`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.
`
`