Washington D.C. Healthcare Systems, Inc. and Jeffrey Thompson v. District of Columbia

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
and
)
)
JEFFREY THOMPSON
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
) Civil Action: 1:15-cv-00046
v.
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
)
)
WAYNE TURNAGE,
)
)
CHESTER McPHERSON,
)
)
DANIEL L. WATKINS,
)
)
WILLIAM WHITE,
)
)
and
)
)
MERCER, LLC
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
D.C. HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
The District of Columbia, Wayne Turnage, Chester McPherson, Daniel L.
Watkins, and William White (collectively, the District Defendants) are defendants in
the case D.C. Healthcare Systems, Inc., et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., 2014 CA
008314 B, now pending in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, these defendants remove the above action from the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia to this Honorable Court because the claims raised in
Plaintiffs complaint present federal questions appropriate for this Court. The remaining
defendant, Mercer, LLC, has consented to removal.
Causes of action founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties
or laws of the United States are removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of
the parties. See 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). As grounds for removal of the above-captioned
matter, Defendants state as follows:
1. A civil action brought in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia over
which this Court has original jurisdiction may be removed to this Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) if all defendants who have been properly served jointly file
(or consent to) a notice of removal within 30 days of service. See 28 U.S.C.
1446(b).
2. This Court has original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that form part of the same case or
controversy as claims within the Courts original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
1367(a).
3. On January 2, the District Defendants were served with a Summons and
Complaint in the case of D.C. Healthcare Systems, Inc., et al. v. District of
Columbia, et al., 2014 CA 008314 B, which was filed on December 30, 2014, in
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.1
As required by 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, and orders received or sent by the
District Defendants in this case, including the Summonses and Complaint, are attached as Exhibit A
hereto and incorporated by reference.
4. The Complaint alleges causes of action arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting
violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution (Counts I-V).
5. The Court therefore has original jurisdiction over this action because Counts I-V
of the Complaint arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 28
U.S.C. 1331.2 Accordingly, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) is proper.
In light of the foregoing, the District Defendants hereby remove the abovecaptioned matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and 1446.
DATE: January 13, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
KARL A. RACINE
Attorney General for the District of
Columbia
ELLEN A. EFROS
Deputy Attorney General
Public Interest Division
/s/ Gary Feldon
GARY FELDON [D.C. Bar No. 987142]
Assistant Attorney General
Public Interest Division
Office of the Attorney General for the
District of Columbia
441 Fourth Street NW, Suite 600S
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 724-5691
Facsimile: (202) 730-0640
Email: gary.feldon@dc.gov
The Court likewise has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI-X of the Complaint because they arise
from the same case or controversy as the claims alleged in Counts I-V. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of January 2015, a copy of the foregoing Notice of
Removal was mailed to:
Lisa A. Bell
PCT Law Group
910 17th Street, NW
Suite 800
Deborah J. Israel
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP
1200 19th Street, NW
Suite 500
/s/ Gary Feldon

GARY FELDON [D.C. Bar No. 987142]
Assistant Attorney General
Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 88
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division
:=
.,.
~
D.C. HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
a District of Columbia Corporation,
clo Nicholas G. Karambelas
2938 Upton Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008,
JEFFREY THOMPSON,
clo Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W., Suite 500
)
)
)
14-000SU4
Civil Action No. _-.,Nt'ft-_
COMPLAINT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
WAYNE TURNAGE, individually and

in his official capacity as Director of the District of
Columbia Department ofHeaIth Care Finance
441 Fourth Street, N.W., 900S
Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray
1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Room 419
Washington, D.C. 20004
en
v.
Office of the Attorney General

441 Fourth Street, NW.
Suite 600 S

Room 419
o
"0
)
)
Plaintiffs,
a Municipal Corporation,
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
\.oJ
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Office ofthe Attorney General

Suite '600 S
)
)
)
)
)
)
CHESTER MCPHERSON,
in his official capacity as

Commissioner of the District of Columbia
Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking
810 First Street, N.E, Suite 710
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Room 419
Suite 600 S
DANIEL L. WATKINS, individually and

in,his official capacity as Special Deputy to the
Rehabilitator
Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking,
810 First Street, N.B, Suite 710
Room 419
Suite 600 S
WILLIAM WHITE, individually

946 Westminster St., N.W.
and
MERCERLLC
d/b/a MERCER GOVERNMENT HUMAN
SERVICES CONSULTING,
)
)
)
a Delaware limited liability company

1166 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Serve: The Corporation Trust Company

Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Defendants.
)
)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs
D.C.
Healthcare
Systems,
Inc.
("DCHSI")
and Jeffrey
Thompson
("Mr. Thompson"), by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully file this civil action
against the above captioned Defendants, and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
I.
DCHSI is the parent company and sole shareholder of DC Chartered Health Plan,
Inc. ("Chartered"), a managed care organization ("MCO") located in the District of Columbia.
Until recently, Chartered had a series of contracts with the government of the District of
Columbia (the "District") to provide healthcare services to well over 100,000 low-income and
disabled District residents.
2.
This case is about the District and the other named Defendants abusing the
District's executive and regulatory powers, defying the U.S. Constitution and federal and local
law, and attempting to cover up the District's mismanagement of its Medicaid program
("Medicaid") and its Healthcare Alliance program ("Alliance"). The mismanagement included a
policy, custom, and/or practice of knowingly and intentionally setting actuarially unsound
reimbursement rates in violation of applicable laws and in breach of contracts between Chartered
and the District. The policy resulted in underpayments to Chartered in the tens of millions of
dollars and artificially forced Chartered into fmancial distress.
3.
The District then used Chartered's financial distress as a pretext to force
Chartered into rehabilitation, seize control of Chartered, dismantle it, and transfer Chartered's
valuable assets and personnel to a favored competitor for a significantly reduced value.
4.
Once the District took control of Chartered pursuant to the rehabilitation, it
engineered a "settlement" with itself
That is, the District settled Chartered's claims for
underfunding and improper rates, which claims total at least $80 million. l At all times material
to the settlement, the District sat on both sides of the settlement table. The District controlled
Chartered and negotiated claims against itself (for its own constitutional and statutory violations
and breaches of contract). The settlement was manufactured before a full assessment of the
scope of claims, without discovery, and without DCHSI's consent or involvement.
The
settlement allegedly resolved claims to which the District, by its own admission, had no defense.
The one-sided, highly advantageous settlement allowed the District to sell Chartered's assets at
below fair market value at DCHSl's expense.
5.
Defendants' misconduct (i) violates the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (ii) contravenes the federal Medicaid laws, (iii) flouts
a D.C. statute forbidding illegal restraints on trade, (iv) constitutes intentional torts including
fraudulent inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation, (v) breaches the contracts mentioned
above, and (vi) has caused injury and damage to Plaintiffs in an amount exceeding $80 million.
PARTIES
6.
From 1987 until April 2013, Chartered was one of the Medicaid MCOs in the
District pursuant to a series of contracts between Chartered and the District's Department of
Health Care Finance ("DHCF"). Chartered's healthcare business consisted of contracts from one
client: the District. The most recent of these contracts was executed on May 1,2008, for a fiveyear term through one-year options. For simplicity, this Complaint refers to each of these
contracts and the amendments thereto, individually or collectively as applicable in context, as the
This amount is part of the "financial distress" caused by certain Defendants who
intentionally (and wrongly) set unsound reimbursements rates for services that they compelled
Chartered to provide to District beneficiaries. Had the relevant Defendants set actuarially sound
rates and paid them, Chartered would have had satisfactory regulatory capital to operate its
business.
"DHCF Contract." Pursuant to the DHCF Contract, Chartered provided healthcare services to
low-income, disabled, recipients of assistance under TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families), and previously uninsured residents of the District under the Medicaid and Alliance
programs.
7.
DCHSI has been Chartered's sole shareholder since May 2000. When the District
seized control of Chartered through rehabilitation, the District took DCHSI's largest asset.
8.
Mr. Thompson is DCHSI's sole shareholder. Mr. Thompson served as Chairman
of the Board of Directors of Chartered until April 2012, when he was forced to resign. The
underfunded Medicaid and Alliance contracts with the District resulted in undercapitalization
that triggered the rehabilitation and Mr. Thompson's ouster.
9.
The District is responsible for operating its programs, services, and activities in
conformity with the federal Social Security Act (the "SSA") and related federal and local laws in
its implementation of the D.C. Medicaid and Alliance programs. D.C. Code 1-307.02 et seq.
In addition, officials of the District working at subordinate agencies, including but not limited to
the DHCF and the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking ("DISB"), may not
intentionally, willfully, or knowingly violate the constitutional rights of the District's citizens.
10.
Defendant Chester A. McPherson is sued in his official capacity. Mr. McPherson
is the acting Commissioner of DISB. The DISB Commissioner is appointed by the Mayor, with
the advice and consent of the D.C. Council. See D.C. Code 31-104. The DISB Commissioner
has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for insurers and MCOs in the District. See,
e.g., D.C. Code 31-3402(e)(1).
By law, the DISB Commissioner also serves as the
rehabilitator for insurers and MCOs that are in rehabilitation. D.C. Code 31-3420. Defendant
"
McPherson is the current District official responsible for supervision of both the Special Deputy
and Chartered in rehabilitation.
11.
Defendant William P. White, who is sued in his individual capacity, was the
Acting DISB Commissioner from February 2011 to June 2011, and the DISB Commissioner
from June 2011 to November 2013, and thus was the Rehabilitator by operation of statute.
12.
Defendant Daniel L. Watkins, who is sued individually and in his official
capacity, was appointed by Commissioner White to serve as Special Deputy to the Rehabilitator
in connection with Chartered's rehabilitation. He was appointed in October 2012 and continues
to serve in that role. Prior to serving as Special Deputy, Mr. Watkins worked as a consultant to
DISB. In that role, Mr. Watkins was paid to conduct a financial review of Chartered for DISB.
13.
Defendant Wayne Turnage, at all times material hereto, was the Director of
DHCF and is sued individually and in his official capacity. DHCF administers the Medicaid and
Alliance programs. DHCF is the "single state agency" that administers the Medicaid program.
See 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5); D.C. Code 31-3171.13.
At all times material hereto, Mr.
Turnage, in his role as Director, was responsible for the oversight, supervision, and control of
DHCF operations, and was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the agency's services
complied with federal and local laws.
14.
Defendant Mercer LLC, d/b/a Mercer Government Human Services Consulting
("Mercer''), is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York.
Mercer
provided DHCF with actuarial rate development, analysis, and rate certification for the Medicaid
and Alliance programs.
..
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to D.C. Code
11-921 and 31-1303. Pursuant to D.C. Code 12-309, a notice-of-claim letter was timely
served on the Mayor ofthe District on May 30, 2013.
16.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants McPherson, Turnage, White
and Watkins pursuant to D.C. Code 13-422 and 13-423(a) because they are domiciled, work,
or have their principal place ofbusiness in the District, regularly transact business in the District,
caused tortious injury in the District by acts and omissions in the District, and regularly solicit
and do business in the District.
17.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mercer pursuant to 13
423(a) because it transacts business in the District, contracts to supply services in the District,
caused tortious irijury in the District by acts and omissions in the District, and regularly solicits,
does business, and derives substantial revenue from services rendered in the District.
18.
Plaintiffs' claims for violation of their constitutional rights are stated against the
individual Defendants in their personal and official capacities.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

A.
The D.C. Medicaid Program.
19.
Across the U.S., Medicaid programs provide healthcare services to low-income
children, adults, the elderly, TANF recipients, and persons with disabilities by implementation of
a federally approved state plan, pursuant to Title XIX of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.
(Although the District and U.S. territories are not states, for simplicity this Complaint uses the
tenn "state" to refer to all such jurisdictions as well as actual states.)
20.
The local Medicaid program was established by the Medicaid Managed Care
Amendment Act of 1992, effective March 17, 1993 (D.C. Law 9-247). DHCF was created in
2009 and is the successor to the Medical Assistance Administration. DHCF is responsible for
planning, setting polices and requirements, developing and providing program oversight, and
ensuring fiscal accountability to promote an accessibJe system of quality care for the population
served by the Medicaid program.
B.
The Federal Medicaid Program and the District's Participation.
21.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), pursuant to SSA's
Title XIX, provides oversight for the states' Medicaid programs throughout the country, jointly
funding state programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), which is
part of HHS, ensures that quality medical services are provided at the state level in compliance
with applicable federal requirements.
22.
The state plans are submitted to CMS annually, and indicate the rates for
reimbursement of services provided by MCOs to that state's Medicaid beneficiaries. The state
developed "capitation rates" are required to be "actuarially sound" and must be certified as such
to the federal government. See 42 U.S.C. 1396b(m)(2)(A)(iii) (requiring that payments to
healthcare providers must be "made on an actuarially sound basis"); 42 C.F.R. 438.6(c)(2)(i)
("AU payments under risk contracts and all risk-sharing mechanisms in contracts must be
actuarially sound.") (emphasis added).

23.
Capitation rates refer to capitation, which is a per-member monthly amount paid
to a healthcare plan (in the case, an MCO) that covers contracted services. Capitation is the most
frequently used methodology to purchase managed care services from MCOs.
24.
At all times material hereto, DHCF contracted with Mercer to act as its actuary to
develop "actuarially sound" capitation rates every year. The District delegated its statutory duty
to certify the soundness of providers' rates to Mercer. The certification is intended to be an
assurance that the rates meet the federal and corresponding state requirements for actuarially
sound rates.
II.
THE DISTRICT'S CONTRACTS WITH CHARTERED.

25.
DCHSI purchased Chartered out of bankruptcy with the District's approval in
May 2000, thereby acquiring the then-applicable DHCF Contract. Chartered was awarded a
second DHCF contract in 2006.
26.
The DHCF Contract required Chartered to provide medical services to over
100,000 District residents monthly. As a result, Chartered developed a significant provider

network incorporating primary, urgent, and emergency healthcare services. This network gave
beneficiaries of Medicaid and Alliance access to an extensive range of healthcare services.
27.
In 2006, the DHCF Contract consisted only of the Medicaid population. Later, in
2008, the District transferred members from the 100% District-sponsored Alliance program to
Chartered, thereby significantly increasing the number ofpatients whom Chartered served.
28.
The DHCF Contract required the District to set the reimbursement rates at levels
such that the District would pay Chartered (i) 100% of what Chartered was expected to pay
providers plus (ii) a small percentage more.
The calculations included money to cover
Chartered's administrative costs, a premium tax, and a small amount for profit (sometimes
referred to as cost of capital).
29.
Under the DHCF Contract, if the District imposed additional or changed
conditions in any given year that increased Chartered's costs of providing services, Chartered
10
was entitled to a retrospective rate adjustment to account for its entire loss experience under the
Contracts.
30.
The DHCF Contract is a "retrospectively rated" contract. This means that, even if
an actuary (Mercer) certified the rates as sound,
if the rates proved unsound, the District was
obligated to pay Chartered the amounts that the District would have paid Chartered
if the rates
had been sound in the first instance.
III.
THE DISTRICT DELIBERATELY AND SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERPAID

CHARTERED BY USING ACTUARIALLY UNSOUND RATES.
31.
For a number of years, beginning prior to 2010 and continuing until at least when
DHCF made its last payment to Chartered (the "Actuarially Unsound Period"), Director Turnage
and Mercer agreed that DHCF would pay Chartered reimbursement rates that were actuarially
unsound, which is unlawful under Medicaid law, and in breach of the DHCF Contract.
32.
By 2011 if not earlier, Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins learned
of this agreement, joined it, and actively encouraged its execution. Mr. Watkins's role in this
scheme predated his appointment as Special Deputy. He had prior knowledge of Chartered, its
financial distress, and its rate-setting history before his appointment. Mr. Watkins was first paid
by DISB to complete an assessment of the financial condition of Chartered in 2011. Relying on
Mr. Watkins's assessment, DISB determined that Chartered needed financial intervention.
33.
DISB Commissioner White, by regulation, has the sole authority for the
administrative process of rehabilitation of an insurer. DISB reviews the financial status of

insurers, including Chartered, and determines the method that an insurer must use to remain
financially stable.
In the case of DCHSI, Chartered was subjected to an unnecessary
rehabilitation that enabled the District to transfer Chartered's assets - including its unique status
as the longtime incumbent provider for Medicaid and Alliance - to AmeriHealth Mercy
11
("AmeriHealth"), a politically favored competitor of DCHSI and Chartered. The rehabilitation

resulted in a transfer of vital and necessary medical services from a local corporation (Chartered)
to an out-of-state business (AmeriHealth). This transfer could not have served, and did not
serve, any legitimate District objective.
34.
Throughout the Actuarialty Unsound Period, Director Turnage approved
actuarially unsound reimbursement rates that he directed Mercer to set for DHCF's payments to
Chartered. Director Turnage approved these rates as part of his and Mercer's unlawful scheme
with Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins, knowing that their actions would result
in financial losses to Chartered.
35.
At all times material hereto, Mercer and DHCF set and certified rates that they
knew were actuarially unsound.

