
`
` The Baystate Medical Center—not a party here—timely appealed
`
`its SSI fraction calculation for each year from 1993 through 1996.
`The PRRB found that errors in CMS’s methodology resulted in a sys-
`
`tematic undercalculation of the disproportionate share adjustment
`
`
`and corresponding underpayments to providers. In March 2006, the
`
`Board’s Baystate decision was made public. Within 180 days, re-
`spondent hospitals filed a complaint with the Board, challenging
`
`their adjustments for 1987 through 1994. Acknowledging that their
`challenges were more than a decade out of time, they urged that eq-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`2
`
`
`
`SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`
`Syllabus
`uitable tolling of the limitations period was in order due to CMS’s
`failure to tell them about the computation error. The PRRB held that
`it lacked jurisdiction, reasoning that it had no equitable powers save
`those legislation or regulation might confer. On judicial review, the
`
`District Court dismissed the hospitals’ claims. The D. C. Circuit re-
`versed. The presumption that statutory limitations periods are gen-
`
`erally subject to equitable tolling, the court concluded, applied to the
`180-day time limit because nothing in §1395oo(a)(3) indicated that
`Congress intended to disallow such tolling.
`Held:
`
`
`1. The 180-day limitation in §1395oo(a)(3) is not “jurisdictional.”
`Pp. 6–9.
`
`(a) Unless Congress has “clearly state[d]” that a statutory limita-
`tion is jurisdictional, the restriction should be treated “as nonjuris-
`
`dictional.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515–516.
`“[C]ontext, including this Court’s interpretations of similar provisions
`in many years past,” is probative of whether Congress intended a
`particular provision to rank as jurisdictional. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
`Muchnick, 559 U. S. ___, ___. If §1395oo(a)(3) were jurisdictional, the
`180-day time limit could not be enlarged by agency or court.
`
` Section 1395oo(a)(3) hardly reveals a design to preclude any regu-
`
`latory extension. The provision instructs that a provider “may obtain
`
`a hearing” by filing “a request . . . within 180 days after notice of the
`intermediary’s final determination.” It “does not speak in jurisdic-
`
`
`tional terms.” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385, 394.
`
`This Court has repeatedly held that filing deadlines ordinarily are
`not jurisdictional; indeed, they have been described as “quintessen-
`
`tial claim-processing rules.” Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U. S. ___,
`___. Pp. 6–8.
`(b) Court-appointed amicus urges that §1395oo(a)(3) should be
`classified as a jurisdictional requirement based on its proximity to
`§§1395oo(a)(1) and (a)(2), both jurisdictional requirements, amicus
`asserts. But a requirement that would otherwise be nonjurisdictional
`
`
`does not become jurisdictional simply because it is in a section of a
`statute that also contains jurisdictional provisions. Gonzalez v. Tha-
`ler, 565 U. S. ___, ___. Amicus also urges that the Medicare Act’s ex-
`press grant of authority for the Secretary to extend the time for bene-
`ficiary appeals implies the absence of such leeway for §1395oo(a)(3)’s
`provider appeals. In support, amicus relies on the general rule that
`Congress’s use of “certain language in one part of the statute and dif-
`
`ferent language in another” can indicate that “different meanings
`
`were intended,” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692, 711, n. 9.
`But that interpretive guide, like other canons of construction, is “no
`more than [a] rul[e] of thumb” that can tip the scales when a statute
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`
`Syllabus
`could be read in multiple ways. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain,
`
`503 U. S. 249, 253. Here, §1395oo(a)’s limitation is most sensibly
`characterized as nonjurisdictional. Pp. 8–9.
`
`
`2. The Secretary’s regulation is a permissible interpretation of
`
`§1395oo(a)(3). Pp. 10–14.
