University of Colorado Health at Memorial Hospital v. Burwell, Civil Action No. 2014-1220

Background

Consolidated lawsuits by multiple hospitals challenging HHS annual “fixed loss threshold” rules (FY 2007–2016) that affect Medicare outlier reimbursements; many claims entered federal court via Provider Reimbursement Review Board expedited judicial review (EJR).
The district court previously dismissed some claims on preclusion grounds and, after cross-motions, granted summary judgment to HHS on most claims but remanded the FY 2012 and 2013 rules to HHS without vacatur.
Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enter final judgment as to all rulings except those tied to FY 2012–2013 so they could immediately appeal; HHS opposed, arguing EJR-related claim linkage and risk of claim-splitting.
Central legal issue: whether Rule 54(b) certification is permissible and appropriate given (1) claims’ common origin in EJR grants and (2) overlap between hospital cost reports and fiscal-year rules.
The court held that while EJR does not categorically preclude Rule 54(b) certification, the plaintiffs failed to show the requested subset of claims was sufficiently distinct and final and failed to meet the high "no just reason for delay" standard; certification was denied.
Procedural posture: one consolidated subcase (Cabell Huntington re: FY 2010–2011) already produced a final judgment and is stayed pending this motion’s resolution; the D.C. Circuit stayed related appeals pending the district court’s Rule 54(b) decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the fact that claims proceeded via a single PRRB EJR grant bar Rule 54(b) certification as impermissible claim-splitting?	EJR is a procedural route that accelerates pre-existing, separate claims; it should not categorically block Rule 54(b).	Claims joined in one EJR are so closely related that certification would split claims and is therefore impermissible.	Court: EJR does not automatically bar Rule 54(b) certification, but EJR origin is relevant to the separability inquiry.
Are the claims Plaintiffs seek to certify "distinct" and "final" given overlap between hospital cost reports and FY 2012–2013 rules?	Plaintiffs: claims measured by individual cost reports and many are distinct from FY 2012–2013 issues.	HHS: claims are challenges to specific fiscal-year threshold rules regardless of cost-report framing.	Court: prior rulings treat claims as tied to particular FY rules; because cost reports and fiscal years overlap, many claims are not clearly distinct from the remanded FY 2012–2013 claims, so finality is lacking for certification.
Is there "no just reason for delay" such that partial final judgment should issue (judicial-economy/piecemeal-appeal balance)?	Plaintiffs: partial certification would expedite review and avoid undue delay given remand of FY 2012–2013; judicial economy favors immediate appeal of much of the record.	HHS: partial certification would produce piecemeal appeals, repeat appellate review of common issues, and is not justified.	Court: Plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden; overlapping legal/factual issues and common challenges across years weigh against certification.
Did Plaintiffs adequately identify a discrete, accurate set of claims for certification and satisfy procedural requirements?	Plaintiffs offered a primary and a narrower alternative list of certifiable claims.	HHS: Plaintiffs’ lists are inaccurate, incomplete, and were raised late (waiver/notice concerns).	Court: Plaintiffs’ proposed lists were uncertain and contained errors; the Court will not certify on that shaky basis.

Key Cases Cited

Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 969 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (framework and standards for Rule 54(b) certification)
Building Indus. Ass'n of Superior California v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (no just reason for delay test and Rule 54(b) discretion)
Tolson v. United States, 732 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (claims too closely related cannot be separated under Rule 54(b))
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (district court discretion on timing of appeals)
Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1589 (2020) (test for whether suits arise from same transaction/common nucleus of operative facts)
Billings Clinic v. Azar, 901 F.3d 301 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (context on PRRB/EJR and Medicare reimbursement review)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) (recognition of Rule 54(b) for piecemeal appellate review)