Maxine D. King v. Michael Leavitt , 158 F. App'x 753 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-3788
    ___________
    Maxine D. King,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                               * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Michael Leavitt, Secretary, Department * District of Minnesota.
    of Health and Human Services;          *
    Healthpartners,                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 14, 2005
    Filed: December 16, 2005
    ___________
    Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    This action for review of an administrative claim for Medicare benefits was
    brought by Maxine King (King), who died in August 2003. King’s daughter, Peggy
    Anderson (Anderson), has filed a motion to be substituted as the appellant. Anderson
    argues this appeal from the district court’s1 adverse judgment is not moot. Following
    careful review, we disagree.
    Anderson does not seek monetary relief or reimbursement, but rather seeks to
    challenge (1) the finding that King was not entitled to coverage under the Medicare
    Act for skilled nursing care during some period in the past, and (2) the
    constitutionality of certain provisions of the Medicare Act. Both issues were mooted
    by King’s death, and an exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. See
    Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc., 
    427 F.3d 541
    , 544 (8th Cir. 2005)
    (“To come within [the capable of repetition, yet evading review] exception, . . . there
    must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected
    to the same action again, and . . . the challenged action must be of a duration too short
    to be fully litigated before becoming moot.”); Schutz v. Thorne, 
    415 F.3d 1128
    , 1138
    (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 
    440 U.S. 625
    , 631 (1979))
    (“Constitutional mootness exists ‘when the issues presented are no longer “live” or
    the parties lack a legally congnizable interest in the outcome.’”). In addition,
    Anderson lacks standing–in her own right or as her deceased mother’s representative–
    to pursue this appeal on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries in general. See Lujan v.
    Defenders of Wildlife, 
    504 U.S. 555
    , 560-61 (1992).
    Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the pending motion is denied.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L.
    Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-3788

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 753

Judges: Bye, McMillian, Per Curiam, Riley

Filed Date: 12/16/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024