`
`
`(a) Congress vested in the Secretary large rulemaking authority
`
`to administer Medicare. A court lacks authority to undermine the
`Secretary’s regime unless her regulation is “arbitrary, capricious, or
`manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural
`Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844. Here, the regula-
`tion survives inspection under that deferential standard. The Secre-
`tary brought to bear practical experience in superintending the huge
`program generally, and the PRRB in particular, in maintaining a
`three-year outer limit for intermediary determination challenges. A
`
`court must uphold her judgment as long as it is a permissible con-
`struction of the statute, even if the court would have interpreted the
`
`statute differently absent agency regulation. Pp. 10–11.
`
`
`
`(b) A presumption of equitable tolling generally applies to suits
`
`against the United States, Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
`
`
`498 U.S. 89, 95–96, but application of this presumption is not in or-
`der for §1395oo(a)(3). This Court has never applied Irwin’s presump-
`tion to an agency’s internal appeal deadline. The presumption was
`adopted in part on the premise that “[s]uch a principle is likely to be
`
`
`a realistic assessment of legislative intent.” Irwin, 498 U. S., at 95.
`That premise is inapt in the context of providers’ administrative ap-
`peals under the Medicare Act. For nearly 40 years the Secretary has
`prohibited the Board from extending the 180-day deadline, except as
`provided by regulation. In the six times §1395oo has been amended
`since 1974, Congress has left untouched the 180-day provision and
`the Secretary’s rulemaking authority. Furthermore, the statutory
`scheme, which applies to sophisticated institutional providers, is not
`designed to be “ ‘unusually protective’ of claimants.” Bowen v. City of
`
`
`
`New York, 476 U. S. 467, 480. Nor is the scheme one “in which lay-
`men, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process.” Zipes, 455
`U. S., at 397.
`
`
`The hospitals ultimately argue that the Secretary’s regulations fail
`
`to adhere to “fundamentals of fair play.” FCC v. Pottsville Broadcast-
`ing Co., 309 U. S. 134, 143. They point to 42 CFR §405.1885(b)(3),
`which permits reopening of an intermediary’s reimbursement deter-
`mination “at any time” if the determination was procured by fraud or
`fault of the provider. But this Court has explained that giving inter-
`mediaries more time to discover overpayments than providers have to
`discover underpayments may be justified by the “administrative real-
`ities” of the system: a few dozen fiscal intermediaries are charged
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`4
`
`
`
`
` SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`
`Syllabus
`with issuing tens of thousands of NPRs, while each provider can con-
`centrate on a single NPR, its own. Your Home Visiting Nurse Ser-
`
`
` vices, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U. S. 449, 455, 456. Pp. 11–14.
`642 F. 3d 1145, reversed and remanded.
`GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SO-
`
`TOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`1
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
`
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
`
`
` that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`_________________
`
` No. 11–1231
`_________________
`
` KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH
`
` AND HUMAN SERVICES, PETITIONER v. AU-
`
`
`
`BURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL.
`
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`
`APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`
`[January 22, 2013]
`
` JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
`This case concerns the time within which health care
`
`providers may file an administrative appeal from the
`initial determination of the reimbursement due them for
`inpatient services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries.
`
`Government contractors, called
`fiscal
`intermediaries,
`receive cost reports annually from care providers and
`notify them of the reimbursement amount for which they
`qualify. A provider dissatisfied with the fiscal intermedi-
`ary’s determination may appeal to an administrative body
`named the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB
`or Board). The governing statute, §602(h)(l)(D), 97 Stat.
`165, 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a)(3), sets a 180-day limit for
`filing appeals from the fiscal intermediary to the PRRB.
