S.A., et al v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 08-3006 (8th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Civil case - Medicare. Substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision to deny claims for Medicare benefits, and the district court's order is affirmed without further comment.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3006 ___________ S.A.; R.A.S.; R.S.; M.W., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. 1 * Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human * [UNPUBLISHED] Services, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: November 4, 2009 Filed: November 19, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. This is an action for review of an administrative claim for Medicare benefits. Four Medicare beneficiaries, whose claims for coverage were denied under a Local Coverage Determination (LCD) by Medicare contractor Blue Cross Blue Shield of 1 Kathleen Sebelius has been appointed to serve as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Kansas, appeal from the district court s2 order affirming the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to uphold the LCD. Having carefully reviewed the Secretary s decision de novo, see Baptist Health v. Thompson, 458 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir. 2006), we conclude substantial evidence supports the Secretary s denial of coverage set forth in the LCD. See 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g). In our view, the opinions of the administrative law judge, the appeals board, and the district court thoroughly address the issues raised in this appeal, and we have nothing to add to those discussions. Accordingly, we affirm without extended opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.