throbber
United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH
`INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS NON-
`PROFIT MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2017-1224
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
`Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00744-CFL, Judge Charles F.
`Lettow.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: June 14, 2018
`______________________
`
`JONATHAN MASSEY, Massey & Gail LLP, Washington,
`
`DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
`DANIEL P. ALBERS, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, IL;
`SCOTT E. PICKENS, Washington, DC.
`
`ALISA BETH KLEIN, Appellate Staff, Civil Division,
`
`United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
`argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHAD
`A. READLER, AUGUST E. FLENTJE, MARK B. STERN,
`CARLEEN MARY ZUBRZYCKI.
`
`

`

`
`
` 2
`
` LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH v. UNITED STATES
`
`
`BARAK BASSMAN, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philadelphia,
`
`PA, for amicus curiae National Alliance of State Health
`CO-Ops. Also represented by MARC D. MACHLIN, Wash-
`ington, DC.
`
`LAWRENCE SHER, Reed Smith LLP, Washington, DC,
`
`for amici curiae Highmark Inc., Highmark BCBSD Inc.,
`Highmark West Virginia Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield
`of North Carolina, Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service,
`Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. Also
`represented by KYLE RICHARD BAHR, CONOR MICHAEL
`SHAFFER, COLIN E. WRABLEY, Pittsburgh, PA.
`
` DANIEL GORDON JARCHO, McKenna Long & Aldridge,
`LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Avera Health
`Plans, DAKOTACARE.
`
`STEVEN ROSENBAUM, Covington & Burling LLP,
`
`Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Moda Health Plans,
`Inc. Also represented by CAROLINE BROWN.
`
`LESLIE BERGER KIERNAN, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer
`
`& Feld, LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Ameri-
`cas Health Insurance Plans. Also represented by ROBERT
`K. HUFFMAN; RUTHANNE MARY DEUTSCH, HYLAND HUNT,
`Deutsch Hunt PLLC, Washington, DC.
`
`STEPHEN A. SWEDLOW, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
`
`Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Health Re-
`public Insurance Company, Alliance of Community
`Health Plans. Also represented by J. D. HORTON, ADAM
`WOLFSON, Los Angeles, CA.
`
`ANKUR GOEL, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Wash-
`
`ington, DC, for amici curiae Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
`South Carolina, BlueChoice HealthPlan of South Caroli-
`
`

`

`LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH v. UNITED STATES
`
`3
`
`na, Inc. Also represented by M. MILLER BAKER, JOSHUA
`DAVID ROGACZEWSKI.
`
`THOMAS G. HUNGAR, Office of General Counsel, Unit-
`
`ed States House of Representatives, Washington, DC, for
`amicus curiae United States House of Representatives.
`Also represented by KIMBERLY HAMM, TODD B. TATELMAN.
`______________________
`
`
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and MOORE,
`Circuit Judges.
`Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge PROST.
`Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
`PROST, Chief Judge.
`For the reasons stated in our decision in the compan-
`ion case, Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-
`1994, the statutory and contract claims of appellant Land
`of Lincoln Mutual Health fail. Additionally, because Land
`of Lincoln cannot state a contract claim, its takings claim
`fails to the extent it relies on the existence of a contract.
`What remains is Land of Lincoln’s takings claim to
`the extent that claim arises from its statutory entitlement
`to full payments. We have previously held that “no statu-
`tory obligation to pay money, even where unchallenged,
`can create a property interest within the meaning of the
`Takings Clause.” Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212,
`1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v.
`United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (en
`banc)). Land of Lincoln offers no basis for departing from
`that rule, and we see none. Accordingly, Land of Lincoln’s
`takings claim fails.
`Because we hold that the trial court correctly granted
`judgment for the government as a matter of law, we need
`not address whether the trial court properly reached that
`conclusion via judgment on the administrative record.
`
`

`

`
`
` 4
`
` LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH v. UNITED STATES
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`The parties shall bear their own costs.
`
`
`
`

`

`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH
`INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS NON-
`PROFIT MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2017-1224
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
`Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00744-CFL, Judge Charles F.
`Lettow.
`
`______________________
`
`NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
`For the reasons stated in my dissent in the concur-
`rently heard case, Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United
`States, No. 17-1994, the ruling of the Court of Federal
`Claims should be reversed.
`The panel majority concedes that the government has
`a statutory obligation to make risk corridors payments to
`Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company.
`That obligation has not been altered by statute or regula-
`tion. The Court of Federal Claims erred in its statutory
`interpretation, and in its conclusion that the government
`
`

`

`
`
` 2
`
` LAND OF LINCOLN MUTUAL HEALTH v. UNITED STATES
`
`need not meet the obligations by which it induced the
`nation’s health insurers to implement the Affordable Care
`Act. I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ endorse-
`ment of this flawed ruling.
`
`

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
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

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.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

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

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket