IN RE: Interstate Medicaid Patients at Good Samaritan Nursing Center

— ca Case MDL No. 238 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page Sf
- ry OR
® ARCAINNLTION AN RIESE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL © 7" :
ON JH 3 \a1%
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION A ARD
PATRICIA	Koc PANEL
IN RE INTERSTATE MEDICAID PATIENTS ) CLERK C DOCKET NO. 238AT GOOD SAMARITAN NURSING CENTER ) :
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A.
ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL,
AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of two actions in two different
districts: one in the District of Minnesota and the other in the
_ District of North Dakota. Plaintiff in each action is the Good
Samaritan Nursing Center, a skilled nursing facility located in
East Grand Forks, Minnesota. For several years, Good Samaritan
has provided medical treatment and custodial care to a number of
indigent elderly individuals from Minnesota and North Dakota.
Both Minnesota and North Dakota have established medical
assistance plans, pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security
Act, which, inter alia, provide that all medical assistance payments
must be made directly from the appropriate state or local social
service agency to the medical assistance vendor. Good Samaritan
claims that it has not received some or any medical assistance pay-
® ments for its care of eight elderly individuals and has instituted
these two actions against certain Minnesota and North Dakota welfare

Case MDL No. 238 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 6 . .
- 2 = ®
and social service agencies, and one of its officers, in an
attempt to secure such payment.
Under an informal agreement between counties in North
Dakota and counties in Minnesota, the North Dakota counties
allegedly agreed to pay medical assistance benefits for one year
for the care of eligible individuals entering a Minnesota
nursing facility, such as Good Samaritan, from North Dakota.
The Minnesota counties allegedly agreed to take over the payment
of such benefits following expiration of that year.
In August 1969, Polk County, Minnesota, apparently
terminated assistance payments to Good Samaritan on behalf of ®
those patients who resided in North Dakota prior to admittance.
Some of the eight individuals affected by these two actions were
allegedly North Dakota residents who entered Good Samaritan
prior to 1969 and on whose behalf payments were thus terminated
in August of that year, while the others were allegedly North
Dakota residents who entered Good Samaritan after August 1969,
and on whose behalf no payments were ever made.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act provides that a state
medical assistance plan may not impose residency requirements which
would exclude otherwise eligible individuals who are residents of
the state. The genesis of these actions stems from the denial by ®
Minnesota and North Dakota that the eight individuals involved were

. - Case MDL No. 238 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 6
® | a.
- 3 =
"residents," for purposes of Title XIX, of their respective
states, each state contending that the individuals were "residents"
of the other.
This matter is before the Panel on Good Samaritan's
motion to transfer the Minnesota action to the District of
North Dakota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, with the action pending in that
district. Vera Likins, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department
of Public Welfare and a defendant in the Minnesota action,
) opposes the motion. We find that the requested transfer would
not serve the convenience of parties and witnesses or promote
the just and efficient conduct of the two actions and, accordingly,
1/
we deny the motion.
: Movant Good Samaritan maintains that common questions
of fact exist between these actions relating to the residency of
the eight individuals on whose behalf it seeks medical assistance
payments. Movant also contends that the possibility of con-
flicting rulings on the residency questions requires a Section
1407 transfer.
1/ All parties waived their right to oral argument and, pur-
suant to R.P.J.P.M.L. 14, 65 F.R.D. 253, 264 (1975), the
® question of transfer of these actions under Section 1407) was submitted for decision on the briefs.

Case MDL No. 238 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 6 . .
ee ®
In In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F.
Supp. 543 (J.P.M.L. 1969), the Panel refused to order Section
1407 proceedings where only two actions were involved, although
some common questions of fact existed between them. The
principle which emerged from our decision in Scotch Whiskey is
that in order to demonstrate that the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation would be promoted by transfer where only a
minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party bears
a strong burden to show that the common questions of fact are
so complex and the accompanying discovery so time-consuming as
to overcome the inconvenienae to the party whose action is being [
transferred and its witnesses. 299 F. Supp. at 544,
Although movant has failed to persuade us that the
common questions of residency in these actions are ones of fact
rather than, as respondent urges, ones of law, even assuming arguendo
that these actions do raise common questions of fact, we do not
believe that movant has met the burden of persuasion we enunciated
in Scotch Whiskey. While some additional discovery may be
necessary in these actions, it appears that most of the relevant
factual data has been previously elicited in state administrative
and judicial proceedings concerning requests by Good Samaritan
for medical assistance payments on behalf of several of the (
eight individuals who are involved here. And, in any event,

- - Case MDL No. 238 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 6
PY - 5 -
the questions pertaining to residency do not seem to us to be
so complex as to themselves warrant transfer.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to transfer
the action listed on the following Schedule A and pending in
the District of Minnesota to the District of North Dakota for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.
@
®

. . Case MDL No. 238 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6
SCHEDULE	A
MDL-238 ~—- IN RE INTERSTATE MEDICAID PATIENTS AT GOOD SAMARITAN
NURSING CENTER
DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Good Samaritan Nursing Center v. Grand Forks Civil Action
County Welfare Board, et al. No. A2-75-77
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Good Samaritan Nursing Center v. Polk County Civil Action |
Welfare Board, et al. No. 4-75 440