Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Payne v. Block

751 F.2d 1191

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1985-01-31
Topic: bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: On October 1, 1984, the United States Supreme Court vacated our decision in this case, 714 F.2d 1510 and 721 F.2d 741, and remanded, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 65, 83 L.Ed.2d 15. We were directed to reconsider our decision in light of Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984). The question presented in Heckler, supra was “whether the government is es-topped from recovering these funds because respondent relied on the express authorization of a responsible government agent in making the expenditures.” Id. 104 S.Ct. at 2220. The respondent community agency received CETA funds with which it hired extra employees to provide additional home health care services for Medicare patients.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Payne v. Block. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 10 opinions

PAYNE v. BLOCK,751 F.2d 1191(11th Cir. 1985)

RONALD E. PAYNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY

SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. JOHN R. BLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, v. JAMES J. COLLINS, MOVANT-APPELLANT-INTERVENOR.

No. 81-5365.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

January 31, 1985.

Page 1192

Richard Olderman, Robert E. Kopp, Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, D.C., for Block, FHA, Dept. of Agriculture.

William R. King, Haas, Holland, Lipshutz, Levison Gibert, Atlanta, Ga., for intervenor Collins.

J. Victor Africano, Live Oak, Fla., Moorey, Seals Garvin, Theodore L. Tripp, Jr., Fort Myers, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

[1] On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[2] On October 1, 1984, the United States Supreme Court vacated our decision in this case,714 F.2d 1510and721 F.2d 741, and remanded, ___ U.S. ___,105 S.Ct. 65,83 L.Ed.2d 15. We were directed to reconsider our decision in light ofHeckler v.Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc.,467 U.S. ___,104 S.Ct. 2218,81 L.Ed.2d 42(1984).

[3] The question presented inHeckler, suprawas "whether the government is estopped from recovering these funds because respondent relied on the express authorization of a responsible government agent in making the expenditures."Id.104 S.Ct. at 2220. The respondent community agency received CETA funds with which it hired extra employees to provide additional home health care services for Medicare patients. It billed the Medicare program for these same employee salaries upon advice of a government agent that CETA funds were "seed money" properly reimbursable within the meaning of the Provider Reimbursement Manual. This advice proved erroneous and the government sought recovery of the funds. The Supreme Court held that the government was not estopped from recovering the funds in question since the respondent had not demonstrated that the traditional elements of an estopped were present.See104 S.Ct. at 2226and notes 17-21.

[4] We have considered the opinion of the Supreme Court and conclude that it does not control the decision in the casesubjudice.The liability of the United States Department of Agriculture in this case is based upon the failure of its agency, The Farmers Home Administration, to follow law enacted by Congress, and its own regulations. The plaintiffs did not seek relief based on reliance upon agency action that created an estoppel. The plaintiffs alleged and proved to the satisfaction of the district court that the agencyfailedto act in accordance with the law. Holding that government agents must be aware of the law and must obey it, just as private agencies were required inHeckler, supra,we abided by the opinions of the Supreme Court inUnited States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy,347 U.S. 260,74 S.Ct. 499,Page 119398 L.Ed. 681(1954) (Board of Immigration Appeals must afford that due process required by the regulations) andMorton v. Ruiz,415 U.S. 199,235,94 S.Ct. 1055,1074,39 L.Ed.2d 270,293(1974) ("Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This is so even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required."415 U.S. at 235,94 S.Ct. at 1074).

[5] Having carefully reviewed our prior opinions and the opinion inHeckler v. Community Health Services, supra,we adhere to our prior decision which is hereby reinstated.

[6] The decision of the district court is

[7] AFFIRMED.