In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________

AUGUST TERM 2021

ARGUED: OCTOBER 6, 2021 DECIDED: JANUARY 25, 2022

No. 20-1642-cv

Lee Barrows, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Michael Savage, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, George Renshaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Shirley Burton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Denise Rugman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Ann Pelow, Executor of the Estate of Richard Bagnall, James Mulcahy, Executor of the Estate of Sarah Mulcahy, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Brenda Hardy, Executrix of the Estate of Loretta Jackson, Gary Goodman, Estate of Dorothy Goodman, Christina Alexander, Representative of the Estate of Bernice Morse, Mary Smith, Representative of the Estate of Martha Leyanna, Peggy Leider, for Irma Becker, William Hodges, for Louis Dziadzia, Michael Holt, Executor of the Estate of Charles Holt, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Richard Bagnall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Sarah Mulcahy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 2 No. 20-1642-cv

Jessie Ruschmann, Representative of the Estate of Frederick Ruschmann, Bernice Morse, Frederick Ruschmann, Louis Dziadzia, Loretta Jackson, Martha Leyanna, Charles Holt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Irma Becker, Dorothy Goodman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Intervenors-Plaintiffs,

v.

Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. ∗ ________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ________ Before: WALKER, CALABRESI, AND CABRANES, Circuit Judges. ________

The plaintiff-appellee class members are Medicare Part A beneficiaries who are formally admitted to a hospital as “inpatients” before their subsequent reclassification as outpatients receiving “observation services.” Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging, inter alia, that defendant-appellant Xavier Becerra, the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), violates their due process rights by declining to provide them with an administrative review process for the reclassification decision. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Michael P. Shea, J.) entered an injunction that ordered the creation of such a process. On appeal, the Secretary challenges: (1) the finding that the plaintiff class had standing, (2) the

∗ The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 3 No. 20-1642-cv certification of the plaintiff class, and (3) the conclusion that plaintiffs’ due process rights are violated by the current administrative procedures available to Medicare beneficiaries. For the reasons that follow, we find no merit in these challenges. We therefore AFFIRM.

________

ALICE BERS (Wey-Wey Kwok, on the brief), Center for Medicare Advocacy, Willimantic, CT; David J. Berger, Steven Guggenheim, on the brief, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo A