A resolution to the lawsuit challenging federally mandated minimum staffing levels in nursing homes could be reached as early as January if the court finalizes a timetable submitted by the American Health Care Association (AHCA), LeadingAge and other industry leaders.
If that turns out to be true, the lawsuit would be settled more than a year before non-rural nursing homes are required to meet minimum hours. Urban operators have a deadline of May 2026, while rural facilities have until May 2027 to meet minimum hours. And so costly litigation could be avoided in that scenario, legal experts said.
The minimum staffing rule, passed on April 22 as part of the Biden administration’s nursing home reform initiative, requires a minimum staffing level of 3.48 hours per resident per day (HPRD) and 24/7 staffing by registered nurses (RNs).
AHCA and other nursing home leaders filed the lawsuit about a month after federal regulators finalized the staffing requirement, claiming the federal government exceeded its legal authority and issued a final minimum staffing requirement “arbitrarily and capriciously.”
Dispositive relief
AHCA and several Texas-based operators formally filed a joint motion for a hearing date on August 9, the day the mandated assessments for nursing homes began. The defendants, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, agreed that the case could be resolved through mutual motions for dispositive relief.
Dispositive relief is a request for a court to rule in favor of a party. This can result in the dismissal or settlement of a case.
Craig Conley, a shareholder at Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, said this move is common when both parties believe a dispute is best resolved through an injunction. This is the most efficient means for the parties to reach an outcome one way or another by agreeing to proceed accordingly, he noted.
“The parties believe that by agreeing to take this path, they can avoid lengthy, protracted and costly litigation,” Conley said. “I expect the court will grant the parties’ motion because it also views this as an efficient means of resolving this matter.”
It is common practice to set a schedule of hearings as part of a trial, said Jacob Harper, a partner at the Washington law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius. “I don’t think that means much at this point,” he added.
If the application is granted, both parties will file motions and ask for an order in their favor.
Schedule still needs to be approved
The proposed timeline, according to court documents, first sets a Sept. 13 deadline for CMS to file an administrative action, followed by Sept. 27 as the date for AHCA and other operators to challenge the adequacy of the administrative action.
The administrative file would contain documents that the agency used in making its decision to develop the personnel mandate.
On October 18, plaintiffs would file a motion for summary judgment, and on November 15, defendants would file a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and answer to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
Both parties could respond to the motions filed on October 18 and November 15, with HHS getting the final word on January 17. A case can be decided with summary judgment based on filed briefs and oral arguments – a preliminary hearing does not need to move forward.
AHCA and other plaintiffs would file a joint answer to the cross motion for summary judgment and a reply in support of that judgment by December 13. Finally, CMS would file a reply in support of the cross motion for summary judgment by January 17.
