945 F. Supp. 2d 135
D.D.C.2013Background
- Seneca Nation contract under ISDEAA with IHS; AFAs issued annually to fund, and the 1999–2000 contract set an indefinite term with funding via AFAs.
- April 29, 2011 Nation letter proposed amendments increasing FY2010 and FY2011 funding by $3,774,392 each, plus interest, due to an undercount of active users.
- 90-day review period for contract amendments under 25 U.S.C. § 450f(a)(2) and 25 C.F.R. § 900.18; failure to respond results in deemed approval and incorporation of amendments.
- IHS did not respond within 90 days; communications acknowledged receipt but offered no timely decision; August–September 2011 letters clarified CDA issues.
- IHS ultimately denied the amendments in April 2012 after Nation filed suit in September 2012 challenging the denials.
- Court grants Nation’s summary judgment on ISDEAA-based claims, holding the April 29, 2011 amendments became part of the contract by failure to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the April 29, 2011 amendments become part of the contract due to IHS’s 90-day silence? | Nation: amendments deemed approved under §450f(a)(2) and §900.18. | Secretary: 2010 AFA had concluded; amendments not proper; CDA issues. | Yes; amendments deemed approved and incorporated. |
| Was the April 29, 2011 letter an amendment or a contract claim under CDA? | Letter plainly proposed amendments; intended as amendments. | Letter is a claim under CDA; subject to 100k threshold and certification. | Amendment, not a CDA claim, under the contract terms. |
| Does ISDEAA permit increasing the Secretarial amount after a deemed amendment, despite the 90-day rule? | ISDEAA allows increases upon request and deems the amendment effective; secretary bound. | Secretary may not add funds post hoc without proper process. | ISDEAA permits increases; Secretary bound by failure to timely respond. |
| Is the per-patient amount of $1,855.65 adequately demonstrated and recoverable? | Formula-based undercount remedy; per-patient cost reasonable for remedy. | IHS does not fund ISDEAA per-person; lack of evidence for precise figure. | Court declines to resolve parametric per-person evidence; conclusion on breach remains. |
| Were the underlying funds and contract structure properly interpreted to allow auto-approval via 90-day rule? | Contract shows AFAs are part of the main contract; 90-day silence triggers automatic incorporation. | Arguments misread the contract and the regulations. | 90-day silence triggers automatic amendment incorporation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherokee Nation v. United States, 543 U.S. 631 (Supreme Court 2005) (liberal construction in Indian law; agency promises bind royalties)
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (interpretation favoring Indians; trust relationship)
- Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Kempthorne, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D.S.D. 2007) (de novo review under ISDEAA; standards of review)
- Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Salazar, 624 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2009) (APA-like review; ISDEAA claims distinct from CDA)
- Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of La. v. United States, 577 F. Supp. 2d 382 (D.D.C. 2008) (statutory construction in Indian contracts; liberal interpretation)
- U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Independent Insurance Agents of Am., 508 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1993) (statutory interpretation; canons in statutory analysis)