`By a regulation promulgated in 1974, the Secretary of the
`Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) author-
`ized the Board to extend the 180-day limitation, for good
`cause, up to three years.1
`
`——————
`1The agency was called the Department of Health, Education, and
`
`Welfare until 1979, but for simplicity’s sake we refer to it as HHS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`2
`
`
` SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`Opinion of the Court
`The providers in this case are hospitals who appealed to
`
`the PRRB more than ten years after expiration of the 180-
`day statutory deadline. They assert that the Secretary’s
`failure to disclose information that made the fiscal inter-
`mediary’s reimbursement calculation incorrect prevented
`them from earlier appealing to the Board. Three positions
`have been briefed and argued regarding the time for pro-
`viders’ appeals to the PRRB. First, a Court-appointed
`amicus curiae has urged that the 180-day limitation is
`“jurisdictional,” and therefore cannot be enlarged at all by
`agency or court. Second, the Government maintains that
`the Secretary has the prerogative to set an outer limit of
`three years for appeals to the Board. And third, the hos-
`pitals argue that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies,
`stopping the 180-day clock during the time the Secretary
`concealed the information that made the fiscal interme-
`diary’s reimbursement determinations incorrect.
`We hold that the statutory 180-day limitation is not
`
`“jurisdictional,” and that the Secretary reasonably con-
`strued the statute to permit a regulation extending the
`time for a provider’s appeal to the PRRB to three years.
`We further hold that the presumption in favor of equitable
`tolling does not apply to administrative appeals of the
`
`kind here at issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I
`The Medicare program covers certain inpatient services
`
`that hospitals provide to Medicare beneficiaries. Provid-
`ers are reimbursed at a fixed amount per patient, regard-
`less of the actual operating costs they incur in rendering
`these services. But the total reimbursement amount is
`adjusted upward for hospitals that serve a disproportion-
`ate share of low-income patients. This adjustment is
`made because hospitals with an unusually high percent-
`——————
`throughout this opinion.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`age of low-income patients generally have higher per-
`patient costs; such hospitals, Congress therefore found,
`should receive higher reimbursement rates. See H. R.
`Rep. No. 99–241, pt. 1, p. 16 (1985). The amount of the
`disproportionate share adjustment is determined in part
`by the percentage of the patients served by the hospital
`
`who are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
`payments, a percentage commonly called the SSI fraction.
`42 U. S. C. §1395ww(d) (2006 ed. and Supp. V).
`
`At the end of each year, providers participating in Medi-
`
`care submit cost reports to contractors acting on behalf of
`HHS known as fiscal intermediaries. Also at year end,
`the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) cal-
`
`culates the SSI fraction for each eligible hospital and
`
`submits that number to the intermediary for that hospital.
`
`Using these numbers to determine the total payment due,
`the intermediary issues a Notice of Program Reimburse-
`ment (NPR) informing the provider how much it will be
`paid for the year.
`
`If a provider is dissatisfied with the intermediary’s re-
`imbursement determination, the statute gives it the right
`to file a request for a hearing before the PRRB within
`
`180 days of receiving the NPR. §1395oo(a)(3) (2006 ed.)
`In 1974, the Secretary promulgated a regulation, after
`
`notice and comment rulemaking, permitting the Board to
`extend the 180-day time limit upon a showing of good
`cause; the regulation further provides that “no such exten-
`sion shall be granted by the Board if such request is filed
`more than 3 years after the date the notice of the interme-
`diary’s determination is mailed to the provider.” 39 Fed.
`
`Reg. 34517 (1974) (codified in 42 CFR §405.1841(b)
`
`(2007)).2
`——————
` 2In 2008, after this case commenced, the Secretary replaced the 1974
`
`regulation with a new prescription limiting “good cause” to “extraordi-
`
` nary circumstances beyond [the provider’s] control (such as a natural or
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`Opinion of the Court
`For many years, CMS released only the results of its
`
`
` SSI fraction calculations and not the underlying data.3
`The Baystate Medical Center—a hospital not party to this
`case—timely appealed the calculation of its SSI fraction
`for each year from 1993 through 1996. Eventually, the
`PRRB determined that CMS had omitted several catego-
`ries of SSI data from its calculations and was using a
`flawed process to determine the number of low-income
`
`beneficiaries treated by hospitals. These errors caused a
`systematic undercalculation of the disproportionate share
`adjustment, resulting in underpayments to the providers.