36.
Throughout the Actuarially Unsound Period, Director Turnage, Mercer,
Commissioner White, and Special Deputy Watkins concealed from Mr. Thompson, DCHSI, and
Chartered the fact that DHCF was paying. Chartered based on actuarially unsound rates and was
thereby causing severe financial injuries to Chartered.
37.
In addition to the single underpayment category described below, the District also
underpaid Chartered for seven other Significant categories:

(a)
First, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarially
unsound rates under the Alliance program from July 2010 through July 2011. For this "Alliance
Claim," the District owes Chartered an additional $9,086,929 (plus interest);
(b)
Second, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarially
unsound rates for certain dental benefits that DHCF imposed on Chartered, but for which the
12
District did not pay from January 2011 through November 2012.
For this "Dental Crown
Claim," the District owes Chartered an additional $2.2 million (Plus interest);
(c)
Third, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarially
unsound rates for the Alliance program from August 2011 through December 2011;
(d)
Fourth, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarially
unsound rates, not otherwise claimed, for the calendar year that ended on December 31, 2012,
both for the Alliance program (for the full year) and for the Medicaid program (from May 2012
through the end ofthe year);
(e)
Fifth, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarial1y
unsound rates from January 1,2013 until the end of the contract period, April 30, 2013, for both
the Alliance program and the Medicaid program;
(1)
Sixth, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarial1y
unsound rates prior to the period addressed in the Rehabilitator's asserted Alliance Claim, i.e.,
from May 1,2008 through June 2010 (the "Early Alliance Retrospective Period"); and
(g)
Seventh, the District, through Director Turnage and Mercer, set actuarially
unsound rates for the Medicaid program prior to the period from May 1, 2008 through July 31,
2010 (the "Early Medicaid Retrospective Period").
38.
DCHSI and Mr. Thompson estimate that these seven categories of underpayments
would have entitled Chartered to a retrospective rate adjustment exceeding $80 million.
39.
In addition, in 2010, the District unilaterally transferred approximately 23,000
people (the "774 Population" and the "775 Population") from Alliance to Medicaid. The 774
Population consisted of childless adults with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty
level. The 775 Population consisted of childless adults with incomes between 133% and 200%
13
of the federal poverty leveL Transferring the 774 and 775 Populations to Medicaid gave persons
in these populations new access to expensive prescription drug coverage, which Alliance did not
provide (but which Chartered was required to provide pursuant to contract).
40.
The transfer of the 774 and 775 Populations from Alliance to Medicaid had a
severe adverse financial impact on Chartered.
This is because many individuals in those
Populations had chronic illnesses and required very expensive brand-name drugs. As a result,
the phannacy costs increased significantly for Chartered.
41.
Despite the evidence of increased costs to Chartered, the actuarial unsoundness of
the rates, and demands by Mr. Thompson, DCHSI, and Chartered for an equitable adjustment,
the District refused to adjust the rates, either retrospectively or prospectively, as required by the
DHCF Contract and the Medicaid laws.
42.
In sum, the District, Director Turnage, Commissioner White, and Special Deputy
Watkins intentionally deprived DCHSI's business, Chartered, of tens of millions of dollars of

revenue during the three years preceding Chartered's rehabilitation and caused DCHSI to lose its
company (Chartered) and assets.
IV.
THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MISPRESENTATIONS, PLAN TO

LIQUIDATE CHARTERED, AND BLATANT SELF-DEALING.
43.
Defendants decided to assert direct and complete control over DCHSI's business
by way of "rehabilitation" through the Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act.

44.
Defendants made an unprecedented demand that DCHSI sell Chartered because
Chartered was undercapitalized. A forced sale of Chartered would cover up the District's failure
to properly set rates because the purported basis for the sale was the very financial pretext that
Defendants themselves had caused. Chartered and DCHSI were not allowed to fully participate
in Chartered's sale.
14
A.
The Ethical Problems with the Watkins Appointment.
45.
The rehabilitation proceeding involving Chartered has always been tainted by
serious and non-waivable conflicts of interest. These conflicts underscore the bias and lack of
impartiality of the entire rehabilitation process and the seriousness of the District officials'
efforts to violate the constitutional, statutory, and common-law rights of DCHSI and its owner.
Despite DCHSI's repeated attempts to raise concerns about the conflicts, the District and DISB
turned a blind eye.
1.
46.
Special Deputy Watkins.
Special Deputy Watkins is an out-of-town lawyer from Kansas who has day-to
day responsibility for the rehabilitation of Chartered. Special Deputy Watkins had and has
multiple conflicts of interest that make it unethical for him to be involved in the rehabilitation of
Chartered. These conflicts create an appearance of impropriety. More significantly, there is
evidence of inappropriate action by the District.
47.
Upon information and belief, Special Deputy Watkins's brother, Robert Watkins,
served as Chartered's Chief Operating Officer ("COO") from December 2007 through
September 2011. While serving as Chartered's COO, Robert Watkins was actively involved in
rate-setting, contract negotiations, and pharmacy management. Commissioner White appointed
Daniel Watkins (brother of Robert Watkins) to serve as Special Deputy for the rehabilitation
without disclosing the familial conflict-of-interest to Chartered, DCHSI, or Mr. Thompson.
48.
In addition, upon information and belief, during the months leading up to
Chartered's rehabilitation, DISB paid Special Deputy Daniel Watkins as a consultant for the
purposes of examining and analyzing Chartered's practices, procedures, and financial condition
and developing a corrective action plan.
15
49.
Both prior to and during the rehabilitation proceeding, Special Deputy Watkins's
duties included reviewing, evaluating, and opining on his brother's work regarding Chartered.
For example, the purported "settlement agreement" between DISB and DHCF (i.e., between the
District and itself) concerns claims arising from the very rate-setting and negotiations in which
former Chartered COO Robert Watkins was involved. This "settlement agreement" is discussed
more fully below.
50.
On information and belief, pursuant to an ethics review by the Office of the D.C.
Attorney General (the "OAG"), Special Deputy Watkins's role in Chartered's rehabilitation was
to be "prospective" and was not to include work performed by his brother as a Chartered
executive. Instead, by reviewing and analyzing historical and retrospective work, including his
brother's work, Special Deputy Watkins's role has far exceeded the scope allowed by the OAG.
51.
Based on Special Deputy Watkins's actual and potential conflicts and the
appearance of impropriety, DCHSI asked that he be recused. Commissioner White refused.
2.
52.
Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP.
Another conflict concerns DISB's engagement of the law firm of Faegre Baker
Daniels, LLP ("FBD").

53.
expense.
Prior to rehabilitation, DISB engaged FBD to examine Chartered at Chartered's

At that time, FBD was also representing United Healthcare ("UHC"), a direct
competitor of Chartered that had expressed an interest in acquiring Chartered. DCHSI and
Chartered were concerned that UHC would gain a significant competitive advantage if Chartered
was no longer able to continue providing healthcare services for Medicaid and Alliance.
54.
Before engaging FBD, DISB never determined whether FBD had any interests-
actual or potential adverse to Chartered. DISB was required to do so.
16
55.
Pursuant to D.C. Code 13-1405, DISB was required to ensure that its
consultants had no conflict of interest relating to, affiliation with, or pecuniary interest in any
person subject to the examination.
56.
DCHSI and Chartered both complained to DISB that FBD's engagement and
participation in the examination of Chartered called into question the credibility and impartiality
of the examination and was on its face improper. DISB ignored these complaints.
B.
Misrepresentations to Induce DCHSl's Consent.
57.
From October 2012 to January 2013, to induce Mr. Thompson and DCHSI to
consent to the rehabilitation of Chartered, Special Deputy Watkins made the following
representations to Mr. Thompson and/or DCHSI's counsel, Stephen 1. Glover of the law firm
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP:
(a)
Chartered would bid on the new Medicaid and Alliance contract prior to
the DHCF Contract expiring on March 30, 2013;
(b)
The Rehabilitator would consult DCHSI and cooperate with DCHSI
respecting any corporate activity by way of the reorganization or rehabilitation of Chartered; and
(c)
The Rehabilitator promised that, once Chartered was in rehabilitation,
neither DCHSI nor Mr. Thompson would be sued by the Rehabilitator.

58.
But for these representations, Mr. Thompson and DCHSI would not have
consented to the rehabilitation.

59.
None of these representations was true: (1) Defendants had already decided that
Chartered would not be allowed to submit a bid to renew its contract with DHCF and that they
would give the new contract to AmeriHealth through an improper process; (2) Defendants had
already decided that they would transfer Chartered's assets to AmeriHealth for far less money
17
than the assets were worth; and (3) once consent was induced, the Rehabilitator excluded Mr.
Thompson and DCHSI and denied their repeated requests for pertinent information about the
District's plans for Chartered. Indeed, the Rehabilitator sued both Mr. Thompson and DCHSI.
60.
Mr. Glover made requests for pertinent information on behalf of Mr. Thompson
and DCHSI during meetings or phone calls with Special Deputy Watkins and his counsel on or
about November 2,9, 16,23, and 30, 2012; December 5 and 14,2012; and January 11,2013. In
November 2012, Special Deputy Watkins and/or other agents of DISB taking directions from
Special Deputy Watkins repeated his pre-rehabilitation representations to Mr. Glover that
Chartered would bid on the new Medicaid and Alliance contract prior to the DHCF Contract
expiring. That bid never happened.
C.
The District Never Intended To Rehabilitate Chartered.
61.
At no time prior to rehabilitation did Director Turnage, Commissioner White,
Special Deputy Watkins, or anyone else acting for the District or one of its agencies inform
Mr. Thompson or DCHSI that Chartered's undercapitalization and financial distress were due to
the District's policy and practice of imposing actuarially unsound rates.
Director Turnage,
Commissioner White, and Special Deputy Watkins had a duty to disclose this information, but
they instead affirmatively concealed that: (a) they were aware that for years that the
reimbursement rates were set at actuarially unsound levels; (b) these unsound rates were
responsible for all or virtually all of Chartered's financial distress; and (c) they had themselves
participated in setting or had knowledge of the actuarially unsound rates.
62.
Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins's purported attempt to
rehabilitate Chartered was a sham designed to cover up their liquidation of Chartered and their
illegal transfer ofChartered's assets to AmeriHealth, a politically favored competitor.
18
63.
The Rehabilitator failed to take reasonable or appropriate steps to reform and
revitalize Chartered, as required by statute. For example, the Rehabilitator failed to pursue
claims against the District to the full extent necessary to properly refund Chartered for the
injuries incurred as a result of the District's use of unsound rates. Instead of pursuing a strategy
designed to reform and revitalize Chartered, the Rehabilitator focused solely on selling Chartered
in a method and manner that injured Chartered, DCHSI, and Mr. Thompson.
64.
In November 2012, the Rehabilitator retained an investment banker for the
purported purpose of exploring the sale of Chartered. The Rehabilitator excluded Chartered,
DCHSI, and Mr. Thompson from the process of finding and vetting potential purchasers, thereby
ensuring that Chartered would be sold for less than fair market value.
65.
On Friday, November 9, 2012, the Rehabilitator's banker sent a private letter
soliciting interested parties concerning Chartered's "potential acquisition and recapitalization."

The letter indicated that all bids would be binding and that the bidder must support Chartered's
bid for the new DHCF Contract. Responses were due on Wednesday, November 14,2012 - only
3 business days after the letter was sent. Preparing a bid required detailed financial and other
information, making it all but impossible for potential bidders to bid within the three-day
response time.
66.
By late November 2012, the Rehabilitator had abandoned any pretense of trying
to sell Chartered properly. Instead, the Rehabilitator decided to enter into a non-binding letter of
intent with AmeriHealth and agreed to assist AmeriHealth in preparing its RFP and negotiating a
definitive agreement.
67.
On November 30, 2012, the Rehabilitator caused Chartered to enter into an
agreement to provide its "resources, assets, and know-how in support of' AmeriHealth's bid for
19
the award of the new DHCF Contract, in exchange for $5 million to be paid if AmeriHealth "is
chosen as a Service Provider under the RFP and commences operations thereunder."
68.
On December I, 2012, the Rehabilitator caused Chartered to enter into a non
binding letter of intent with AmeriHealth to transfer all of Chartered's operating assets to
AmeriHealth without payment of additional consideration; the $5 million payment required
under the November 30, 2012 letter agreement is the only payment that AmeriHealth ever agreed
to make.
69.
The asset transfer included the then-existing DHCF Contract, provider contacts,
Chartered's phone numbers and trade name, computer systems, membership rolls, accounting
records, certain intellectual property rights, furniture, equipment, supplies, machinery, tools,
vehicles, office equipment, claims data, price lists, sales records, and financial and accounting
records - in short, all assets necessary to operate Chartered's business.
70.
The asset transfer agreement left Chartered with no source of income and no
ability to pay its employees. Further, the agreement impeded Chartered's ability to collect funds
from the District. The transfer was in effect a totaIliquidation of Chartered.
71.
The Rehabilitator offered no evidence setting forth his valuation of Chartered's
business or supporting his bargain-basement sale price of $5 million.

72.
Only when the December 3, 2012 bidding deadline for the new DHCF Contract
had passed did the Rehabilitator reveal that Chartered had not been allowed to bid to keep its
contract with the District - its only source of income. That is, Chartered was intentionally
excluded from bidding on a new District contract.
Instead, the Rehabilitator had required
Chartered to commit its full resources to support the bid of AmeriHea1th - Chartered's politically
favored competitor - for that contract.
20
73.
On February 22,2013, the Rehabilitator sought expedited approval of the transfer
of Chartered's assets to AmeriHealth.

74.
On March 1, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order authorizing the asset
transfer sa)e to AmeriHealth and approving the Rehabilitator's Plan of Reorganization for
Chartered.
75.
On April 30, 2013, with Chartered's DHCF Contract set to expire at 11 :59 p.m.
that day, AmeriHealth and the DHCF entered into a new contract, effective as of May 1, 2013.
76.
Pursuant to an agreement among Defendants, DHCF awarded the new contract to
AmeriHea1th without going through the proper process that the D.C. procurement laws require.
DHCF - per Defendants' scheme - improperly awarded the new contract to AmeriHealth.
77.
In short, within a mere six weeks, the Rehabilitator purportedly assessed the
financial condition of Chartered, determined the spectrum of potential buyers, identified a

preferred buyer, established terms, and negotiated a procedure and sale of Chartered's assets - all
while excluding DCHSI and Mr. Thompson. Such a short time frame further evidences the
Rehabilitator's failure to pursue the reformation and revitalization of Chartered and further
evidences that Rehabilitation did not and could not achieve fair market value in its bargain
basement sale ofChartered.
D.
The District's Blatant Self-Dealing.
78.
The District, Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and DHCF
negotiated and "settled" Chartered's $60M-plus claim against the District for underpayments.
Those negotiations and "settlement" were carried out without full discovery, without DCHSI's
consent or involvement, and without a full vetting of all claims and potential claims that
Chartered had against the District.
21
79.
More specifically, the "settlement agreement" was negotiated only among, and
signed only by, representatives of the District.
That is, all signatories to the settlement
agreement were District representatives. The District signed an agreement with itself; one of its
hands shook the other.
80.
Highlighting the one-sided nature of the "settlement agreement," while it
purported to "settle" all of Chartered's claims against the District arising from the Medicaid and
Alliance programs (the "Released Claims"), it reserved the District's right to bring claims against
Chartered, DCHSI, and Mr. Thompson.
81.
The "settlement agreement" resolved all Released Claims for $48 million, to be
distributed in two parts. First, $18 million (Part I) would be paid to Chartered upon court
approval and approval by CMS (the Rehabilitator did not disclose the likelihood or expected
timing ofCMS's approval). This $18 million would be distributed "in accordance with the Plan
of Reorganization to providers with undisputed Class 3 claims allowed by the Rehabilitator."
Second, the remaining $30 million (Part II) would bypass Chartered altogether and would be
paid either (1) directly to Chartered's providers with undisputed, allowed Class 3 claims or (2) if
the Fiscal Year 2013 District Litigation Fund otherwise first would lapse, to an unnamed third
party selected by the District, which would hold the funds and pay them to providers,
presumably charging an undisclosed fee out of the Part II settlement fund.

82.
The District insisted on using the litigation fund to avoid the open and transparent
approval process of the D.C. Council and to expedite its secret settlement agreement. See D.C.
Code 47-355.02 ("D.C. Anti-Deficiency Act" prohibiting District agencies from making
unauthorized expenditures).
22
83.
The Rehabilitator has conceded that the claims he asserted did not cover all of the
District's debts to Chartered. Yet the Rehabilitator provided no infonnation to assess the nature
or value of the unasserted claims. In addition, the Rehabilitator also failed to detennine the value
of underpayments due to Chartered and equitable adjustments for new population.
84.
DCHSI estimates that the District owes Chartered (and thus DCHSn at least $50
million beyond the $48 million "settlement" payment.

85.
As to the claims for retrospective rating, the District had no defense given the
District's detenninations that the DHCF Contract is retrospectively rated and that the right to
payment was triggered. The Rehabilitator's waiver of those claims is particularly egregious.
V.
THE CONSPIRACY REVEALED - THE DISTRICT OFFICIALS' PLAN.

86.
The District's own internal documents prove that it intentionally set actuarially
unsound rates to underpay Chartered - facts that the District concealed from Mr. Thompson and
DCHSI.
A.
The Towers Watson Report.
87.
In late 2013, DCHSI received from the District a copy of a consulting actuarial
report prepared by Towers Watson Pennsylvania, Inc., dated June 11,2013 (the "Towers Watson
Report"). Special Deputy Watkins commissioned the Towers Watson Report. Before DCHSI
obtained a copy of the Towers Watson Report, Mr. Thompson and DCHSI were unaware of the
infonnation therein.
88.
The Towers Watson Report examined only one of numerous categories of the
District's underpayments to Chartered and breaches of contract. As to just that one category, and
as to it only for a limited period of time (the "Observation Period," as defined in the Towers
Watson Report), the report detennined that the District owed Chartered over $51.5 million.
23
89.
The Towers Watson Report also uncovered that the District and Mercer were
aware of, but ignored, (i) significant infonnation repeatedly provided by Chartered and
(ii) infonnation in the District's possession, both of which evidence a deliberate pattern of
actuarially unsound rate-setting. That illegal rate setting caused the very capital depletion upon
which the District relied to drive Chartered into rehabilitation and to sell it.
90.
Towers Watson made a number of important conclusions about the unsound rates
set by DHCF regarding the transfer of the 774 and 775 Populations: (1) Chartered's losses began
to emerge in early 2011 and accumulated to $51.5 million during the Observation Period;
(2) capitation rates in place during the Observation Period for the 774 and 775 Populations were
not actuarially sound; (3) capitation rates in place during the Observation Period for the Legacy
Population were not actuarially sound; (4) key contract requirements were not met [by the
District]; and (5) applying actuarially sound capitation rates retroactively would reduce
Chartered's losses by $47.2 million.
91.
Chartered incurred not less than $51.5 million in losses from inadequate
capitation rates set by the District and Mercer during the Observation Period for the 774 and 775
Populations.
92.
The District and Mercer imposed rates for what Towers Watson referred to as the
"Legacy Population," meaning the population that Chartered served before the 774 and 775
Populations were transferred to the Medicaid program. The rates were unsound.
93.
Of the $21.7 million oflosses that Towers Watson found arising from inadequate
capitation rates for the Legacy Population during Towers Watson's observation period, $17.4
million is attributable to the District and Mercer imposing rates below target rates.
24
.'
94.
The rates for the Legacy Population were not actuarially sound because:
(1) capitation rates were imposed by the District; (2) the high degree of uncertainty of the
incoming new 774 and 775 Populations meant that a decreased margin in overall rates presented
additional unanticipated risk to Chartered; and (3) Chartered's financial condition ~ a single
state, mono-line, Medicaid and Alliance MCO reporting adverse experience should have been
considered in setting actuarially sound rates.
95.
Had the District applied actuarially sound rates, Chartered would not have
experienced loss.
B.
Director Turnage's Memorandum to the Mayor.
96.
At least by April 4, 2011, Director Turnage knew that, as a matter of policy, the
District had been intentionally underpaying Chartered. Director Turnage addressed the issue in a
private memorandum addressed to Mayor Vincent Gray dated April 4, 2011 (the "Turnage
Memorandum").
(See Ex. A, Turnage Mem.)
The Turnage Memorandum reveals that
Defendants knew that setting actuarially unsound rates coupled with the non-payment of fees
owed would result in a material reduction of Chartered's level of risk-based capital, which would
place Chartered in the financial position necessary for a regulatory take-over.
97.
That problem was compounded by the fact that DHCF had directed Mercer, the
District's rate-setting actuary, ''to set the MCO [Managed Care Organization, e.g., Chartered]
rates for the Alliance below the lowest level considered actuarially sound." (Jd)
98.
Commissioner Turnage admitted that the goal was to use Medicaid funds (70% of
which are paid by the federal government) ''to offset predicted Alliance losses," but that this did
not work and Chartered consequently was injured in two ways. (Jd) First, because "members
with higher health care costs" were transferred into the Medicaid program, ''the expected
25
margins on the Medicaid side have not materialized."
Second, "[Chartered] experienced
substantial losses on their Alliance business." (Jd.)

99.
The Turnage Memorandum makes clear that the rates had been set below
actuarially sound levels as a policy by the District to save money and to attempt to balance the
books on the back of Chartered - and, by extension, DCHSI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against the District, Commissioner White, Special Deputy
Watkins, and Director Turnage for Taking Chartered's Assets)
100.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-99 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by
reference.
101.
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:
"[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
102.
At all relevant times, D.C. law authorized Commissioner White to determine all
actions that should be taken on behalf of the District relating to an insurance company that was
undergoing rehabilitation. See, e.g., D.C. Code 31-1312(c) ("The rehabilitator may take such
action as deemed necessary or appropriate to reform and revitalize the insurer."); id. 31
1312(e) ("If the rehabilitator determines that ... transformation of the insurer is appropriate, the
rehabilitator shall prepare a plan to effect the changes."). Commissioner White was the District's
fmal policymaker for making such determinations. See id. 31-1312(a), (c).
103.
Commissioner White had the powers to appoint and delegate his responsibilities
to a special deputy. See D.C. Code 31-1312(a), (c). Pursuant to these powers, Commissioner
White appointed Special Deputy Watkins and charged him with assessing Chartered's financial
health, inducing compliance from its sole shareholder (DCHSI), and using the rehabilitation
26
proceeding to take Chartered's assets for the benefit of an out-of-town private company
(AmeriHealth). Special Deputy White is an outsider - he is an insurance lawyer from Kansas
and no legitimate reason existed to appoint him rather than one of the many equally or more
qualified lawyers based in the District.
104.
At all relevant times, Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director
Turnage acted under color of District law.

105.
At Commissioner White's direction or with his approval, and with the knowledge
and agreement of Director Turnage, Special Deputy Watkins and/or other persons acting on
behalf of the District made misrepresentations to Mr. Thompson that induced him and DCHSI to
consent to the rehabilitation of Chartered.
106.
Turnage had intimate knowledge of the true causes and nature of the financial distress that
Chartered suffered as a result of the illegal rates that the District imposed. Specifically, they
were aware that the District used acttiarially unsound rates to calculate the payments that it made
to Chartered. They were also aware that if Chartered recovered the payments that the District
owed to it, Chartered would not have been undercapitalized.
107.
Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director Turnage were also
aware that using a process open to MCOs nationwide to decide the new holder of the DHCF
Contract would yield the best value and quality for the D.C. Medicaid and Alliance programs.
They also were aware that involving Chartered in the selection process would benefit those
programs because Chartered had superior knowledge of the programs specifically and the
managed care industry generally and was therefore better situated than the District to choose a
new provider. Nevertheless, the District (through Special Deputy Watkins) awarded the DHCF
27
Contract to AmeriHealth improperly, excluded Chartered (as well as DCHSI and Mr. Thompson)
from the process of deciding the new holder of the DHCF Contract, took all of Chartered's assets
(including its status as the DHCF Contract holder), and transferred those assets to AmeriHeaIth
for $5 million - far less than the assets were worth.
108.
To the extent that anyone acting on behalf of the District claimed that the taking
and transfer of Chartered's assets were done for a legitimate public use, such a claim was a
pretext designed to conceal the District's true objective of distancing itself from DCHSI and Mr.
Thompson at their expense to conceal the District's mismanagement of the Medicaid and
Alliance programs.
109.
The taking and transfer of Chartered's assets per se violated the Takings Clause,
irrespective of whether just compensation was paid to DCHSI or Mr. Thompson, because the
taking and transfer were not done for a legitimate public use and therefore contravened the
Clause's Public Use Provision.
110.
Neither the District nor anyone acting on its behalf paid any compensation, let
alone just compensation, to DCHSI or Mr. Thompson for the taking of Chartered's assets.
111.
Apart from the infringement on the Public Use Provision, the taking also violated
DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights under the Takings Clause because they were not paid just
compensation.
112.
The District does not provide any procedure whereby DCHSI or Mr. Thompson
could have sought or can seek just compensation for the taking of Chartered's assets.
113.
When the taking occurred, the contours of DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights
under the Public Use Provision and the Takings Clause were sufficiently clear that a reasonable
official would understand that the taking violated those rights.
28
COUNT II
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against the District, Commissioner White, Special Deputy
Watkins, and Director Turnage for Depriving DCHSI and Mr. Thompson of Chartered's
Assets And Payments Based on Aduarially Sound Rates Without Due Process)
114.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-113 are re-al1eged and incorporated herein by
reference.
115.

116.
DCHSI and Mr. Thompson had protected property interests in Chartered's assets,
in Chartered continuing to hold the DHCF Contract, and in Chartered receiving payments from
the District based on actuarially sound rates.
117.
After Chartered was in rehabilitation, with Director Turnage's knowledge and
agreement, Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins systematically, and without
providing notice or an opportunity to be heard, deprived DCHSI and Mr. Thompson of these
property interests. Among other things, Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins (i)
refused to provide DCHSI and Mr. Thompson with information relating to Chartered and (ii)
failed to consult with DCHSI and Mr. Thompson about, give them notice of, and provide them
an opportunity to be heard regarding matters involving Chartered. Such matters include, but are
not limited to, the transfer of Chartered's assets to AmeriHealth, the awarding of the new DHCF
Contract to AmeriHealth, and the purported release via the "settlement agreement" of
Chartered's claims arising from the District's use of actuarially unsound rates (through its agent
Mercer).
118.
In addition, Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins artificially rushed
the: rehabilitation process. Indeed, within approximately six weeks of the commencement of
rehabilitation, they had (i) decided to liquidate Chartered, (ii) identified AmeriHealth as the
29
buyer of Chartered's assets, (iii) negotiated a sale price for those assets with AmeriHeaIth, and
(iv) awarded the DHCF Contract to AmeriHealth on a sole-source basis, meaning without
competitive bidding.
119.
To enable the unconstitutional deprivations of property identified in this Count to
occur, with the knowledge and agreement of Director Turnage, Commissioner White and Special
Deputy Watkins fraudulently induced DCHSI and Mr. Thompson into consenting to Chartered's
rehabilitation and concealed Special Deputy Watkins's disqualifying conflicts of interest from
them. As a result of the fraudulent inducement and the conflicts of interest, the rehabilitation
proceeding has been unlawful since it began. The proceeding therefore is not a legitimate
method of determining any matter involving Chartered. Any such determinations that have been
made in that proceeding are necessarily illegal.
120.
Through the foregoing acts, with the knowledge and agreement of Director
Turnage, Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins knowingly deprived DCHSI and Mr.
Thompson of Chartered's assets, Chartered's status as the holder of the DHCF Contract, and
Chartered's right to payments based on actuarially sound rates without providing any legal
process, much less due process, to DCHSI or Mr. Thompson.
121.
By knowingly depriving DCHSI and Mr. Thompson of that property without due
process, with the knowledge and agreement of Director Turnage, Mr. White and Mr. Watkins
violated DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the u.S. Constitution.
122.
The District does not provide any procedure whereby DCHSI or Mr. Thompson
could have sought or can seek a remedy for these knowing deprivations of property.
30
123.
When the knowing deprivations occurred, the contours of DCHSl's and Mr.
Thompson's Due Process Clause rights were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that the deprivations violated those rights.
COUNT III
(42 U.S.c. 1983 Claim Against the District, Commissioner White, Special Deputy
Watkins, and Director Turnage for Taking Funds To Which Chartered Was Entitled)
124.
reference.
125.
At aU relevant times, Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director

126.
At Commissioner White's direction or with his approval, and with the knowledge
and agreement of Director Turnage, Special Deputy Watkins used the rehabilitation proceeding
to take for the District the money that the District owed to Chartered.
127.
Specifically, at Commissioner White's direction or with his approval, and with
the knowledge and agreement of Director Turnage, Special Deputy Watkins entered into the
purported "settlement agreement" with other District officials and, by doing so, took for the
District much of the difference between (i) the total payments that Chartered actually received
from the District for the services that Chartered provided under the DHCF Contract and (ii) the
total payments to which Chartered was legally entitled and would have received from the District
for those services if Director Turnage and Mercer had used actuarially sound rates to calculate
the amounts that the District owed to Chartered under the DHCF Contract.
128.
alone just compensation, to DCHSI or Mr. Thompson for this taking.
31
129.
The taking violated DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights under the Takings
130.
The rehabilitation of Chartered thwarted any procedure whereby DCHSI or Mr.
Clause.
Thompson could have sought or can seek just compensation for the taking via the purported
"settlement agreement" ofpayments that the District owed to Chartered.
131.
When the taking occurred, the contours of DCHSI' s and Mr. Thompson' s Takings
Clause rights were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that the taking
violated those rights.
COUNT IV
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against the District, Director Turnage, and
Mercer for Taking Funds To Which Chartered Was Entitled)
132.
reference.
133.
At all relevant times, D.C. law authorized Director Turnage to determine the
amounts of money that the District would pay Chartered under the DHCF Contract. Director
Turnage was the District's final policymaker for making such determinations. See D.C. Code
7-771.04, 7-771.05(2).
134.
At all relevant times, Director Turnage, acting for the District, delegated to
Mercer DHCF's responsibiJities for setting rates under the DHCF Contract and calculating the
amounts of money that the District owed to Chartered under that contract. Mercer accepted these
responsibilities and was a District actor when it set such rates and made such calculations.
Director Turnage covertly directed and encouraged Mercer to use actuarially unsound rates and
calculate the payments that the District owed to Chartered based on such rates. The District,
32
through Mercer, had a policy, custom, and/or practice - established by Director Turnage - of
paying Chartered based on actuarially unsound rates.
135.
At all relevant times, Director Turnage and Mercer acted under color of District
136.
By deliberately using actuarially unsound rates to calculate the amounts of money
law.
that the District owed to Chartered under the DHCF Contract and directing that Chartered be
paid according to such calculations, Director Turnage and Mercer conspired to and did take
private property belonging to DCHSI. Director Turnage and Mercer agreed that they would use
actuarially unsound rates to underpay Chartered in violation of federal Medicaid law, the
District's laws implementing federal Medicaid law, and the DHCF Contract.
Mercer's
calculations of the District's payments to Chartered and Director Turnage's approvals and
certifications of those payments were overt acts in furtherance of the unlawful agreement
between Director Turnage and Mercer.
137.
The specific amount of money that Director Turnage and Mercer conspired to and
did take from DCHSI equals the difference between (i) the total payments that Chartered actually
received from the District for the services that Chartered provided under the then-applicable
DHCF Contract(s) and (ii) the total payments to which Chartered was legally entitled and would
have received from the District for those services if Director Turnage and Mercer had used
actuarially sound rates to calculate the amounts that the District owed to Chartered under the
then-applicable DHCF Contracts.
138.
alone just compensation, to DCHSI or Mr. Thompson for these takings.
33
139.
The takings violated DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights under the Takings
Clause ofthe Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

