WOODS PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the Claims Court's judgment, adopting its reasoning regarding the validity of CHAMPUS regulations and the timeliness of recoupment actions.
Woods Psychiatric Institute appealed a Claims Court judgment upholding a CHAMPUS decision to recoup overpayments. The Claims Court found the relevant …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitrary And Capricious Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
NIES, Chief Judge.
Woods Psychiatric Institute appeals the judgment of the United States Claims Court which concluded that the final decision of the Director of the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) was not arbitrary or capricious, was based on substantial evidence and was correct as a matter of law. Woods Psychiatric Inst v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 324 (1990). Specifically, the Claims Court in a detailed analysis determined that two CHAMPUS regulations, 32 C.F.R. §§ 199.10(b)(l)(iv) and 199.10(f)(5) (1985),* are procedurally and substantively valid, that the alleged untimeliness of CHAMPUS’s actions in recouping over-payments did not unduly prejudice Woods, and that CHAMPUS’s recoupment actions were not barred by the statute of limitations. Id.
We affirm the judgment for reasons stated in the Claims Court’s opinion, which we adopt, except with respect to the court’s discussion of the statute of limitations issue. That issue is not an issue in the appeal.
AFFIRMED.
*
We cite the 1985 edition of the regulations, because as the Claims Court noted below, "The parties have agreed to and relied on (and cited) the 1985 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, which contains the pertinent regulations that were in effect during the relevant period of this case.” Woods, 20 Cl.Ct. at 327 n. 1.