`
`Baystate Medical Center v. Leavitt, 545 F. Supp. 2d 20,
`
`26–30 (DC 2008); see id., at 57–58 (concluding that CMS
`failed to use “the best available data”).
`
`The methodological errors revealed by the Board’s Bay-
`
`state decision would have yielded similarly reduced pay-
`ments to all providers for which CMS had calculated
`an SSI fraction. In March 2006, the Board’s decision in
`the Baystate case was made public. Within 180 days, the
`hospitals in this case filed a complaint with the Board
`seeking to challenge their disproportionate share adjust-
`ments for the years 1987 through 1994. The hospitals
`acknowledged that their challenges, unlike Baystate’s
`timely contest, were more than a decade out of time. But
`equitable tolling of the limitations period was in order,
`they urged, due to CMS’s failure to inform the hospitals
`——————
`other catastrophe, fire, or strike).” 73 Fed. Reg. 30250 (2008) (codified
`in 42 CFR §405.1836(b) (2012)). The new regulation retains the strict
`three-year cutoff for all claims. §405.1836(c)(2). The parties agree that
`
`this case is governed by the 1974 regulation, and our opinion today
`addresses only that regulation.
`3In §951 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Mod-
`ernization Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 2427, Congress required the Secretary
`to furnish hospitals with the data necessary to compute their own
`disproportionate share adjustment. Pursuant to this congressional
`mandate, the Secretary has adopted procedures for turning over the
`SSI data to hospitals upon request. 70 Fed. Reg. 47438 (2005).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`that their SSI fractions had been based on faulty data.
`
`
`The PRRB held that it lacked jurisdiction over the
`hospitals’ complaint, reasoning that it had no equitable
`powers save those legislation or regulation might confer,
`and that the Secretary’s regulation permitted it to excuse
`late appeals only for good cause, with three years as the
`outer limit. On judicial review, the District Court dis-
`missed the hospitals’ claims for relief, holding that noth-
`ing in the statute suggests that “Congress intended to
`
`authorize equitable tolling.” 686 F. Supp. 2d 55, 70 (DC
`2010).
`The Court of Appeals reversed. 642 F. 3d 1145 (CADC
`
`2011). It relied on the presumption that statutory limita-
`tions periods are generally subject to equitable tolling and
`reasoned that “‘the same rebuttable presumption of equi-
`table tolling applicable to suits against private defendants
`
`should also apply to suits against the United States.’” Id.,
`at 1148 (quoting Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
`498 U. S. 89, 95–96 (1990)). The presumption applies
`to the 180-day time limit for provider appeals from re-
`imbursement determinations, the Court of Appeals held,
`finding nothing in the statutory provision for PRRB re-
`view indicating that Congress intended to disallow equi-
`table tolling. 642 F. 3d, at 1149–1151.
`
`We granted the Secretary’s petition for certiorari, 567
`U. S. ___ (2012), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of
`Appeals over whether the 180-day time limit in 42 U. S. C.
`§1395oo(a)(3) constricts the Board’s jurisdiction. Compare
`642 F. 3d 1145 (case below); Western Medical Enterprises,
`Inc. v. Heckler, 783 F. 2d 1376, 1379–1380 (CA9
`1986) (180-day limit is not jurisdictional and the Secretary
`may extend it for good cause), with Alacare Home Health
`Servs., Inc. v. Sullivan, 891 F. 2d 850, 855–856 (CA11
`1990) (statute of limitations is jurisdictional and the Sec-
`retary lacked authority to promulgate good-cause excep-
`
`tion); St. Joseph’s Hospital of Kansas City v. Heckler, 786
`
`

`
`
`SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`Opinion of the Court
`F. 2d 848, 852–853 (CA8 1986) (same). Beyond the juris-
`dictional inquiry,4 the Secretary asked us to determine
`whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that
`equitable tolling applies to providers’ Medicare reim-
`bursement appeals to the PRRB, notwithstanding the
`Secretary’s regulation barring such appeals after three
`years.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`II
`
`A
`
`
`
`Characterizing a rule as jurisdictional renders it unique
`in our adversarial system. Objections to a tribunal’s ju-
`risdiction can be raised at any time, even by a party that
`once conceded the tribunal’s subject-matter jurisdiction
`
`
`over the controversy. Tardy jurisdictional objections can
`therefore result in a waste of adjudicatory resources and
`can disturbingly disarm litigants. See Henderson v.