140.
The rehabilitation of Chartered thwarted any procedure whereby DCHSI could
have sought or can seek just compensation for the underpayments to Chartered by the District
due to Director Turnage's and Mercer's use of actuarially unsound rates to caJculate the amounts
of money that the District owed to Chartered under the DHCF Contract.
141.
When the takings occurred, the contours of DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's
Takings Clause rights were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officiaJ would understand that the
taking violated those rights.
COUNT V
(42 U.S.C. 1983 Claim Against the District, Director Turnage, and Mercer
for Depriving DCHSI and Mr. Thompson of Payments Based on Actuarially Sound
Rates Without Due Process)
142.
The aJlegations in paragraphs 1-141 are re-aJleged and incorporated herein by
reference.
143.
For the reasons stated in Count IV, Director Turnage was the District's final
policymaker for determining whether to give DCHSI the property identified in Count IV and
Mercer was a District actor for caJculating the amounts of that property.
144.
At all relevant times, Director Turnage and Mercer acted under color of District
145.
Director Turnage and Mercer did not provide DCHSI any notice or opportunity to
law.
be heard with respect to the property identified in Count IV. To the contrary, Director Turnage
and Mercer kept secret the facts that they deliberately and systematicaJly used actuarially
unsound rates to calculate the amounts of money that the District owed to Chartered under the
DHCF Contract and directed that Chartered be paid according to such calculations. Director
34
Turnage and Mercer engaged in these actions for the purpose of hanning Chartered financially to
such a degree that its business would be destroyed and the District could induce or force it into
rehabilitation.
146.
42 U.S.C. 1396b(mX2)(A)(iii) and 42 C.F.R. 438.6(c)(2)(i) provide that
payments under contracts such as the DHCF contract must be actuarially sound. Under these
provisions, DCHSI and Mr. Thompson had a protected interest in the property identified in
Count IV.
147.
Director Turnage and Mercer knowingly deprived DCHSI and Mr. Thompson of
the property identified in Count N without providing any legal process, much less due process,
to DCHSI.
148.
By knowingly depriving DCHSI of this property without due process, Director
Turnage and Mercer violated DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights under the Due Process
Clause.
149.
The District has no procedure whereby DCHSI or Mr. Thompson could have
sought or can seek a remedy for the knowing deprivations by Director Turnage and Mercer.
150.
When the knowing deprivations occurred, the contours of DCHSI's and Mr.
Thompson's Due Process Clause rights were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that the deprivations violated those rights.
COUNT VI
(Breach of Contract Against the District and Director Turnage)
151.
The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 150 are realleged and incorporated herein
by reference.
152.
The DHCF Contract is a valid contract that was executed by authorized
representatives of the parties and that involved a lawful exchange of consideration: healthcare
35
services that Chartered provided in connection with the Medicaid and Alliance programs in
exchange for payments that the District was supposed to make for such services.
153.
As Chartered's sole owner, DCHSI was in privity with DHCF with respect to the
DHCF Contract. At all times material hereto. Chartered satisfactorily met its obligations under
the DHCF Contract.
154.
The DHCF Contract obligated DHCF. and thus Director Turnage, to use
actuarially sound rates to determine the amounts of money that the District paid Chartered for the
healthcare services that Chartered provided under the contracts.
155.
Throughout the Actuarially Unsound Period. pursuant to Director Turnage's
direction, DHCF used actuarially unsound rates to determine the amounts of money that the
District paid Chartered for these healthcare services.
156.
By using actuarially unsound rates to determine the amounts of money that the
District paid Chartered, Director Turnage breached the DHCF Contract.

157.
Director Turnage's breach of the DHCF Contract directly and proximately caused
DCHSI (and its owner, Mr. Thompson) to suffer damages from the financial losses of its
business. Chartered. The damages equal the difference between (i) the total payments that
Chartered actually received from the District for the services that Chartered provided under the
then-applicable DHCF Contract(s) and (ii) the total payments to which Chartered was legally
entitled and would have received from the District for those services if Director Turnage and
Mercer had used actuarially sound rates to calculate the amounts that the District owed to
Chartered under the then-applicable DHCF Contracts.
158.
Director Turnage acted as an agent of the District, and within the scope of his
duties as Director ofDHCF, when he breached the DHCF Contract.
36
COUNT VII
(Illegal Restraint of Trade in Violation of D.C. Code 28-4502 Against the District,
Commissioners McPherson and White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director Turnage)
159.
The allegations in paragraphs 1-158 are realleged and incorporated herein by
reference.
160.
Pursuant to D.C. Code 28-4502, "[e]very contract, combination in the form of a
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce all or any part of which is
within the District of Columbia is declared to be illegal."
161.
During the Actuarially Unsound Period, Commissioners McPherson and White,
Special Deputy Watkins, and Director Turnage secretly conspired with each other to irreparably
injure DCHSI and Mr. Thompson by destroying DCHSl's primary source of income and its
interest in Chartered by inter alia:
a.
setting actuarially unsound rates and failing to pay Chartered what it was
owed thereby creating a false pretense for the rehabilitation of Chartered;

b.
making a false representation regarding Chartered's bid on the new DHCF
Contract to obtain DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's consent to rehabilitation and to secure Mr.
Thompson's stepping down as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Chartered, knowing that
representation was false and intending to deceive DCHSI;
c.
making a false representation regarding the transparency and cooperation
that the District's officials would employ with DCHSI in order to obtain DCHSI's consent to
rehabilitation and to secure Mr. Thompson's stepping down as Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Chartered, knowing that representation was false and intending to deceive DCHSI
and Mr. Thompson;
37
d.
meeting periodically prior to the rehabilitation with AmeriHealth and
taking steps to form its bid;

e.
meeting periodically prior to the rehabilitation with AmeriHealth and
agreeing that it would win the new DHCF contract without competitive bidding;
f.
misappropriating Chartered's confidential and proprietary information for
the benefit of AmeriHealth so that AmeriHealth could submit the bid that Chartered would have
submitted but for the illegal and unnecessary rehabilitation;
g.
accepting $5,000,000, far below fair market value, from AmeriHealth for
Chartered's assets;
h.
transferring Chartered's assets without approval of DCHSI as required by
DCHSI's articles of Incorporation and Bylaws;
i.
acting in concert to remove Mr. Thompson as Chartered's Chairman of the
Board, place Chartered into Rehabilitation, and put Chartered out of business;
J.
terminating the DCHSI lease and transferring employees to AmeriHealth;
k.
negotiating amongst themselves a deep discount on asserted and
and
unasserted claims for the monies the District owed to Chartered.

162.
Commissioners McPherson and White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director
Turnage knew and intended that the above actions would (i) irreparably damage DCHSI by
destroying the unique market leadership position that Chartered obtained by providing healthcare
services for D.C. Medicaid and Alliance for decades and (ii) thereby affect interstate commerce
by unreasonably restraining trade to benefit a politically favored entity (AmeriHealth) that
competes with Chartered in interstate commerce.
38
163.
Turnage mutually undertook to willfully and maliciously interfere with DCHSI's business
expectancy, breach their fiduciary duty to Chartered and to the residual interest of Chartered held
by DCHSI, breach Chartered's Bylaws, and damage the reputations of Chartered and DCHSI.
These actions have 'damaged DCHSI and continue to cause it harm.
164.
Turnage mutually undertook to willfully and maliciously put Chartered out of business,
extinguish DCHSI's sole source of revenue and business, reward AmeriHealth with the new
DHCF Contract and with the assets of Chartered, and siphon off the remaining assets of
Chartered in an illegal restraint on trade.
165.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing actions, DCHSI has been and is
continuing to be damaged.
COUNT VIII
(Fraudulent Inducement Against the District,
Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director Turnage)
166.
reference.
167.
Prior to obtaining an order from the Superior Court for the rehabilitation of
Chartered, with the knowledge and agreement of Director Turnage, Commissioner White,
Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their agents acting at their direction met with Plaintiffs and
requested their consent to Chartered going through rehabilitation. With the knowledge and
agreement of Director Turnage, Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their
agents acting at their direction promised and assured Plaintiffs that if they consented to the
rehabilitation of Chartered, the Rehabilitator would consult with, cooperate with and seek
39
approval from Plaintiffs that the Rehabilitator would allow Chartered to pursue a bid for the new
DHCF Contract.
168.
With the knowledge and agreement of Director Turnage, Commissioner White,
Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their agents acting at their direction represented the above
referenced facts as true when they knew that the representations were false.
169.
Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their agents acting at their direction intended these false
representations to deceive Plaintiffs into consenting to a rehabilitation of Chartered.
170.
Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their agents acting at their direction represented the above
referenced facts as true to Plaintiffs when they knew that the representations were false with the
intent to (i) gain and maintain control of Chartered until they had dismantled Chartered, (ii)
reward AmeriHealth with the DHCF Contract and the assets of Chartered, (iii) dramatically
reduce the District's debt to Chartered, and (iv) cause financial harm to DCHSI.
171.
In consenting to the rehabilitation of Chartered, DCHSI and Mr. Thompson
justifiably, reasonably, and detrimentally relied on the false representations enumerated above.
These representations referred to material facts.
Plaintiffs would not have consented to
rehabilitation but for these representations.

172.
Plaintiffs have suffered financially as a result of the false representations made to
induce their consent to Chartered's rehabilitation. DCHSI's primary revenue source has been
terminated and the remaining assets of Chartered have been plundered.
173.
In consenting to the rehabilitation of Chartered, and to the removal of Mr.
Thompson as Chairman of Chartered's Board, Plaintiffs accepted as true the totality of the
40
representations made by Commissioner White t Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their agents
acting at their direction.
174.
Had Plaintiffs known that these representations were inaccurate and false,
Plaintiffs would not have agreed to the rehabilitation.

175.
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned representations by
Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and/or their agents acting at their direction,
Plaintiffs have been and are continuing to be damaged.
COUNT IX
(Fraudulent Misrepresentation Against the District, Director Turnage, and Mercer)
176.
reference.
177.
1broughout the Actuarially Unsound Period, Director Turnage and Mercer falsely
represented that the capitation/reimbursement rates were actuarially sound in violation of law
and in breach of contract. They also made these representations to the federal government, while
knowing that the representations were false, by certifYing to CMS that the rates were sound even
though they knew they were not. By doing so, Director Turnage and Mercer intended to deceive
CMS, DCHSI, and Mr. Thompson.
178.
These false representations were material. DCHSI and Mr. Thompson relied
upon them in consenting to Chartered's rehabilitation. CMS relied upon them in accepting the
certifications.
But for Director Turnage's and Mercer's false representations of purported
actuarially sound rates, Chartered would not have experienced the capital depletion triggering its
rehabilitation and DCHSI and Mr. Thompson would not have consented to the rehabilitation.
179.
Director Turnage and Mercer knew that the representations were false when they
made them, and made them with the intent to deceive Mr. Thompson and DHCSI into believing
41
that the District was following the law and the DHCF contract by reimbursing Chartered using
actuarially sound rates and paying it for all services it rendered.
180.
In reliance on these representations, Mr. Thompson and DCHSI continued to
conduct business with the District, continued to experience a capital shortfall, and consented to
the rehabilitation of Chartered, which resulting in the District taking control and selling
Chartered.
181.
As a direct and proximate result of those acts, Mr. Thompson and DCSHI has
been and is continuing to be damaged.
COUNT X
(Fraudulent Misrepresentation Against the District,
Commissioner White, Special Deputy Watkins, and Director Turnage)
182.
reference.
183.
When DCHSI refused to sell Chartered, with the knowledge and agreement of
Director Turnage, Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins decided to assert direct and
complete control over DCHSI's business by way of "rehabilitation" through the Insurers
Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act.
184.
During the week of October 15,2012, four days before the Superior Court's entry
of the Order of Rehabilitation, to induce DCSHI to consent to the rehabilitation of Chartered,

with the knowledge and agreement of Commissioner White and Director Turnage, Special
Deputy Watkins made the following representations to Mr. Thompson and/or DCHSI's counsel,
Stephen I. Glover:
42
a.
Chartered would bid on the new D.C. Medicaid and Alliance contract
prior to the DHCF Contract expiring on March 30, 2013.

b.
The Rehabilitator would consult with DCHSI and cooperate with DCHSI
respecting any corporate activity by way of the reorganization or rehabilitation of Chartered.

c.
The Rehabilitator promised that, once Chartered was in rehabilitation,
neither DCHSI nor Mr. Thompson would be sued by the Rehabilitator.

185.
These representations were material and DCHSI and Mr. Thompson relied upon
them in consenting to Chartered's rehabilitation. But for these representations, Mr. Thompson
and DCHSI would not have consented to the rehabilitation.
186.
These representations, which were material to DCHSI's decision to consent to
rehabilitation, were false. Commissioner White and Special Deputy Watkins (i) knew that the
representations were false when they made them and (ii) made them with the intent to deceive
DHCSI and Mr. Thompson into believing that if they consented to Chartered's rehabilitation, the
Rehabilitator would conduct the rehabilitation consistent with the representations.
187.
In reliance on these representations, DCHSI and Mr. Thompson consented to the
rehabilitation of Chartered. But for these representations, they would not have consented.
188.
As a direct and proximate result of those acts, DCSHI has been and is continuing
to be damaged.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court:
a.
Declare that Defendants' actions directly and proximately have caused and are
continuing to cause DCHSI to suffer damages that total at least $80,000,000 or any alternative
amount proved at trial;
43
b.
Declare that Defendants' actions were intentional, willful, and wanton and
exhibited a reckless disregard for DCHSI's and Mr. Thompson's rights, entitling DCHSI and Mr.
Thompson to an award of punitive damages;
c.
Award DCHSI and Mr. Thompson their reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs; and

d.
Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
December 30, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
isa A. Bell ( . . Bar # 424685)

.............~i:1wGroup
910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
(202) 683-8929
Ibell@pctlg.com
Deborah J. Israel (D.C. Bar # 430841)
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
1200 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 500
(202) 857-4466
disrael@wcsr.com
Counsel/or Plaintiffs D.C. Healthcare
Systems, Inc. and Jeffrey E. Thompson
44
EXHIBIT A
GOVERN.NIE~T QFTJlEt>ISTruCToF COLUMBIA
DeparhnentofHelllth Care FinnJ'u~e,
To: MayorVincentGray
From: Wayne Turna,ge
Through:PauJ Quander,lnterim ChlefofStaff
~eatriz ~B~' Ofe~: Qepuly M~)lQr'
.Subl,,:~t: Issuesaf.,[}epartrn~nt.OrA~~I,thC:'~~i3 Finllnoo.....;...!..(D_H-'-C-'-"F;,..o'....

