United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. Magistrate Judge.
September 5, 2017, the court denied plaintiffs' and
defendants' cross motions for summary judgment.
Fresenius Med. Care Midwest Dialysis LLC v. Humana Ins.
Co., No. 16-CV-711, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142970 (E.D.
Wis. Sep. 5, 2017). The plaintiffs (collectively referred to
as Fresenius) moved the court to reconsider that decision.
(ECF No. 61.)
court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or
of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule
courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of
extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial
decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a
manifest injustice.'” Christianson v. Colt
Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988)
(quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618,
n. 8 (1983)); see also DeKeyser v. ThyssenKrupp Waupaca
Inc., No. 8-C-488, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208217, at *7-8
(E.D. Wis. Dec. 19, 2017) (quoting Patrick v. City of
Chicago, 103 F.Supp.3d 907, 911-12 (N.D. Ill. 2015)
(“[M]otions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) serve
the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”)).
“A manifest error of law or fact occurs ‘when
there has been a significant change in the law or facts since
the parties presented the issue to the court, when the court
misunderstands a party's arguments, or when the court
overreaches by deciding an issue not properly before
it.'” Id. (quoting United States v.
Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 501-02 (7th Cir. 2008)). “In
general, ‘litigants must fight an uphill battle in
order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration.'”
Williams v. Miscichoski, No. 06-C-1124, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 94831, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 14, 2007) (quoting
United Air Lines, Inc. v. ALG, Inc., 916 F.Supp.
793, 795 (N.D. Ill. 1996)).
Essential Health Benefit
recap of the background of this case will help put the motion
to reconsider in context. In simplified terms, the question
presented by the parties' summary judgment motions was
whether in 2013 the defendant health plans (whom the court
will refer to collectively as Humana) could cap at $30, 000
per insured its coverage for dialysis that Fresenius provided
to Humana's insureds. Fresenius contends that dialysis
was an essential health benefit under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, and as
such Humana had to provide at least $2 million in coverage
for each insured for dialysis in 2013, see 45 C.F.R.
§ 147.126(d)(1)(iii) (Oct. 1. 2013 ed.).
health benefit” is a term of art under the ACA that
Congress left to the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to define. 42 U.S.C. §
18022(b)(1). But Congress said that essential health benefits
shall include at least the following general categories and
the items and services covered within the categories:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices. (H)