`Shinseki, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 5); Arbaugh
`v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 514 (2006). With these
`untoward consequences in mind, “we have tried in recent
`cases to bring some discipline to the use” of the term
`“jurisdiction.” Henderson, 562 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5);
`
`see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523
`U. S. 83, 90 (1998) (jurisdiction has been a “word of many,
`too many, meanings” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`To ward off profligate use of the term “jurisdiction,”
`we have adopted a “readily administrable bright line” for
`determining whether to classify a statutory limitation as
`jurisdictional. Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 516. We inquire
`whether Congress has “clearly state[d]” that the rule is
`jurisdictional; absent such a clear statement, we have
`——————
`4Because no party takes the view that the statutory 180-day time
`
`limit is jurisdictional, we appointed John F. Manning to brief and argue
`
` this position as amicus curiae. 567 U. S. ___ (2012). Amicus Manning
`has ably discharged his assigned responsibilities and the Court thanks
`
`
` him for his well-stated arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`cautioned, “courts should treat the restriction as nonjuris-
`
`dictional in character.” Id., at 515–516; see also Gonzalez
`v. Thaler, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 6); Hender-
`son, 562 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6). This is not to say that
`Congress must incant magic words in order to speak
`clearly. We consider “context, including this Court’s inter-
`pretations of similar provisions in many years past,” as
`probative of whether Congress intended a particular
`provision to rank as jurisdictional. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
`Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 168 (2010); see also John R.
`Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 133–
`134 (2008).
`
`
`We reiterate what it would mean were we to type the gov-
`erning statute, 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a)(3), “jurisdictional.”
`Under no circumstance could providers engage PRRB re-
`view more than 180 days after notice of the fiscal inter-
`
`mediary’s final determination. Not only could there be no
`equitable tolling. The Secretary’s regulation providing for
`
`a good-cause extension, see supra, at 3, would fall as well.
`
`The language Congress used hardly reveals a design to
`preclude any regulatory extension. Section 1395oo(a)(3)
`instructs that a provider of services “may obtain a hear-
`ing” by the Board regarding its reimbursement amount if
`“such provider files a request for a hearing within 180
`days after notice of the intermediary’s final determina-
`tion.” This provision “does not speak in jurisdictional
`terms.” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U. S. 385,
`394 (1982). Indeed, it is less “jurisdictional” in tone than
`the provision we held to be nonjurisdictional in Henderson.
`There, the statute provided that a veteran seeking Veter-
`
`ans Court review of the Department of Veterans Affairs’
`
`determination of disability benefits “shall file a notice of
`appeal . . . within 120 days.” 562 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at
`9) (quoting 38 U. S. C. §7266(a) (emphasis added)). Sec-
`tion 1395oo(a)(3), by contrast, contains neither the manda-
`
`tory word “shall” nor the appellation “notice of appeal,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`Opinion of the Court
`words with jurisdictional import in the context of 28
`U. S. C. §2107’s limitations on the time for appeal from a
`
` district court to a court of appeals. See Bowles v. Russell,
`551 U. S. 205, 214 (2007).
`Key to our decision, we have repeatedly held that filing
`
`deadlines ordinarily are not jurisdictional; indeed, we have
`described them as “quintessential claim-processing rules.”