)i _~'--,.,-_ _~,.,...,
The purpo$eo( thlJ'lipi~ toprqiijde a sunirrimy of the: major issuesatDHCF Which
ha\(E.',5Qrfaced dunng tne assessmentpf!'lgency operations iriltiatedshortly folloWing
myappointmen.ton february 1,2011 . This assessment was conducted to Identifylil
baseline ,of problems Jnherlted fr,om the pr~\j!Ou.S, AdiT\inlst(atioriandto.builda$olutions
oriented approach"foraddrel!)~ing t~ese iss,u~s Clsexp~~I~f()~~ly "spossible.
.
Issues of CrincerilatDHCF
FOLPurposes ciOhiS'memo.t~:;iSSlJ'$ 'emifted (n(9U9~ this *~~s~[I1eh.~~~Vebeen
grouped ii1f6:t)'lreecategorie$! (1) ..QI'$E!men~pr()blerns; (2) PrOgrill'ri.lntegi'ity

PrQbl~m$;~n(n3), OperationsPr.ob'emaiFor~~ql'l iss~e .. t~~ rn~ii16 p(6vidi;i~ ~.
d~strlpti~~of.tneproblem;'ttieplahned solvtiOo: <md.Qj~l::u~s~~ Mtenfll:ll budget

Impnci:dlon~.
Ri!~rfi,P.Ydffi!11e.iJ~ A.~ shown-in the table. onpageZ; .there;;ltMh.rEt $lgnlfIDt'
relmbuitieri1erit~elaleo prQIJIe.ms, and each'Qftf1ese pose potential bud9~t lssoe'

dependln!fupoliihemil6ri~riri;WhicMhey are i'~Qive~, rfler ISSU~$;(Jfm~si,;9n:cerrl
:aretne impr.oper:t*G' p,~Ym~riJslNote:"Thfsrs now:.teso'tvedli ;I.Illsl<it)lfirt?te~fQr ...
M,anag~dCare drgartiia'tion$ .(M .. til; ~nd.'problem~Wlth.DiS~rO'Por.tiooaje S.h~re

:fOnd1hg!.'lt;Yl:llld(en~sNt!t!pri~l ".. '~~I~~rtte'r{CNMe). :W..th the.sub~Jantilill bE!neflt of
h1nd.$ight; itcanl?e:~~iQ'tna.tth~pecl$lQtl$ (or jl1~ction) that .ledto most of th~se'
'pm.b'i~ml;>,w~~:tl!t~~tilJ"liIdYlsed.4$tlje. pot~r:l11al budget problems for the District undeJ
tb!!.d~.~tr.iPQ4wQr~fca:s~~~~ulo~WQ'tJfdJ:)e seriou~.
DHQF is working to ~eso!v~ 1hese problems whQut majdtoonseqOenceJojhe,Dlstrjqt.

but frankly'ln the:c:ase'QftheimproPer' PRG.p~y~ent~ we must walt and hope for
approval oftlre'D~fales'.frpmC.M$: !3ta(finrorm tile ttir:Jt~RP'rtival isjmmj~nt but
'eMS hasbeensittingon..thls:StatePlai) Anielidmentforl)~arlYone year.ln'thecase of
DSH payme'ntsto CNMC,Jf the audit'resqlis stand~ th~reis rid apparent painless
resolution at this time. Wlth:respBct to MCC>i. DHCFenters ra,te' n~9.0tialions next
899 North CIIpilolStreet, N.E.;
Washington; iit.20002(202)'442-5938
faJ( (202) 442-4790
r'I~~'UO~9iE~erif'''-''-;'T'worSr6~1~'~oiC'~~''-l'S01U(TCro;u'nd~N;~~""h~;<i!i'Qi"itri'Plic~"ki';;;"'~ }
i-'''~J1~~~~r.:DRc;~~" ~;,t:c~o~;;;ppr~~; \il(" tlr~~ag"iiOi;,;:pp~iJ~hfb.~f.'$f~i~PI3liiifiO{ 'f
1 P"Y(I.IIJn!:;; 10 too 3", ..
trt;lle$ 8IId;\"ereWo\l1!J~'l~!1(1Wra.~1l1;iy J1iM1,
dt\~ICIp!ld ~ Jl!ol\1)lPM..
~'c.S ~slo,illll'B(;
llriij, f!Js p,o.IiiJ.t\taV ." '.
. .l,
,.J~e~.I!l<l' Sla.1C ~tl\ll'

. !>fd~r!l... tp-!\'fmcnls.
.: dl$3I1owancm; be~or;.
1,A/l~Qf .
..; ~si:l ilnlll'CMsmak~s a .,/ itle<led,1Qn lQ.pil,tilo
'
i tarter. ciJfV10 l;lIlCf'
,I ~m'l'~t m.lti~y f{)r

hospital",. fl,JUitit'U\IJI1
!I wal
......lfor.CMS
.. ~al~.la/{::
,1'.1"9'. "11.1.;'.'" . !.:sJo.'
0I.'.tlt;a
. n.tlY.. '.iII.'fy;lti~.Je.. ':'; 1iI)bI.lJ.~-!'.lsl.!lit;,. '.
:dI!~1o!'I1Iif~
~~
DHCf'.lillltMrenll1
'j'
f01
..'
_.'
18pprove:ihu ncwrnles.
I PIIY1Ogho~I}i\$.WCI(ldoo
; /IiYaI.!i1.II~i
.1 . ....
' . :l
.. ' . . i
"I
..'
I "tIlo/$4I~.Ih!l,'~V::
.. ....
...
mQ
'.aJ).
'. n~I'lIIel>1ri
..aPfK!>\ifldoris ~nlrroant!Y:~,
2Cit1 .\l\i!'PIfi#,lo:v.JII;,
r'I le~'I~
i\O\V,~{ds
:'I\C:P!1>.b!~i f.l~; Ir
".
RESOLlJEDlis o(MIIY
'._.'
........ m
....t.es. 00. . 1'0. 1"e'lhCY.,..
1iie#lns'Uilll~ll~O'I/IIdJ
:;
j:
1;, ~9.niIIi:l!ilIlV IIlth~ ~3
'f.
,.;J]l"',~iiild.'
. . , ~llilliOtlil!~I"'.g~~ .~
'.,
:'
prlUl~{el>'rClffYl1i
.
i l "
" ' , 1 (~\!E.~~aeeNi
I
lt~~~;;;~j~i::::~lr;;~~Eit~~~fS":~~!!f:~::ffj~~1
~!:.
,.
'1.:.;...
Ihrqlenlng to 188W the

desire 10 enler tho Olslrlct.. lhllt allMCO ralos will be,
pr!)pr~. This meanll, ~san MCO. Thi, Is fer
~1!fO!It. In fighl Qflhis
0HOF'\NiU not hal/elhe 'I from cortaln however ood.l ravelalion and llilllawsui( '1
i"."CiuatiaUYSDII.nd. The . ; ~.i'ed .nllmborOIMCOs1 nola,ifl!ely solullon. In

Ihls aSSUIl'plioll.mayno
,i: goal was 10 use hlg~el. , lo,laln.1I,>e progrnl1und :1' \he Inlelim. lhe Director .'. longer ba raallslit IhUli {
rales on !he '!'t-'dk:aid sloo. b&~f~r!Os would .have ;,. will meet WIth Mercer 10 .,. ereal1ng a budget
"
: 10 offset pn!d.cled AlUance) I"e.r~om 10 r!leGl\/(! . :1 discuss the 9c,als for

,presslJroror FYI2.
"
Ios'~". H~yer.
. heiOllh S~lV~ Um)ugh a;;, fY121l'1leseUing. Dala
'." Medicaid expat:ls1on
" fee:ror.a~MC\I ..
.
'.cn MCO Io_swlll be
I
"1
brought former Alliance
8tJ'al'lQllmenlar\dWilhou\! .examined and we win
.,.:
I
memberswi!hhlgher
~:CO$t:~~"'gMC;Os
;IseeklQe$lab~Sh.
.{
~ heal!!, Cllfa cosls Into lhe I sometlmlJlI!luc:ce.urully '. actuarlally sound rales a\
: Modicald program and Ihe 'Itmposa I)Il proyld~.

; lhe lowesl posslblo tevel. 1 ; : , ' 1
I expeoted margins cir\ \lH! I This would undoUliledly
. RQgerdlog lhe lawsuit. !he
I
.,! Medicaid fide have not

I Increase CO$I beyond
. agency is negotiating II:
. . ,..
materlallzetl., Fu,lher.
!'budgOI!ld levels f()r Ihe
. 9f!lIIement
.:.bolh MCOs haY8:program III fYi2..
. ' 1
l expOtkrnced substantial
t Further. should OHeF be
.I
losses on !heir Allianc:c

IIIdvI$ed to sallle.lh!!. . .
'.~
,business. AddllionaWy.
' laW$vlt this wiIIl!Idd Ip 11\8
i.
\. DHef is In n.egollallOlLl ;unbudgeied)ll'ellSt/l'es for .

t'
t
Iwilhond1COtoseUiea JFY12
. ,'.10 581'Ih8 MCO rain ror
j: the AIUonce be~w the
. lowaslleVel conSIdered
.1
'I
'j
-t
'I:
I.
I
;
.'j:
11lW$1J1t. fIIed~iog"lml
; u:.... . ..." " " .
.' . .
I.'
2QOO\\I\'Of8: ._Ii!: Ralll'!. ai.~IiC'.ed Il~ ):
t,'
.
'.. '~\d. .....
[
,
'"{iY
.:, . . 0118. ~emkra.l.s

.IUd. 'i. ,oI.lh.e.... .
d qf
and:
.':.
.:
'i
.,
;/.'
1!'Ic:u.
I'
:
f
"
aclU3r, disi" 'OIirilhjl~'ll'lhltll.l
.... to.~ ~~'*'~:
'1'
;~Ufl\i.IIl&~l13vDlnrotn'te(!: ~iP~2SmasPllf!QO~': ,
. .'..
..
..
;
II.J~!..!M!!~eca
e ~a$ ~rf!.;~~_._._...............,.,.,-;..t.- ~----~.-. i . . ;.;. . . .;.,;. . _
.
.
,
.
_
__
~.'c.
'i
re<jllii'l!
; If
prellnlloDty audit .
on
Ihisla '.
resolve
(()$H.).~.rO.~ll!m~.i...
l~iI~m,5 .p~...
..' .nI$.:.l.1!1': '.: 1
r~l$ s!and.lhfe.1s
h
.. d.
1 C!lif(t(.o1l~", NIllionS, I~. . , . Chll~!5 aollilltn \lllltW9.lI~ I Chlld.nm'~
1I~l\~ ~r;
OI.$p.Ij$~i:I~uS!;a*ii'
c...
(:jMS'~$;w!~
Depending how
DSI-I.paymeOI.'
'.
.
slavo
to
in fYl1.
~t.lical Ctin~ .~!IY
I"
o{f te,l!IIl'IilllOlIl?( I"~ OSHil!JouISll million ~I \hIs.
'1:~~'$t2;S'ii1ilfioI1'1n"
. .;i:e1Q.r .. ,..
~ paYlJlt:nI~ ror Children's, IPOint-wiD likely haVIIlo
~:..~,!I:f1).iI. YI'.:~'01.1>".\.Il,jlll'."";:,pa..y.IlUII1.'..~S. 1Il:i=Y..I. t.Jb/lt ,r.' However, ~~rlhtm
b~/~.rumell. Mel payments
;1!$~,19 fiJ'i!.i liIe~m!,~ l-th~~w.PI'~flAdlli<i~ Nlw\ho Oeplltlmenl or I (pl:f=Y120lup 10 :512.5
:I>Hl"iillhl~!f,illilM
'j ,Olstrl~ f()~.In;
; f-{oalth IIb!SI>,b 3 $12.5
lI1I~on WlIIlOI. be made;
$chor;>lsystem. Early
addition. .oncelhes.e
mallon eut. it nllght prove
l'hlaleaves 11 $UbSlanlial
Ilndicalionll (rom ~rI': payments aro \lJrmlnated. 1 usefllilo bQIl9 !)pPSlnlo, ,ixldgel problem lor!ho.
:. audils are Ihet.lhe ho&plt~1 ."Ihe. [)ePII. rlmerli Qf H.G8I1h. P~~~,~~lh,,:
De~r1n)enl of lieahll or;
dOOll not provide \hO
f~.1utv9 Up'~l) a~12.'S
'"
.
':".. PGI~olla/l)l DCpS. Wit are
t tBqll1red Ievero/'m/Ifo.en ~gilthol.lha,t
'tryltlll $IIIIerlllsl'lklgies 10
!- uncolTflensal~d care 10
.1.~IU requl~ ~thGr layoffs
\11., 11ICij!1I~ Ihete!)9lipble
[! sUpPolHhls.level orDSH
} or adllilluni\l 1\Indlfrg fo,
'P~Ogf
.. i!!ll.'
.. ~
. ,_ ij"
',' :i" uncompensated care at'

. payment
i fiV12.
. Vli$!allTiQi
ChRdrell$ "
al!"
no
I
t
! , . .'
f" '.
I'
<:
.
t
i
t:O~:~~1:;:J!;~~J~~@~~!fi~;;~~;;~~J~1~~~~~~~~;~~[!:~:::.1
." .
..
'899No;i~caPit~1 Street. N.E. W~sl;i~gto,l. D.C. 2000; (2()2)442.~938
..
'
Fru;(02)'442.;l7do:---
"
week and wilt attempt to resolve: (his problem in th~ Distrlct~s f~,vorout we face
si9nific~l"!t h4rd!~s.
Noflistep olfthe labr~ i$ the reimbursement problem wlth ICF'M,Rs. When thedlte
st~c1y'r~f()r JPF/MR~: W(i5 established in FY10; it covere~ooly'ap()rfion ofthel):5%
Stevie SelloW's tax;lhefe Is language in statute that,renders'thlstaKuncolleetible
unless itlsstnictllred in away that allOwstheDlstrictto'co.llectEfP. This Is l10t
possible withcuirerif rate'structure'. The Mayor's budget for FY12reftectS the fact that
the rev~nue
(rom the,evle Sellcivfs~ax appears, at tnlspoint,to,be uncollectible
abs~ntachange to
"
,
the rate
..
'-"
"
method,ology~
OIjCF' ispu(sulng
the
. ". '". ' "
.,
" , ' ,-
.'
required ,chl:lnge.
~
ProgramJnt~qrjty~ T/:Iereare. slg,"mcl:lntP~ogrlilfninl~gritYls~ues at DHCFandsome

existas a threat to the agency'sbudge,t. .As tile Table on pl'jge -4 hidicates. these
.problems ate.the resultoHheagency's lii$to,iI:~al pratlde9fpaying for services In
amount, duration; or scope thafClI'e b.e.YQndifj~' lev~ls

filloweafor
I"
the eXisting State
..
.
.....,
~~
tn f~lTO,s of fiscal Impact; the mostprob~[TIaiicoJ the~e'~e[ViCes is the dptii:ii#tl
Pl3r~n'~rCivebe~efit;. Over a ro'iling 12mof\th p~ri()9,pHG~nas paid$119:Smlllioii

fo't persQnMcare'sei"vices to 6,450 beneficiaries, [Note thIS flguri;! dgesnodnctl.!de ..
$07.8 million Piiid through tlie waiver programJorpe~ons w/:lQare e!d.~rly or disabled'
and the$9mill16n {pr persons in the 00 ~iv6r.]Ahhough the Slate I-'Iao llmitstllis
service to 1040houis.perrecipient, theagehcy did notestabllshE!ffective a.nd .
per:maneritedlts in me MM!S to deny payments;t~eyon(Hhjs .limlt. In .addition, the
proce~s tnroligh wll1Ch these' services are.authQrized.is.lenlent, and theagencytias
..,Iituany no $ys!eitlll) pl~ge tf> monitor whetller the benefitsbel09 paid for are actua!ly'
heeded ,at 'the reililb'ursed levels.
B"sed orr 'oew.sp~'p'er requ,~$,t~ fo'~ information 611 this program; yte e~pect a se(les of
ClrtIcl~~ pn~he, Dll1iriprs p~f~g!i!illc;~rep,tp'gram alleging,substanUalwasta. I nave
ordered SOme short term ~I~ti~ns'to ~9w'spendfng' irithls area'whlch :wewilt
.' .
. irnpte.m~l'ltjrnll')~djately and:EI'I()ngei~terftt ap~roa'ch lo'brin~thisprQ9.(amin line with
thl'lactuaJlevel of need;:
"
'Individually, the:o(her:prob~ems idflll,ifiedinthe Tabl~i:lO' not:hl;1ye me fiscal 'jrnpact

obserVed for personal care. but, In the aggr~ga~~"pOSEl sig[li1i~n~ risks to.theDistrict,
OHCF staff have presl3ntly Jdentifled15 s~rvi~.s 'fo(\\IbiCll there il;: reason to believe,
thatappr:opriate (:pntrols haveneYef b~en ~stablish~ to ,9p~r'~thEtl:lenefit For,the:
dental'programi.theabsenC9 of controls has r~sultedin rri()t~thClri$6 mlllipn if!
overpaymellts:sin~ FY1.().. 1hi~amount Il!'!s .be~.ri added to ou(FY11 spending
'pressur~,1 have directecH!ta.ffJo'research eachoftli~se: 1,Sil'):Lis;lmrnedla~eIY and
establish the necessary protection, ja tfleAgen9Y's clairnsp?lvl"rien~ syst~mtoprevBnt
any fulOreoverpayments,
The last issue reportedinJhslabJe Is aprob\em for DHCF tba'til> cr~at8d eXlema11y,
Thecoufis routinelY orderchil(:iren intQ residential trea1mSilf p;rogfa.:m~ with,~iclild as.
th.e' payer. Unfortwlately, federal auqi~shave de.terrnined that many of1he children w~o
receilie these placements do not meet.the medical necessityrequirerTwnts to support .
M~~icajd reimbqrsement. As this problem.is adpr.essed across the District, agencies
899 NoritiCepiiol street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 442-59811 Fax (202) 442-4790
.'
'thijt, bav~ relied on Medicaid to pay (ortbes~pfaceirientS wm 110 looger be able lo'
r;iefrayihe: l10st of1hese,servi~$wlth f!?oe,ral
'i"lsWili obviously i!)creaseloQ~1.
spehdingpressures at a time when revenues ~(e ~ttEl9sed. '
donais,
operations. As shown in the Table on pages 5 and 6, there are several OlJtstanding
opefatlol}s issues that the agency muslresoille to B\f(}ld neg'adve budget consequences
for the Qistrict. o.f1/1e six ptoblem~ Id,entltled four ~~ M~IS c,ertifi~atiOn. federally
'899 North CDpiIO\ Street, N.E:,:Washinglon, D.C. 20002 (2D2) 442-5988 fax (202) 412-479'0
mandate9cfi~nite~ to MMIS."potellti~tloss of 000 p,icingioi ir'j~ir~trbViraJdnJgs!,faliute

