scholarly journals Obtaining Records from a Foreign Bank : Note on the Decision of the Federal Court, Washington, DC, of March 18, 2019

Author(s):  
Stefan D. Cassella
DDT Wars ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Wurster

All parties to the hearings knew that on June 14, 1972, at exactly 10 a.m., the door of the EPA administrator’s office would open and out would come someone to distribute copies of the decision on the future of DDT. Nobody knew what was in it, but all parties figured there would be something they would not like and would therefore want to appeal it to an appeals court. Appeals could be heard by any of several federal appellate courts around the country. More important, the first appeal made to any court would likely determine the location or venue where the appeal would be heard. The DDT proponents knew they had done poorly in the DC Court of Appeals, so they wanted to get their appeal out of DC; surely the cotton belt would be best. So they were waiting for that door to open with an open telephone line to the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana. We knew what they were up to, so we were determined to file our appeal very quickly with the US Court of Appeals for DC, where we had done very well. That was not a simple procedure. Cell phones did not exist in those days. The EPA administrator’s door opened, the papers came out, and both appeals were rushed to the respective courts of appeal. Not a second was wasted to see what was in the decision. EDF attorney Bill Butler flashed the appeal on a pay phone, which had an open line to another pay phone in the DC Court of Appeals building near the clerk’s office, where EDF secretary Marie Bauman filed the EDF appeal. Each side claimed it had gotten to its preferred appeals court first. The DDT proponents said the case would move to New Orleans for the appeal. Much controversy and confusion ensued. Finally, it was decided that the clocks were not properly synchronized and that EDF had won the rapid communication derby: The case would stay in Washington, DC.


1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-205
Author(s):  
choeffel Amy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld, in Presbyterian Medical Center of the University of Pennsylvania Health System v. Shalala, 170 F.3d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1999), a federal district court ruling granting summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in a case in which Presbyterian Medical Center (PMC) challenged Medicare's requirement of contemporaneous documentation of $828,000 in graduate medical education (GME) expenses prior to increasing reimbursement amounts. DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala denied PMC's request for reimbursement for increased GME costs. The appellants then brought suit in federal court challenging the legality of an interpretative rule that requires requested increases in reimbursement to be supported by contemporaneous documentation. PMC also alleged that an error was made in the administrative proceedings to prejudice its claims because Aetna, the hospital's fiscal intermediary, failed to provide the hospital with a written report explaining why it was denied the GME reimbursement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document