(PS)Storman v. U.S. Office of the Secretary, 2:17-cv-00976

Pro se plaintiff Michael D. Storman seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5) of the Medicare Appeals Council’s decision denying Medicare coverage for lifetime home health services.
Plaintiff alleges the ALJ failed to consider his former attorney’s statements about his mental and other disabilities and did not address his eye disease, liver disease, and Barrett’s esophagus when assessing eligibility.
Defendant is the U.S. Office of the Secretary, DHHS; plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Kaiser Health Plan as a defendant.
Plaintiff requests renewal of home health services every 60 days for life and $1,900 in damages for pain and suffering.
Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court granted IFP but must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Court found the complaint, as pled, states a cognizable claim under the Medicare Act and directed service of process and filing of the administrative record and responsive pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a cognizable claim for review of the Medicare Appeals Council decision under 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5)	Storman contends the Council/ALJ failed to consider relevant attorney comments and medical conditions, rendering the denial improper	Government implicitly defends final agency decision (to be tested after service and administrative record)	Court: Complaint sufficiently alleges a Medicare Act claim and survives initial IFP screening
Whether IFP status should be granted	Storman submitted the required affidavit showing indigence	N/A	Court: IFP granted
Whether Kaiser Health Plan should remain as a defendant	Storman moved to dismiss Kaiser voluntarily	Kaiser did not oppose; motion seeks dismissal	Court: Grants plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of Kaiser
Service and case management steps after screening	Plaintiff asks that relief be ordered (substantive relief reserved)	Government to respond once served and record filed	Court: Ordered U.S. Marshal to effect service, directed defendant to file administrative record and response within 90 days

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (explains frivolousness standard for IFP screening)
Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) (pleading facts are accepted as true on screening)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints construed liberally)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (complaint allegations construed in plaintiff’s favor)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings given less stringent standards)
Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981) (court need not accept conclusory allegations)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content supporting plausibility)