`Henderson, 562 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6); see also Scar-
`borough v. Principi, 541 U. S. 401, 414 (2004) (filing dead-
`line for fee applications under Equal Access to Justice
`Act); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 454 (2004) (filing
`deadlines for objecting to debtor’s discharge in bank-
`ruptcy); Honda v. Clark, 386 U. S. 484, 498 (1967) (filing
`deadline for claims under the Trading with the Enemy
`Act). This case is scarcely the exceptional one in which a “cen-
`tury’s worth of precedent and practice in American courts”
`rank a time limit as jurisdictional. Bowles, 551 U. S., at
`209, n. 2; cf. Kontrick, 540 U. S., at 454 (a time limitation
`may be emphatic, yet not jurisdictional).
`B
`
`Amicus urges that the three requirements in §1395oo(a)
`are specifications that together define the limits of the
`PRRB’s jurisdiction. Subsection (a)(1) specifies the claims
`providers may bring to the Board, and subsection (a)(2)
`sets forth an amount-in-controversy requirement. These
`are jurisdictional requirements, amicus asserts, so we
`should read the third specification, subsection (a)(3)’s
`
`
`
`180-day limitation, as also setting a jurisdictional
`requirement.
`
`Last Term, we rejected a similar proximity-based argu-
`
`ment. A requirement we would otherwise classify as
`nonjurisdictional, we held, does not become jurisdictional
`simply because it is placed in a section of a statute that
`
`also contains jurisdictional provisions. Gonzalez, 565
`U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11); see Weinberger v. Salfi, 422
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`U. S. 749, 763–764 (1975) (statutory provision at issue
`
`contained three requirements for judicial review, only one
`of which was jurisdictional).
`
`Amicus also argues that the 180-day time limit for pro-
`vider appeals to the PRRB should be viewed as jurisdic-
`tional because Congress could have expressly made the
`provision nonjurisdictional, and indeed did so for other
`
`time limits in the Medicare Act. Amicus notes particularly
`that when Medicare beneficiaries request the Secretary
`to reconsider a benefits determination, the statute gives
`
`them a time limit of 180 days or “such additional time as
`
`the Secretary may allow.” 42 U. S. C. §1395ff(b)(1)(D)(i);
`see also §1395ff(b)(1)(D)(ii) (permitting Medicare benefi-
`
`ciary to request a hearing by the Secretary within “time
`limits” the Secretary “shall establish in regulations”). We
`have recognized, as a general rule, that Congress’s use of
`“certain language in one part of the statute and different
`
`language in another” can indicate that “different meanings
`were intended.” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692,
`711, n. 9 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ami-
`cus notes this general rule in urging that an express grant
`of authority for the Secretary to extend the time for bene-
`ficiary appeals implies the absence of such leeway for
`
`provider appeals.
`
`But the interpretive guide just identified, like other
`canons of construction, is “no more than [a] rul[e] of
`thumb” that can tip the scales when a statute could be
`read in multiple ways. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain,
`503 U. S. 249, 253 (1992). For the reasons earlier stated,
`see supra, at 6–8, we are persuaded that the time limi-
`tation in §1395oo(a) is most sensibly characterized as a
`nonjurisdictional prescription. The limitation therefore
`does not bar the modest extension contained in the Secre-
`tary’s regulation.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`10
`
`
`
`
` SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
` III
`We turn now to the question whether §1395oo(a)(3)’s
`
`
`
` 180-day time limit for a provider to appeal to the PRRB is
`subject to equitable tolling.
`
`A
`Congress vested in the Secretary large rulemaking
`
`authority to administer the Medicare program. The PRRB
`may adopt rules and procedures only if “not inconsistent”
`with the Medicare Act or “regulations of the Secretary.”
`
`42 U. S. C. §1395oo(e). Concerning the 180-day period
`
`for an appeal to the Board from an intermediary’s reim-
`bursement determination, the Secretary’s regulation im-
`plementing §1395oo, adopted after notice and comment,
`
`speaks in no uncertain terms:
`“A request for a Board hearing filed after [the 180-day
`time limit] shall be dismissed by the Board, except
`that for good cause shown, the time limit may be ex-
`tended. However, no such extension shall be granted
`
`by the Board if such request is filed more than 3 years
`after the date the notice of the intermediary’s deter-
`mination
`is mailed to the provider.” 42 CFR
`§405.1841(b) (2007).