tocollecfMCOdrugrE;lbates ..". have. budg~t~oOseqlJe.nces if nQtsucce~ful\y resolved.
Based on receflf~t~ff'effortsto:address tl"teseproblr~fTu~ . lam 'ericourag'ed atlou~ the
prOspE3ct~fQi' sl.icce~~:Movln9fo!Ward( Weheve e$'ahUsh~d a f>IQcesstb,mi;n.i.tor
progress on these projects Wllhstepsto alert senior.m~nagemerif~t[]lHCF If problems
re$ufface:
....
"
----~~~~~~--~--~-~~~~~"~~~~~----~-"~
899 North Capitol Street, H.E., Weshin&ton. D.C. 20002 (202)442~S988' Fax (202) 442-4790
Cont;luslon
Over the nextmoQlh$i Pl;.~f$t;:lffwjll worki:tllig~ntly.to address.these problems. At the
sSIJ'l,e.timeJ have i(lstrvct~jj ~~ffJ9 .~ufface ~"Y ~,(iditidnal problem.s,that are tJrJcover~d
as\f.t8 hand~the i;f~ny,prf!s~qf\'l,o(k., Sho~ld off)eFissues arisethatwarraOt the
atte~tion of the Mayof.'a bfl)c.ewe,wIl! provide timely notice.
899 North 'Capitol
street, N.E., Washington, D;C. 20002
(202) 442-5988 Fax (202) 442-4190
::
..
***
***
~""""'''''.';'~:~-'----~:
.... _
"''''~)<110.~!",-~~~"...~'''t'!:''"""",,,,,,,,,.........~....~~~; !-~I!~~;...,.,,,,,,,~~,-:~*:... ~~..:"'~.?""_... ~It\~~~~;::,~~""~~~~~~b
.;;.J:
'Managed Care Rate Setting' For
The District's Health; C'are.
P'rograms:. Process and;
Outcomes .
Presentation for the:
District Council
-;... ..
~ ..'"
::,. ...........,...
. . . . I'-_~
_.
# '
","
~ .~"":': . . ~ .:~.:::..:_
..
r- ..
"
r.,.,..._,....,;o........ ~.:'".i.~~:;.~:'/j:....;:.~~;~~...~!:r"~.'fI.\...-.rn,,-~~-......."'tt..~r~-c..~~..,.;;~*~~~~
Departrneht of Health Care
Finance
June
.. ... 24 ,. 2011
. .
'
W~sbingtonDC
"
..
Presentation Outline
Background: on, District)sManaged Care Program

Fe(j~raIRequirements Governing Rate Settihg
'District Methodology ForRate Setting
o R~te~rEstabilshed ForB'e.twe.f3.n
Tfmiog~PrQble,ms
Medica'id andAlliance'dn FY11

'Rate Setting, and 13J,udgetProcess
Rates' Approved By District Council in FY11

OHOFNIodiflcatiorjsJq'A/Jpioved
te$,
o Rate 'Setting Approach

~y
fnMayor's'f3iJdget
Employed
Ra.
'
The D,jsttibt in Fy'12
AssumptlQns
Rates Recommended By Actuary andProposed By DHCF
o Factors
Driving '$32 MiHlon LOGa! Impact

2
..
DHCF's Managed Care Program: Governed By
Federal Regulations
,:",~..
---
~"-
..
o DHCF's Managed,care,:Programfor MedIcaid andAHiance
Established Tn 19Q5 for Medicaid
)I;> Alliance J11oved:from'fee..lo.F-service to managed carein2Q.06
)-, Two: managed ca.re provlders'-Charte,rE?qandU nit~d
,);>. Agencyrecruifing; a 3rd plan through CM,Shumancare agreement
)1;>,
o Medicaid 'managed care governed by:federal regulations
>
RatesmLf~t be actuatraUy sound,developed bya credentialed.
:actuary - we use Men-,:ef Consulting ~. $ncice.rtified byCMS
~..Rates
must be appropriate for covered populations and benefit
pak.~ge
);>\Jncertified rates are not elJgible for federal match

o ,AJIi:f:i[1cE':! progrgm dqes n9tM~e9 'fede[ClI appr()V$]
~ Actuarial soundness is not'a requIrement
FaHureto :estabUsoaclu.arial sound rateswHi:produce .tosses
-.
H~ow
Ma'naged; Care Rates Are Set
,~.':.'.,.":,,
.
' ,-
....
'-,:.
. '.
.,
'.
",'
....,..:.,
".'''.
.'
..
.
- , '
"
,~.
',"
: ...... -
Medical trend is the projectioIl'ofutilizatipn and costch~g(!:~,ov~rti,me
*Trend SoUrces
Annual treiid eXhibited ,hi the health plans ,flnailciaLdata
Issues,taised QY managed: Care plans'
N:a.tlpIl.ai:tl"I911d;iIldices
'Trends in neighboring State Medicaid progriUns
..
Presentation Outline
o Backgrpunqon ~nstricesMahaged
,',
>M~'
,~~,~,,,,~ ~
>
Care 'program
Federal Reqtlirements Governing'Rale Setting
..
l!f
Methodology:FQr Ra,te. $etting;
Rates.
Esta.blish~d For Medicaid and Alliance In Fv11
Timing Problems. Between Rate Setting.sndBudget .Process

RatesApptovfjdBy:District Coancilin FY11
DHCF Modifications to Approved Rates
0 . Rate Setting Approach: Emplqyed BY'The Di:stricfin ,FYt2

Assumptions:[nMflyor's Budget
Rates Recommended ByActuaryandProposed By;DHCF
:D Factors Driving: $32 MUHon Local \mpa.Gt

,
.--.
..
DHCF's Rate, Negotiation Process
Not Ali'gned' With Dis.trict'sBudget
,C'alendar
[)"CF~Rate~~e~ing,:.'
F!r09.~.~s;~ !:,~:,~. .
February
Agency
budget proposals
. :'.,:
"
No Activity
s,qb,mittedto M,ayor)s
Budget R~vie'N Team
April'
Mayor submits budget to
CouncHonApril 1st
May.
Nd Activity
DHCF rate setting process

typic~!ly' kicks off
.
M~rcer'provrdes DHC~
with >actuariallysClund fate

ra.nge(low, medium. and
DJ9h HorMecijc~idand
AlliancE:}
J.lJflt?
NqActiVity
OHCF"rat,~
negotiation
pr'ocessiscompleted.
6
Council Established Rates F'or Medicaid And
AHianceProgram rn 2011 - RatesW'ere Changed
By DHCF Leadership 'In ,June 2010
'., ;'Co~...cil~ApPf9Y~~)~ates:,
~rogram
'.
.:
:.
~:
"
,..::>.,":'.'
," .::~\.~:t
c',
.:.:' ~,
,Rates Set 'By, ,o'ticf., .

__,>
~e~~~rs:t1'p~~,::, __ ',,~::,
M:edi,cald
$212..02
*$262.32
Alliance
$194.;38
*$147.77
"'Rates were cnangedby DHCF leadershipin JUDe 20'10toma~jmizefedera! match. Gains
frornhig,h~r Meqicaldm~rgins,
were predictedtoo'ffset expected: lossesfforTl lower Alliance
rate.s~ ~TtTestrategy. faflecj becaus~ iicoincided wi,th apQlicythatmov~~many,Amance
members tothe'Medicaidprbgram. 'Medicaid margins did not materlaiizeand AHianceJosses
,were sIgnificant.
Presentati'on Outline
o
o
BpQkgroun.d;onDi~trict]s;1'Vranaged Care: ,Program

FederaIR~qt.ifremt;JtJtsG6verning .Rqte Setting
MethodolQgyForRate Setting
Rates Establisbed For Medi:caid and Alliance In FY11

Timing Pro.bfems $etweeh R~t? Si?tUng and Bu.dgetProcess
RatesApproved By District Council(nFY11
D'H,CFMbdjficatfon~; tg'Apprdved Rates
!i Rate Setting Approac",
Employed By The District in FY12

Assumpfions!nMayor sBudget
Rates R(3comrhendedByActuaryand Proposed ByDHCF
1
Factors:Driving $32 MiHion Locallmpact

8
"

'"
DHCF's Rate Negotiation Process Was Not
Complete Until Two Months 'After Mayor's
audgetWas SUbmitted
Timeline' '
-.:' .... :
','
F'ebtu ary"
",',', , 17th'
.: ....;.
~/' .;'::~~~eqt~y~'
~'?':l{~t~~~~~JPg'pr~~s~"
d""
't
P'
..
-,
;
"
.
"
,". ,, '.' .:~.,_
'
'
BU. ge; ,f:9c;f'#SS ~.." .":". :. '~" ,!:..
;:~',
OHCf t)tJdg~t propp~al
No Aet{vity
<. . :;',
submittedfoMay6r~s Budget
'.
Reyi~\N Te'am'
April 1st
MaYor submits.budget to
No Activity
Cogneil
Apnl 4th,
'No Activity
Rate Setting Kickoff Meeting
May 23rd
.No.Activity'
Mercer provides DHCFwith

actuanally. sound rate. range
(!9W, Iflediurn, and higb) fQr
MedIcaId anqAHiance
J,une :1 sf
No Actiyify;
'PtiCF sUb,rriits final nateoffr

to managed care plans
9
"

,#
Actuarial SoOndness' Requires' Rates Higher Than
Assumed In ~layor's BU,dget
Med;icaid
*.$257.52
**$289.82
;$295:62
Alliance
$147.77
**$188.77
nla
$17~lf304,12'1
$206:,245,832
$21 t,349,093
Estimated'
Total Loc,al
Cost
"'Rate is bl.en.9~Jor M~qj.t;;aip and C~ildre!1'~ Hea.lth Program. .....Rates were set at actuarially sound l.ower bound.
Note:JngentiveswiIJ .only, be p~id.lfMCO$ successfully re.duce.adv$r$e birth oiJtC.omesoverprevfousY8$(;'S performance, decrease

theirmembersuseoUhe. emergency room fornon-emergency services,and decrea$e theniJrnberpfinpaqantiadmll3sidns
fer lew-acuitypatien~. Overtime,. savings from successful performance in theseareasw.iil pay for the cost of the ihcentive
10
prograrr,
...
...
Presentati'on' Outline
.-.~
~D 8ac~g;r(lund onQ-is.trict':s Managed Care Program

PederaFReqairements Governing;Rate Setting
o
o
.,A
I!J
Methodolpgy For R:pte S'tttting
Rat(3~ Establish~d FotMedica'id andAHiance 'In FY1t

Timing Problems Between Rate Setting and.BudgefcProcess
Rates Apprbved13,yDistrict Cb(jncili,n FY14
DHCF Modifications to'ApprQved Rates'
Rate,Se1ting Approach Employed 'By The Dlstri'ct in FY12

Assumptions in Mayor's'Budfjet
Rates Recommended 8yActuary and ProposedBy DHCF
Factors Driving $32 Million local Impact
11
..

..
Factors Impacting Ad'ditional Local
Cost Esti'mate For Managed~ Care
Rates
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllliiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_--_
.. ~;
'D Rate 'increases 00 notprQvid.e $32 milHonof profit to the
[)jstricfs two mahaged care companies
q,Three factors are ,d.riving .increasein IOQa) cost
' Projected in Greases: in enrollment
~' Movement
to actuariallysouhd rates for both Medicaid
and"AlHa.oce
lncrease, ~m'Ongben~ficiaries in hlghercost rateceHs'
d Managed
h~alth
Ca.re~Companies must cover co~tof beneficiaries
care,with the approvedcapitated fates
12
t_
JI"'"
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
CIVIL DIVISION
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1133
D.C. Healthcare Systems, Inc. and Jeffrey E. Thompson
Plaintiff
14-0008314
vs.
Case Number
---------------------
Chester McPherson (Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray)

Defendant
SUMMONS
To the above named Defendant:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either
personal1y or through an attorney, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the
District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your
Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the party plaintiff who is suing you. The
attorney's name and address appear below. If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy of the Answer must be mailed
to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons.
You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue,
N.W., between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on
Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on
the plaintiff or within five (5) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment
by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Lisa A. Bell. PCT Law Group
Name of Plaintiff's Attorney

Address
By - - - - f - -__--.;::I""---~
Deputy Clerk
Washington. DC 20006
r-...
202-683-8929
Date
Telephone
fIII iJ.'lin",iii (202) 879-4828
J: ~
\:d1. ~ <91i.
Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction
\!:!~. !!~AI'i!:!, (202) 879-4828 it ~."~AI.Q.
(.
~ co m~t bl\i dich. hay gOi (202) 879-4828
fh'fC'1' '1'C1-1" A'f.,'H' (202) 879-4828 J'.J.(JJofr
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
ANSWER, YOU FAlL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT, IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAYBE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS
ACTION,[)Q NOT FAIL roANSWEB WITHIN THEREQUlRED TIME,
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices ofthe
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help.
See reverse side for Spanish translation
Vea aI dorso la traducci6n aI espaflol
FORM SUMMONS lan.2011
CASUM.doc
TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA
DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (202) 879-1133
Demandanle
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
AI susodicho Demandado:
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestacion a la Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en e) plazo de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en caUdad de oficial 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobiemo del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio,para entregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacilm al abogado de la parte demandante. EI nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen at final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una
copia de la Contestaci6n por correo ala direccion que aparece en este Citatorio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestaci6n original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viemes 0 entre las 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestaci6n original ante el Juez ya sea antes que Usted Ie entregue al
demandante una copia de la Contestaci6n 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dias de haberle hecho la entrega al demandante. Si
usted incump)e con presentar una Contestaci6n, podria dictarse un fall0 en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga
efectivo el desagravio que se busca en la demanda.
SECRETARIO DEL TRIBUNAL

Nombre del abogado del Demandante
Por:
Direcci6n
Subsecretario
Pecha
Telefono
j!Illllllit.lIn~i! (202) 87~828
---------------------------------
Veuillez appeler au (202) 879.....828 pour une traduction
\!:!Q:I& t!~AI\!:!. (202) 879.....828lt ~IIPH1AIR
~ 00 mql bai dieh. My gQi (202) 87~828
ft."'Cr;< ~.C1-'" i\..,"rH (202) 879.....828 1.1.0)01\
IMPORTANTE: SI USTED fNCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACI6N EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, 0, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUIC[OS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAicES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL PALLO. SI UsrED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCI6N, NO DElE DE CQNTFSTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EXfGfDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, Hame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a la Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., para informarse de otros lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
Yea a1 dorso el original en ingles
See reverse side for English original
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 8791133
Plaintiff
cas:tlb'; 0 0 083 1 4
vs.
Chester McPherson (Serve: Office of the Attorney General)

Defendant
SUMMONS
To the: above named Defendant:
. You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either
persoqally or through an attorney, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
. nt.
by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in
lisa A. Bell. PCT Law Group

