UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-50338
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(A-99-CV-56-SS)
June 7, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an action for judicial review of a decision rendered
by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
through the agency's Departmental Appeals Board (DAB). The
decision at issue involves the government's administration and
review of States' accounting for administrative costs in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
cooperative, federally funded, State administered programs.
Specifically, the DAB held that Texas' increase in the enrollment
of approximately 55,000 higher education employees who previously
were insured under plans maintained by state colleges and
universities caused an improper dilution of prior federal
contributions to the State's Uniform Group Insurance Program
(UGIP). The DAB directed the State to return the amount diverted,
which was stipulated by the parties to be $3,037,200.
On judicial review of the DAB decision, the district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The district court
rejected the DAB's holding that the addition of the higher
education employees was dilutive and caused the improper shifting
of federal funds. According to the district court, the DAB's
decision was “purely theoretical” and “unsupported by any evidence
on the record.” Thereafter, HHS's motion for reconsideration
and/or amendment of the judgment was denied.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record of this case, and
having fully considered the parties' respective briefing on the
issue in this appeal, we conclude that the DAB's decision was
neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, we REVERSE the district court's judgment in this case
and grant summary judgment in favor of HHS.
2