The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Joseph Mason's motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. [Docket Item 20.] Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an Order amending or clarifying its March 23, 2012 Opinion and Order in this matter. [Docket Items 18 & 19.] For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1. In this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, money that he
paid as a reimbursement to Medicare under protest in 2009.*fn1
Plaintiff was injured when he fell at a casino in 2004. He
incurred medical costs of approximately $2,500 as a
result of that fall, which costs were initially paid by Medicare.
Plaintiff and his wife, Carol Mason, then sued the casino owner to
recover damages for Plaintiff's pain and suffering, medical costs, and
for loss of consortium. The tort action was voluntarily dismissed in a
settlement for a lump sum of $40,000, a condition of which was that
Plaintiff and his wife agreed to release all claims against the casino
owner, without specifically allocating the settlement funds among the
various claims for damages. Thereafter, the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services ("CMS") demanded reimbursement of a discounted
portion of the medical care costs it paid on Plaintiff's
2. Plaintiff sought a waiver of this reimbursement through the Medicare administrative appeals process, which ultimately resulted in a final adverse decision by the Medicare Appeals Council on February 18, 2011. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this action. Plaintiff's principal arguments have consistently been that the reimbursement was not authorized by the Medicare as a Secondary Payer ("MSP") statute*fn3 and that the reimbursement is prohibited by the New Jersey Collateral Source Statute ("NJCSS").*fn4
3. In its March 23, 2012 Opinion, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, concluding, in part, that conditional Medicare payments are not a collateral source under the NJCSS, and that the MSP statute permits Medicare to seek reimbursement of such conditional payments from a lump sum tort settlement such as Plaintiff received. See Mason v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 1019131 at *7-16.
4. On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his instant motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. [Docket Item 20.] In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to clarify or reconsider its March 23 Opinion by holding that CMS is only entitled to reimbursement of some unspecified fraction of Plaintiff's medical costs as a proportionate share of his total recovery. Plaintiff urges the Court to apply the reasoning of Arkansas Dept. of Human Svcs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006)*fn5 to the federal MSP statute, and hold that when CMS seeks reimbursement from a tort plaintiff who has recovered an undifferentiated lump sum settlement from a tort defendant or its insurer, in exchange for release of claims for medical costs conditionally paid by Medicare, that CMS is only entitled to seek a discounted amount of reimbursement. In short, Plaintiff argues, because he settled his claims "for something less that [sic] his actual damages," he should only be compelled to reimburse Medicare for "something less" than the total medical costs paid by Medicare. Pltf.s' Brief at 11. Plaintiff does not articulate what this discount should be in his case.
5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs the Court's analysis of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and/or clarification.
6. Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) requires the moving party to set forth the factual matters or controlling legal authorities it believes the Court overlooked when rendering its initial decision. L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show:
(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court . . . [rendered the judgment in question]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.
Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc., v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Tehan v. Disability Management Services, Inc., 111 F. Supp. 2d 542, 549 (D.N.J. 2000). To prevail under the third prong, the movant must show that "dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were brought to the court's attention but not considered." P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The standard of review involved in a motion for reconsideration is high and relief is to be granted sparingly. United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994); Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621, 629 (D.N.J. 1986).
7. Defendants argue that, under this standard, Plaintiff's motion must be denied because Plaintiff's argument is not a controlling decision of law that was brought to the Court's attention but not considered. Plaintiff's argument, Defendants claim, was not previously raised before the Court in the briefing for the summary judgment motion. The Court agrees. While the Court notes that Plaintiff cited to Ahlborn in his opposition brief, he did not raise it in the context of his present argument, that the reasoning of the Ahlborn decision should be applied to limit MSP reimbursement. Consequently, the Court will not grant Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
8. Further, even were the Court to reach the merits of Plaintiff's argument, that the reasoning of Ahlborn should be applied to the reimbursement provisions of the MSP statute, the Court would likewise deny Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff makes no effort to distinguish Hadden v. United States, 661 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2011) (despite the fact that Defendants attached a copy of the decision in a supplemental briefing to the Court on the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, see Docket Item 17, and the Court cited the case in its March 23, 2012 Opinion), which persuasively explained why Ahlborn should not apply to the MSP provisions.
9. The Hadden court rejected an argument similar to that which Plaintiff makes now, concluding that Ahlborn was distinguishable from the Medicare context because it was based on ...