`The Secretary allowed only a distinctly limited exten-
`
`sion of time to appeal to the PRRB, cognizant that “the
`Board is burdened by an immense caseload,” and that
`“procedural rules requiring timely filings are indispens-
`able devices for keeping the machinery of the reimburse-
`ment appeals process running smoothly.” High Country
`Home Health, Inc. v. Thompson, 359 F. 3d 1307, 1310
`(CA10 2004). Imposing equitable tolling to permit appeals
`barred by the Secretary’s regulation would essentially gut
`the Secretary’s requirement that an appeal to the Board
`“shall be dismissed” if filed more than 180 days after the
`NPR, unless the provider shows “good cause” and requests
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2013)
`
`Opinion of the Court
`an extension no later than three years after the NPR. A
`court lacks authority to undermine the regime established
`by the Secretary unless her regulation is “arbitrary, capri-
`cious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron
`U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
`467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984).
`
`The Secretary’s regulation, we are satisfied, survives
`inspection under that deferential standard. As HHS has
`explained, “[i]t is in the interest of providers and the pro-
`gram that, at some point, intermediary determinations
`and the resulting amount of program payment due the
`provider or the program become no longer open to correc-
`tion.” CMS, Medicare: Provider Reimbursement Manual,
`pt. 1, ch. 29, §2930, p. 29–73 (rev. no. 372, 2011); cf. Taylor
`v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U. S. 638, 644 (1992) (“Deadlines
`may lead to unwelcome results, but they prompt parties
`to act and produce finality.”). The Secretary brought to
`bear practical experience in superintending the huge pro-
`gram generally, and the PRRB in particular, in maintaining
`three years as the outer limit. A court must uphold the
`
`Secretary’s judgment as long as it is a permissible con-
`struction of the statute, even if it differs from how the
`court would have interpreted the statute in the absence of
`an agency regulation. National Cable & Telecommunica-
`tions Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 980
`
`(2005); see also Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843, n. 11.
`B
`
`
`Rejecting the Secretary’s position, the Court of Appeals
`relied principally on this Court’s decision in Irwin, 498
`U. S., at 95–96. Irwin concerned the then 30-day time
`period for filing suit against a federal agency under Title
`VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–
`16(c) (1988 ed.). We held in Irwin that “the same rebut-
`table presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits
`against private defendants should also apply to suits
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` SEBELIUS v. AUBURN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`
`Opinion of the Court
`against the United States.” 498 U. S., at 95–96. Irwin
`itself, and equitable-tolling cases we have considered both
`pre- and post-Irwin, have generally involved time limits
`for filing suit in federal court. See, e.g., Holland v. Flor-
`ida, 560 U. S. ___ (2010) (one-year limitation for filing
`application for writ of habeas corpus); Rotella v. Wood, 528
`U. S. 549 (2000) (four-year period for filing civil RICO
`
`suit); United States v. Beggerly, 524 U. S. 38 (1998) (12-
`year period to bring suit under Quiet Title Act); Lampf,
`Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S.
`350 (1991) (one- and three-year periods for commencing
`civil action under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
`1934); Honda v. Clark, 386 U. S. 484 (1967) (60-day period
`for filing suit under Trading with the Enemy Act); Kendall
`v. United States, 107 U. S. 123 (1883) (six-year period for
`filing suit in Court of Claims). Courts in those cases ren-
`dered in the first instance the decision whether equity
`required tolling.
`
`This case is of a different order. We have never applied
`
`the Irwin presumption to an agency’s internal appeal dead-
`
`line, here the time a provider has to appeal an inter-
`mediary’s reimbursement determination to the PRRB. Cf

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.