Address
202-683-8929
Telephone
1II il.ilfTl1!.ii!i (202) 879-4828
't!~. t!1II-Al~. (202) 879-4828 !i!. ~.~~AI.a
fh..,c;t;< :'01'"
Il","rfl!
Ela co mOt !Iii dich, lilly 8t;1i (202) 879-4828
(202) 879-4828 f,1.J1)o/t-
ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAYBE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAYBE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS
ACTION, DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQWRED TIME
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Legal Aid Society (202628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more infonnation concerning places where you may ask for such help.
Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espailol
FORM SUMMONS - Jan. 2011
CASUM.doc
Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW
,.---------
Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 68 of 88
DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Teh!fono: (202) 879-1133
Demandante
eontra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Al susodicho Demandado:
Por la presente se le eita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestaci6n a la Demanda adjunta., sea en
persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esul siendo demandado en cali dad de oficial 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobiemo del' Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted baya recibido este citatorio, para ,entregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestaci6n al \l.bogado de la parte demandante. EJ nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demand ado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle aI demandante una
copia de la Contestaci6n por correo ala direcci6n que aparece en este Citatorio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestaci6n original a1 Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N. W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viernes 0 entre las 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodfa
demandante una copia de la Contestaci6n 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dras de haberle hecho la entrega aI demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestacion, podriadictarse un falJo en rebeldia contra usted para que se baga
.
Par:
Direccion
Subsecretario
Fecha
Telefono
:IIIlMB":rrlli! (202) 879-4828
-----------------------------
~~. t!ttAI~. (202) 879-4828 ~JPHIAl2
~ co mQt bai dich. hay g(,li (202) 879-4828
ft...,c"i' }-O'" t\"''''H (202) 879-4828 " '..tJM
IMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACr6N EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, 0, Sl LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE A VISE EL JUZGADO. PODRiA
DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE. PODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BlENES PERSONALES 0 RAfCES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCI6N, NO DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EX/GJDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, Ilame pronto a una de nuestras oftcinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga ala Oficina 5000
de1500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., para informarse de otr05 lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
Vea at dorso el original en ingles
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION
D.C. Healthcare Systems. Inc. and Jeffrey E. Thompson

Plaintiff
VS.
Daniel Watkins (Serve: Office of the Attorney General)

Defendant
SUMMONS
personally or through an attorney, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mai1ed to the attorney for the party plaintiff who is suing you. The
You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 [ndianaAvenue,
Saturdays. You may fi Ie the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on
by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the com laint.
Usa A. Bell
Name of Plaintiffs Attorney
910 17th Street, NW. Suite 800

Address
By
~--------~~r-~~~-----------
202-683-8929
Date
Telepbone
iJ,.iltT E/!. ~ (202) 8794826

Veuillez appeler au (202) 8794628 pour une traduction
~ ell m(lt bai dicll, h~y gQi (202) 679-4828
~~. f:!tt-AlIi!.'!. (202) 8794826.11 ~!l~tJAI2
I'h"'1C'i' )C1-,.. /I"""";')' (202) 8794828 M.(J)<-/I
MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELlEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS. YOUR WAGES MAYBE AITACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION. DQ NOT FAlL TO ANSWER WffHlN THE REQUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot aftbrd to pay a fee to a Ja\vyer. promptly contact olle of the offices of the
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 500{} at 500
Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espanol
FORM SUMMONS Jan. 2011
CASUM.doc
DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telerano: (202) 8791133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y sc Ie require entregar ulla Contestacion a Ja Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona 0 por mcdio de un abogado, en el plazo de veinte (20) dias contados de~pues que usted haya recibido este
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta sieudo demandado en calidad de oficial 0
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted baya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacion. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacion al abogado de la parte demandante. El nombre y direccion del
abogado aparccen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una
copia de la Contestation por correo a la direccion que aparece en este Citatorio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestacion original al Tribunal en 13 Oficina 5000, site cn 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viemes 0 entre las 9:00 un. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Ustcd puede presentar la Contestacion original ante el Juez ya sea antes que Usted Ie entregue al
demandante una copia de la Contestacion 0 en e] plazo de cinco (5) dias de haberle hecho Ia entrega al demandante. Si
usted incumple eon presentar una Contestacion, podria dictarse un faIlo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga
efectivo el desagravio que se busca en 1a demanda.

Por:
Subsecretario
Direcci6n
Pecha _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ __
Telefono
~.lIii.itrrEti! (202) 87~828
.l':l!la !Itt-Alii!!. (202) 879-4828 5!. f.l ~Al2.
~ co mQ! bili dich. hay gC)i (202) 879-4828
fh"'1C'i' }CH/ iI"'1'7'H' (202) 879-4828 Mu)o(.
IMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, 0, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVlSE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUIC10S U OTRO
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAicES Y VENDER LOS PARA PAGAR EL PALLO. SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION. NO DEJE DE CQNTESTAR L4 DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLaZO EXIGIDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, llame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga ala Oficina 5000
Vea al dorso el original en ingies
CASUM,doc
CIVIL DIVISION
SOO Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000

Plaintiff
VS.
Case
f;1n4er- 0 0 0 8 3 1 4
Daniel Watkins (Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray)

Defendant'
SUMMONS
You are also required to file the original Answer with the c.ourt in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue.
by default may be entered against you for the reHef demanded in the complaint.
Usa A. Bell
Name ofPlaintifrs Attorney

Address
202-683-8929
Telephone
~!IIlIif,iI"il!.iii (202) 879-4828
\!l~.
-!I.AI'!!, (202) 879-4828 !l ~.~-6IAI2
mco m(lt bai dich, hly gQi (202) 879-4828
I'h"'lCt,' ')'C1-l'" 11"'''1'110 (202) 879-4828 M-IJ)-ir
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE. OR IF, AFTER YOU
MA Y BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS. YOUR W AGES MAY BE AITACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION, DQ NOT FAlL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer. promptly contact one of the offices of the
Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more infonnation concerning places where you may ask for such help.
Vea al dorso Ia traduction al espafiol
FORM SUMMONS - Jan. 20J I
CASUM.doc
DIVISION CIVIL
Washint.. .on, D.C. 20001 Teh~rono: (202l 879 1133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORJO
Por la presente se Ie elta a compareccr y se Je require entregar una Contestacion a la Demallda adjunta, sea en
persona 0 por medio de lID abogado, en el plazo de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted baya recibido estc
citatorio, excluyendo c] dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en calidad de oficial 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobierno del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su ContestaciOn. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacion al abogado de la parte demandante. El nombre y direccion del
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demand ado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle at demandante una
copia de la Contestacion por correo a la direccion que aparece en este Citatorio.
A lISted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contcstacion original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito en 500
los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestacion original ante el Juez ya sea antes que Usted Ie entregue al
demandante una copia de la Contestacion 0 en eJ plazo de cinco (5) dias de babcrlc hecho la entrega at demandantc. Si
usted incurnpJe con presentar una Contestacion, podria dictarse lID fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga
SECRETARiO DEL TRiBUNAL
Por:
--------------S~u~b-~--re-ta-r~io--------------
Direccion
Fecha
Telt:fono
tIIl.Ili,iltr~ii! (202) 879-4828
\!1<a!1tt ~
--------
Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour una traduction
..q~, (202) 879-4828 ~ ~J"H:IAI2
D! co m(>1 b3i djch. My gQi (202) 879-4828
fh"'lC'i' -i'CH" I\"'I.,'H (202) 879-4828 U(J)-I\'
IMPORTANTE: Sl USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACtON EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENClONADO, O. SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR. USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO. PODRiA
D1CTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAiCES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA AccrON, NO DUE DE CONTEST.4R LA VEMANVA VENTRO DEL PLAZO EXIGlDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costa de uno, \lame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a la Oficina 5000
Yea al dorso el original en ingles
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION

Plaintiff
vs.
Case ,...'_
0 0 0 8 3 14
Wayne Turnage (Serve: Office of the Attorney General)
Defendant
SUMMONS
attorney's name and address appear below. If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy ofthe Answer must be mailed
the plaintiff or within five (5) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file anAnswer,judgment
~Jt gUhPC';;;;;n
By _ _ _ _ _
+-=---.~_---_
Address
washington. DC 20006
Date ---'oc~--l____--H+-....3o.jf--'----
202-683-6929
Telephone
!lDJlIli.il1J1iV,il (202) 879-4828
Veulnez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction
tz!~. flifAIPi!t, (202) 879-4828 it :a.2JS.~AI.2
mco mQt bBi djch,
fh"'lC')" .yC1-l'" h"'l"f'H (202) 879-4828 ~~ft.
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITIUN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAYBE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION, DO NOTFAU. TO ANSWER WffHIN THE REQUIRED TIME.
Ifyou wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Vea at dorso la traducci6n a! espano!
FORM SUMMONS - Jan. 2011
CASUM.doc
TRmUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA
DIVISION CIVIL
Wasbington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (202) 8791133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestaci6n a hl Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en el plaza de veinte (20) djas contados despues que usted baya recibido este
citatorio, excIuyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en calidad de oficia! 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobiemo del" Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted baya recibido este citatorio, paraentregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestaci6n al abogado de la partedemandante. EI nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tien"e abogado, tiene que enviarle al demand ante una
copia de la Contestaci6n por correo a la direcci6n que aparece en este Citatorio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestacion original aI Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viemes"0 entre his 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestaeion original ante e] Juez ya sea antes que Usted ]e entregue aI
demandante una copia de la Contestaei6n 0 en e] plaza de cinco (5) dias de haberle becho la entrega aI demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n, podrfadictarse 'un fallo en rebeldfa contra usted para que se baga
efectivo el desagravio que se busea en ]a demanda.

Por:
Direcci6n
Subsecretario
Fecha
TelCfono
tal.IJli.lIHti il (202) 879-4828
----------------------------------
Veuille:z appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour uoe Iladuction
\!:!~~ !!.A/~. (202) 879-4828 .5!. ~.;;;'~AI.2
fll""lC'1 -l'CI''-
Elt c6 mQt bili djch. hiy gQi (202) 879-4828
iI......ri-l (202) 879-4828
~"(J)-il'
1MPORTANTE: SI USTED JNCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO,O, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO, PODRlA
DlCfARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
PODRfAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAicES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACC10N, NO DE.lEDE CONTESTAR l..A DEMANDA DENTRO DEL Pl..AZO EXlGlDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar eI costo de uno, Hame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-6281161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a la Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N. W., para informarse de olroS lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
Yea al dorsa el original en ingles
CASUM"doc
Superior Court oftbe District of Columbia
CIVIL DIVISION

Plaintiff
vs.
Wayne Turnage (Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray)

Defendant
SUMMONS
by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in th
.
Name ofPlaintiif's Attorney
~
~
By
Address
Date
202-683-8929
____~~__~~_____________
~\dl"------l.....-.;ii5I---",'PotrLt---r-i-CI~~~
Telephone
1l1.alf.il#Ji@ii (202) 879-4828
VeuUlez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traductiOn
\!l~it fl~AJ'I!j. (202) 879-4828 .5!. ~.1i't1AI.a
fh"'lC'I' ~'C'r9" ""'l"'IH (202) 879-4828
D! co mQt bai dich. hiy gQi (202) 879-4828
""(JIo{'r
MA Y BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF
OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITIIHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION, DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME.
nns
Legal Aid Society (202-628- 1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espanol
FORM SUMMONS - lllll. 2011
CASUM.l1oc
r--------
DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Te"~fono: (202) 879-1133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestaci6n a la Demanda adjunta. sea en
persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en el plaza de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en calidad de oficial 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobierno del DistritQ de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dfas contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestaci6n al abogado de la parte demandante. EI nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen aI final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle aI demandante una
copia de la Contestaci6n por correo ala direcci6n que aparece en este Citatorio.
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viemes 0 entre las 9:00 am. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestacion original anteel Juez ya sea antes que Usted Ie entregue al
demand ante una copia de la Contestaci6n 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dfas de haberle hecho la entrega aI demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n, podrfa dictarse un fall0 en rebeldfa contra usted para que se baga
Por:
-----------~~---~--------
Subsecretario
Direcci6n
Fecha _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Telefono
JID.lIl,ifnltl;lf (202) 879-4828
'tf~.
f:I,.AI'i!!. (202) 879-4828.5!. f:!.~tJAI.2
fn""lC'i' i-Cl'''' 1I""1.,'H-
~ co m~ bai djch. hay gOi (202) 879-4828
(202) 879-4828 fJ,.a)oll
1MPORTANTE: Sl USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, 0, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE A VISE EL JUZGADO, PODRIA
DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE CODRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE DUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRIAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAICES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO DE.lE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EX/GIDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Je parece que no puede afrontar eI costo de uno, Hame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Socicty (202-628-1161) 0 eI Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a la Oficina 5000
Vea al dorso e) original en ingles
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION

Plaintiff
vs.
District of Columbia (Serve: Office of the Attorney General)

Defendant
SUMMONS
personally or through an attorney. within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
attorney's name and address appear below. Ifplaintiffhas no attorney, a copy of the Answer must be mailed
Lisa A. Bell. PCT law Group
Name ofPlaintiff's Attorney

Address
Date -\-"-........-r----~Ir-f--+'''----~-
202-683-8929
Telephone
tID II II\!. ilfT"llf (202) 879-4828
't!~. !!III:AI~,
(202) 879-4828 il MtPHIJ.l2
De co mQI bii die". luiy gQi (202) 8794828
fh"'fC'i" .)C1-r "..,.,"'H (202) 8794828 f,1.m-t\
ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO QO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAYBE ATIACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACfION, DO NOT FAlL TO ANSWER WITHIN. THE REQUlRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1I61) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500
Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espaool
FORM SUMMONS -Ian. 2011
CASUM.doc
r--------
DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (202) 879-1133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Al susodieho Demandado:
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestacion a la Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veinte (20) dias eontados despues que usted haya recibido este
eitatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en ealidad de ofieial 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobierno del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya reeibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestaei6n. Tiene que
enviarle por eorreo una eopia de su Contestaei6n aI abogado de la parte demandante. El nombre y direcci6n del
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demand ado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una
copia de la Contestaci6n por eorreo a la direeei6n que apareee en este Citatorio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestaci6n original al Tribunal en la Ofieina 5000, sito en 500
Indiana Avenue, N. W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de Junes a viernes 0 entre las 9:00 am. y las 12;00 del mediodia
demandante una copia de la Contestaci6n 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dias de haberle heeho la entrega al demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n, podria dietarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga
efeetivo el desagravio que se busca en la demanda.
Por:
--------------S~u~b~scc--re-tar~io-------------
Direcci6n
Fccha
Telefono
~!IIlIif.ilHIt!.i! (202) 879-4828
i \!:!~.
~-------------------------------
f!8tA.I'i!!. (202) 879-4828 5t ~.~~A.12
ft....,C"i' :t'C1-"
"...,"rH
na c6 mOt b:\i djch. hily gQi (202) 879-4828

(202) 879-4828 f.I.(J)o'"
IMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACI6N EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, 0, SJ LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANOO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO, PODRjA
mCTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRA VIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAieES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. Sf USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCI6N, NO DElE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PUZO EX/G/DO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, lIarne pronto a una de nuestras ofieinas del
Legal Aid ~ociety (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a la Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., para infonnarse de otros lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
Vea aI dorso el original en ingles
CASUM.doc
Superior Court of the Distrid of Columbia
CIVIL DIVISION
SOO Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000

Plaintiff
vs.
District of Columbia (Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray)

Defendant
SUMMONS
Usa A. Bell, peT Law Group
Name ofPlaintirrs Attorney
910 17th Street. NW. Suite 600
1~WI
Address
202-663-8929
Telephone
Date
----~D~e~prny~~C~le~------------
--------~------~~--~---------
IIlIl.if,il1Tlt!.iI (202) 879-4828

~ co mOt bai djch, My gQi '202) 8794828
1!:!9!I. !.III-AI'!!!. (202) 8794828 .I!. ~.-;r.-QlAI.2 fh"'C~ ~.C1-" 1I".,.rH (202) 8794828 I-UJ)oftIMPORTANT: IF' YOU fAIL TO fiLE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
ANSWER. YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU fOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAYBE AITACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REAl, ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS
ACTION, D.O NOTFAJ.L TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and teel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the
Vea al dorso la traduccion al espanol
FORM SUMMONS Jan. 20 II
CASUM.doc
DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (202) 8791133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Al susOOicho Demandado:
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestaci6n a la Demanda adjunta. sea en
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en calidad de oficial 0
agente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobiemo del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestaci6n al abogado de la parte demandante. EI nombre y direccion del
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogado. tiene que enviarle al demandante una
copia de la Contestaci6n por correo a la direcci6n que aparece en este Citatorio.
Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viernes 0 entre las 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestacion original ante el Juez ya sea antes que Usted Ie entregue al
demand ante una copia de la Contestacion 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dias de haberle hecho la entrega al demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestacion, pOOria dictarse un rallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga
Por:
Direcci6n
Subsecretario
Fecha
Telefono
MlllliJ.iI:fTli.i! (202) 879-4828
Veuillez appe1er au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction
!!~. !l1!-AlIi!!, (202) 879-4828 it ~.~~AI.9.
ft."'C~ .).c...,.,.. "'''''71,).
---------------------------------
~ c6 mQt bili djch, bliy gO! (202) 879-4828
(202) 879-4828 fJ.fJJ'ir
JMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, 0, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DlCTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODRIAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAicES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO, SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DE!'.7RO DEL PLAZO WGIDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, Harne pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202279-5100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga ala Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N, W" para informarse de otros lugares donde puede pedir ayuda aJ respecto.
Yea al dorso el original en ingles
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION

