Webb v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 301 Neb. 810

Background

Webb, a participant in Nebraska’s "bridge to independence" Medicaid program, was terminated from Medicaid at age 21; DHHS concluded he was no longer in "foster care" and thus not eligible for coverage to age 26 under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(IX).
Webb administratively appealed and then filed a district-court petition for judicial review under the Nebraska Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and asserted a standalone § 1983 claim against DHHS officials in their official capacities.
The district court (May 10, 2017) ruled for Webb on the APA claim (finding he was in foster care) and granted summary judgment on his § 1983 claim, enjoining officials from denying Medicaid eligibility; the court found Webb entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and reserved the fee amount.
The court denied state-law fee claims; after Webb submitted fee evidence, the court awarded § 1988 fees (August 7, 2017). DHHS appealed the fee order within 30 days, but did not timely appeal the May 10 merits order.
DHHS argued the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a § 1983 claim joined with an APA appeal and therefore lacked authority to award § 1988 fees; Webb argued the merits order was final and unappealed and that the court properly exercised general jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the May 10, 2017 order (merits + liability for § 1988 fees) was final and appealable	Gillpatrick principle: a § 1983 merits decision is final and appealable even if fee amount unresolved; Webb says order was final	DHHS claims fee question left pending so merits order was not appealable	Court: May 10 order was final and appealable as to merits; DHHS’ failure to appeal it within 30 days foreclosed appellate review of that merits determination
Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a § 1983 claim joined with an APA judicial-review action	Webb: district courts have general original jurisdiction (§ 24-302); APA does not strip that jurisdiction; Maldonado supported bringing § 1983 in APA context	DHHS: APA review statutes do not authorize adding a freestanding § 1983 claim to an APA petition; such claims must be filed separately	Court: District court has general jurisdiction to hear § 1983 claims alongside APA claims; APA does not limit that jurisdiction; Maldonado disapproved insofar as it misstated Thiboutot’s scope
Whether an unresolved § 1988 fee amount prevented finality of the merits judgment	Webb: fee determination under § 1988 is collateral and does not affect finality of merits	DHHS: pending fee issue prevented finality	Court: Fee liability is collateral; federal precedent (White, Budinich, Gillpatrick) supports finality of merits despite unresolved fee amount
Whether DHHS’ timely appeal of the fees order permits review of the underlying merits	Webb: timely appeal of fees cannot be used to collaterally attack unappealed merits order	DHHS: contesting fees necessarily requires examining whether the court had jurisdiction to decide § 1983 claim	Held: Although the merits order was unappealed and final, DHHS’ timely appeal of the fee award permits appellate review of whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim because fee entitlement depended on that jurisdictional question

Key Cases Cited

Maldonado v. Nebraska Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 223 Neb. 485, 391 N.W.2d 105 (1986) (state case allowing § 1983-related fee recovery after APA victory; court disapproved insofar as it misstated federal precedent)
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) (held § 1983 can reach statutory violations of federal law)
Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine, 297 Neb. 880, 902 N.W.2d 115 (2017) (Nebraska holds § 1983 merits rulings are final for appeal despite unresolved § 1988 fee amounts)
White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Emp. Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (fee claims under § 1988 are collateral and do not render merits judgment nonfinal)
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (reaffirmed that merits decisions are final even when fee amounts remain to be determined)
Crossman v. Maccoccio, 792 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) (holding appeal timely as to fee order but untimely as to merits; merits judgment treated as final)
Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938, 902 N.W.2d 147 (2017) (discusses APA procedural requirements for seeking judicial review)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (addresses award of attorney fees under federal statutes)