Paul Batsche v. Thomas E. Price

Appellants are trustees of the Twin City Pipe Trades Welfare Fund, which

operates a self-insured, self-administered group health plan. In December 2014, the

Fund paid a $762,663.90 fee to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

under the transitional reinsurance program in the Patient Protection and Affordable

Care Act (ACA). See 42 U.S.C. § 18061(b)(1)(A) (“health insurance issuers, and

third party administrators on behalf of group health plans, are required to make

payments to an applicable reinsurance entity for any plan year beginning in the 3-year

period beginning January 1, 2014”). In January 2015, the Fund sued the Department,

alleging the fee does not apply to self-insured, self-administered plans. The Fund

asked the court to declare that it was not required to “submit a Transitional

Reinsurance Fee for benefit year 2014” and was “entitled to reimbursement of its

mistaken payment to the Department . . . .” It sought “a judgment against the

Defendant in the amount of $762,663.90.” The district court1 dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Batsche v. Burwell, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1137 (D. Minn.

2016). The Fund appeals.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law this court reviews de novo. ABF

Freight Sys, Inc. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir.

2011). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Osborn v. United

States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990). The Fund argues the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) waives the Department’s sovereign immunity. Under the APA,

sovereign immunity is waived if the claimant challenges a “final agency action,” seeks

relief “other than money damages,” and has “no other adequate remedy in a court.”

5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704. The district court found the APA does not waive sovereign

immunity because the “‘true nature’ of this lawsuit is a claim for money damages.”

Batsche, 210 F. Supp. 3d at 1135. Even without sovereign immunity, the court found

“the Tucker Act would vest exclusive jurisdiction over this lawsuit in the United

States Court of Federal Claims.” Id. at 1136, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); State of

Minn. by Noot v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1983) (“The exclusive

1The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

jurisdiction of the [Court of Federal Claims] applies to monetary claims in excess of

$10,000 against the United States and its agencies.”).

The district court did not err in its thorough and well-reasoned decision.

Further discussion of the matter would have no precedential value. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

The judgment is affirmed.