|
No. 07-5077 DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METHODIST HEALTHCARE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 07-5147 DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUMNER REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 07-5358 DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERLANGER HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 07-5360/5362/5364 DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLMONT HEALTH SYSTEM (07-5360), MOUNTAIN STATES HEALTH ALLIANCE (07-5362), THE BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM OF EAST TENNESSEE (07-5364), Defendants-Appellees. No. 07-5363 DOUGLAS B. STALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVENANT HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Courts for the Western District of Tennessee
at Memphis, the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville, and the Eastern District
of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Greeneville, and Knoxville.
Nos. 06-02605; 06-00074; 06-00194; 06-00217; 06-00216; 06-00359; 06-00295—
Jon Phipps McCalla, Robert L. Echols, District Judges; Curtis L. Collier, Chief District Judge.
Argued: December 4, 2007
Decided and Filed: February 28, 2008
Before: RYAN, BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas B. Stalley (“Stalley”) filed seven separate lawsuits in the district courts in Tennessee — in addition to numerous cases in other jurisdictions against different defendants — claiming that Defendants- Appellees Methodist Healthcare (“Methodist”), Sumner Regional Health Systems, Inc. (“Sumner”), Erlanger Health System (“Erlanger”), Wellmont Health System (“Wellmont”), Mountain States Health Alliance (“Mountain States”), Covenant Health (“Covenant”), and The Baptist Health System of East Tennessee (“Baptist”)1 (collectively referred to as “Appellees”) all violated the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b). In none of the virtually identical complaints does Stalley allege any direct injury. Instead, the complaints are premised on his belief that the MSP is a qui tam statute granting him standing to sue as a private attorney general. The several district courts, following the clear language of the MSP and a plethora of case law, separately ruled that the MSP is not a qui tam statute and, therefore, Stalley does not have Article III standing to raise these claims. Stalley appeals those decisions. Because we find no basis upon which to hold that the MSP is a qui tam statute, and no basis upon which to find that Stalley can otherwise demonstrate standing, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district courts.