Plaintiff
vs.
Case Nwnber
William White
Defendant
SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint. either
You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue.
Name ofPlaintiif's Attorney

Address
202.J683-8929
Date ----='----+----lI-+-:--~---Telephone
1II118if,ilfflliil (202) 879-4828
De co ml)t blli dich. My g . (202) 879-4628
'tjC2!l. !It'''''~, (202) 879-4828 s;, ~JPIt.lAI2 fll"7C'I' :,.C1--,. ~. (202) 879-4828 UJoilIMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU
ANSWER. YOU FAlL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATrACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
ACTION, DO NOT FAlL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME.
Indiana Avenue. N.W., for more infonnation concerning places where you may ask for such help.
Vea al dorso la traduccion al espanol
FORM SUMMONS Jan. 20 II
CASUM.doc
r--------
DIVISION CIVIL
500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite SOOO
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (20Z) 8791133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestaci6n a la Demanda adjunta, sea en
citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en cali dad de oficial 0
agente del Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica 0 del Gobiemo del. Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted
sesenta (60) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacion. Tiene que
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una
copia de la Contestacion por correo a la direcci6n que aparece en este CitalQrio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestaci6n original at Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito en 500
los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestacion originalame el Juez ya sea antes que Usted Ie entregue al
demand ante una copia de la Contestacion 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dias de haberle hecho la entrega al demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestaci6n, podriadictarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga

Por:
Direcci6n
Subsecretario
Fecha
Telefono
;U i.ilnEl!.i! (202) 879-4828
---------------------------------
Veuillez appe/er au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction
't!'il!ja flat- AIel. (202) 879-4828 .!i!.1!i ~AI2
D! co mOt biti dith. hiy gqi (202) 879-4828
fA"'tcr;< -l'C'l'''' A"7T'H' (202) 879-4828 1.1.tD-1t
IMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTAcr6N EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO,O, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. Sf ESTO OCURRE, PODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONALES 0 RAicES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. Sl USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCI6N, NO DJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EX/GIDO.
Si desea converser con un abogado y Ie parece que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, Hame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-2795100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a Ja Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue. N.W., para informarse de otros lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
Vea aI dorso el original en ingles
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVISION
500 Indiana Avenue,N.W., Suite 5000

Plaintiff
vs.
Case Number
---------------------
Mercer LLC. d/b/a Mercer Government Human Services Consulting

Defendant
SUMMONS
You are hereby sununoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either
You are also required to file the original Answer with tbe Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue,
N.W., between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 nOO11 on
ou fail to file an Answer, judgment
the plaintiff or within five (5) days after you have served the plaintiff.
by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in t
e compl31
Lisa A, Bell
Name ofPlainliifs Attorney

Address
202-683-8929
Telephone
1iII1IIliJ nEi.ii (202) 879-4828
\!l~.
Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour una traduction
!Jtl-J.I'i!!. (202) 879-4828 .il.!f.~t.lAlR
I'h"'C'i'
D~ co InQt b;\i djch, My goj (202) 879-4828
~'CH'" /1..,'11')' (202) 879-4828 1.1.1.1)-(1"
IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE. OR IF, AFTER YOU
MAY BE ENTERED AGA[NST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTl-JER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE
COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE nils
ACTION, DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REOUIRED TIME.
If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one ofthe offices oftbe
Indiana Avenue, N.W.. , for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help.
Vea al dorso la traducci6n al espanal
FORM SUMMONS - Jan. 20 II
CASUM.doc

DIVISION CIVIL
Washington, D.C. 20001 Telefono: (202) 8791133
Demandante
contra
Numero de Caso:
Demandado
CITATORIO
Por la presente se Ie cita a comparecer y se Ie require entregar una Contestaci6n a la Demanda adjunta, sea en
persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en el plaza de veinte (20) dias contados despues que usted haya recibido este
citatorio. excillyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted est! siendo demandado en calidad de oficial 0
sesenta (60) dtas contados despues que usted haya recibido este citatorio. para entregar su Contestaci6n. Tiene que
abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demand ado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una
copia de la Contestacion por correo ala direccion que aparece en este Citatorio.
A usted tambien se Ie require presentar la Contestacion original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000. sito en 500
Indiana Avenue. N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de Iunes a viemes 0 entre las 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia
demandante una copia de la Contestacion 0 en el plazo de cinco (5) dias de habcrle hecho fa entrega al demandante. Si
usted incumple con presentar una Contestacion, podria dictarse un fallo en rebcldia contra usted para que se haga
efectivo el desagravio que se busca en la demauda.
SECRETARiO DEL TRiBUNAL
Por:
--------------S~u~b-~--re-ta-r~io--------------
Direcci6n
Fecha
Tel6fono
it,.HIl i! (202) 879-4828
~~a
--------------------------------
VeUillez appeler au (202) 819-4828 pour une traduction
t!8V-I\!!. (202) 879-4828 .!i!. t!I f:lAI2
Dl! co mql bai dich. hiiy goi (202) 879-4828
fh"7C'1 "'C1.,.. 1'I"7"1'<j.). (202) 879-4828 1J,(l)o1'l'
IMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES

MENCIONADO, O. SI LUEGO DE CONTEST AR. USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE A VISE EL JUZGADO, PODRiA
DICfARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDiA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO
DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE. PODRiAN RETENERLE SUS INGRESOS, 0
PODRiAN TOMAR SUS BIENES PERSONAtES 0 RAfCES Y VENDERLOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED
PRETENDE OPONERSE A EST A ACCION, NO DElE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EX/GIDO.
Si desea converser eon un abogado y Ie pareee que no puede afrontar el costo de uno, lIame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del
Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (2022795100) para pedir ayuda 0 venga a la Oficina 5000
del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W .. para informarse de otros lugares donde puede pedir ayuda al respecto.
Vea al dorso el original en ingles
CASUM.doc
CIVIL DIVIS rON- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH

D. C. Hea 1 thcare
.
Systems, Inc., et al.
INFORMATION SHEET
vs
Date: ____ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Dis trict of Columbia, et al.
One ofthedefendants is being sued

in their official capacity.
Name: (please Prim) L .
Relationship to Lawsuit
1Sa Bell
Finn Name:
PCT Law
Telephone No.:
o
o
GrOUl>
424685
TYPE OF CASE: 0 Non-Jury
80
~ Attorney for Plaintiff
Six digit Unified Bar No.:
(202) 683-8929
Demand: $
14 .. 0 0 0 8 3 1 4
Case Number:
mj]] j on
6 Person Jury
Self(Pro Se)
Other:
KJ 12 Person Jury
Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
PENDING CASE(S) RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED
Case No.: 2013 CA 003752

Judge: -l!MlLout..J..t_ _ __
Calendar #:,---...02'---_ _ _ _ _ __
Case No.:_ _ _._ _ _ _ __
Calendar#:,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
NATURE OF SUIT:
Judge:
(Check One Box Only)
A. CONTRACTS
COLLECTION CASES
0 07 Personal Property
02 Breach ofWammty
0 09 Real PropertyReal Estate
06 Negotiable Insbument
012 Specific Performance
15 Special Education Fees
0 13 Employment Discrimination
10 Mortgage Foreclosure/Judicial Sale
014 Under $25,000 Pitt: Grants Consent

16 Under $25,000 Consent Denied
17 OVER $25,000 Pitt: Grants Consent
018 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied
[XI 01 Breach ofContract
o
o
o
B. PROPERTY TORTS
o
o
001 Automobile
0 03 Deslruction ofPrivate Property
02 Conversion
0 04 Property Damage
07 Shoplifting, D.C. Code 27102 (a)
o
o
05 Trespass
06 Traffic Adjudication
C. PERSONAL TORTS
o
o
o
o
09 Harassment
0
001 Abuse ofProc:ess
010 Invasion of Privacy
02 Alienation ofAffection
11 Libel and Slander
0
03 AsSllllIt and Battery
12 Malicious Interference
0
o 04 Automobile- Personal Injury
13 Malicious Prosecution
0
OS Deceit (Misrepresentation)
0]4 Malpractice Legal
0
06 False Accusation
15 MaJpoxliee Medical (IJ1C1uc1ina w,...l'uI DooIh) 0
07 False AJ:rest
016 Negligence- (Not Automobile,
0
o 08 Fraud
Not Malpractice)
0
o
o
SEE REVERSE SIDE AND CHECK HERE

CV-4961Oc.t 14
17 Personal Injury- (Not Automobile,

Not Malpractice)
18 Wrongful Death (Not Malpractice)
19 Wrongful Eviction
20 Friendly Suit
21 Asbestos
22"Toxic/Mass Torts
23 Tobacco
24 Lead Paint
IF USED
'.
Information Sheet, Continued
--"~------------------------------------,
C.OTHERS
001 Accounting
02 AU. Before Judgment
04 Condemnation (Emin. Domain)
D OS'Ejedment
D 07 Insurance!Subrogation
Under $25,000 Pitt
Grants Consent
D 08 Quiet TItle
D 09 Special WritIWammts
(DC Code 11-941)
D 10 T.R.OJ Injunction
D 25 Uens: TaxlWater Consent Granted
D
D
D
D
II Writ ofReplevin
12 Enforce Mechanics Lien
16 Declaratory Judgment
17 Merit Personnel Act (OEA)
(D.C. Code TItle I, Chapter 6)

18 Product Uability
24 Application to Confirm, Modify,
Vacate Arbitration Award
(DC Code 164401)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n.
D 03 Change of Name
D
15 Libel ofInfurmation
D
19 Enter Administrative Order as
D 06 Foreign Judgment
D 13 Correction ofBirth Certificate
Judgment [ D.C. Code
14 Correction ofMarriage
Certificate
CV-4961Oct 14
2-1802.03 (h) or 321519 (a))
20 Master Meter (D.C. Code

42-3301, et seq.)
D
D
26 Insurance! Subrogation
Under $25,000 Consent Denied
27 Insurance! Subrogation
Over $25,000 PItt Grants Consent
28 Motion to Confinn Arbitration
Award (Collection Cases Only)
29 Merit Personnel Act (OHR)
30 Liens: Tax] Water Consent Denied
31 Housing Code Regulations
32 Qui Tam
33 Whistleblowcr
34 InsurancelSubrogation
Over $25,000 Consent'Denied
21 Petition for Subpoena

[Rule 281 (b))
22 Release Mechanics Lien
23 Rule 27(a)(1)
(Pe'l'petuate Testimony)
24 Petition for Structured Settlement
25 Petition for Uquidation
o
o
o
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION
DC HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
Vs.
C.A. No.
2014 CA 008314 B
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INITIAL ORDER AND ADDENDUM

Pursuant to D.C. Code 11-906 and District of Columbia Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure
("SCR Civ") 40-1, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1) Effective this date, this case has assigned to the individual calendar designated below. All future filings
in this case shall bear the calendar number and the judge's name beneath the case number in the caption. On
filing any motion or paper related thereto, one copy (for the judge) must be delivered to the Clerk along with the
original.
(2) Within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, plaintiff must file proof of serving on each defendant:
copies of the Summons, the Complaint, and this Initial Order. As to any defendant for whom such proof of
service has not been filed, the Complaint wiJI be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution unless the
time for serving the defendant has been extended as provided in SCR Civ 4(m).
(3) Within 20 days of service as described above, except as otherwise noted in SCR Civ 12, each defendant
must respond to the Complaint by filing an Answer or other responsive pleading. As to the defendant who has
failed to respond, a default and judgment will be entered unless the time to respond has been extended as
provided in SCR Civ 55(a).
(4) At the time and place noted below, all counsel and unrepresented parties shall appear before the
assigned judge at an Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference to discuss the possibilities of settlement and
to establish a schedule for the completion of all proceedings, including, nonnally, either mediation, case
evaluation, or arbitration. Counsel shall discuss with their clients prior to the conference whether the clients are
agreeable to binding or non-binding arbitration. This order is the only notice that parties and counsel will
receive concerning this Conference.
(5) Upon advice that the date noted below is inconvenient for any party or counsel, the Quality Review
Branch (202) 879-1750 may continue the Conference !!!!, with the consent of all parties, to either of the two
succeeding Fridays. Request must be made not less than six business days before the scheduling conference date.
No other continuance ofthe conference will be granted except upon motion for good cause shown.
(6) Parties are responsible for obtaining and complying with all requirements of the General Order for Civil
cases, each Judge's Supplement to the General Order and the General Mediation Order. Copies of these orders
are available in the Courtroom and on the Court's website http://www.dccourts.gov/.
Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield
Case Assigned to: Judge MICHAEL O'KEEFE
Date: December 31, 2014
Initial Conference: 9:30 am, Friday, April 24, 2015
Location: Courtroom A-47
515 5th Street NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Caio.doc
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL ORDER AFFECTING
ALL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES
In accordance with the Medical Malpractice Proceedings Act of 2006, D.C. Code 16-2801,
et seq. (2007 Winter Supp.). "[a]fter an action is filed in the court against a healthcare provider
alleging medical malpractice, the court shall require the parties to enter into mediation. without
discovery or. if all parties agree[,] with only limited discovery that will not interfere with the
completion of mediation within 30 days of the Initial Scheduling and Settlement Conference
("ISSC"), prior to any further litigation in an effort to reach a settlement agreement. The early
mediation schedule shall be included in the Scheduling Order following the ISSC. Unless all
parties agree, the stay of discovery shall not be more than 30 days after the ISSC." D.C. Code 16
2821.
To ensure compliance with this legislation, on or before the date of the ISSC, the Court will
notifY all attorneys and pro se parties of the date and time of the early mediation session and the
name of the assigned mediator. Information about the early mediation date also is available over
the internet at https:llwww:dccourts.gov/pal. To facilitate this process, all counsel and pro se
parties in every medical malpractice case are required to confer, jointly complete and sign an
EARLY MEDIATION FORM, which must be filed no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the
ISSC. Two separate Early Mediation Forms are available. Both forms may be obtained at
www.dccourts.gov/medmalmediation. One form is to be used for early mediation with a mediator
from the multi-door medical malpractice mediator roster; the second form is to be used for early
mediation with a private mediator. Both forms also are available in the Multi-Door Dispute
Resolution Office, Suite 2900,410 E Street, N.W. Plaintiff's counsel is responsible for eFiling the
form and is required to e-mail a courtesy copy to earlymedmal@dcsc.gov. Pro se Plaintiffs who
elect not to eFile may file by hand in the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Office.
A roster of medical malpractice mediators available through the Court's Multi-Door Dispute
Resolution Division, with biographical information about each mediator, can be found at
www.dccourts.gov/medmalmediation/mediatorprofiles. All individuals on the roster are judges or
lawyers with at least 10 years of significant experience in medical malpractice litigation. D.C. Code
16-2823(a). If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, the Court will appoint one. D.C. Code
16-2823(b).
The following persons are required by statute to attend personally the Early Mediation
Conference: (1) all parties; (2) for parties that are not individuals, a representative with settlement
authority; (3) in cases involving an insurance company, a representative of the company with
settlement authority; and (4) attorneys representing each party with primary responsibility for the
case. D.C. Code 16-2824.
No later than ten (10) days after the early mediation session has terminated, Plaintiff must
eFile with the Court a report prepared by the mediator, including a private mediator, regarding: (1)
attendance; (2) whether a settlement was reached; or, (3) if a settlement was not reached, any
agreements to narrow the scope of the dispute, limit discovery, facilitate future settlement, hold
another mediation session, or otherwise reduce the cost and time of trial preparation. D.C. Code
16-2826. Any Plaintiff who is pro se may elect to file the report by hand with the Civil Clerk's
Office.
The forms to be used for early mediation reports are available at
www.dccourts.gov/medmalmediation.
Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield
Caio.doc

Washington D.C. Healthcare Systems, Inc. and Jeffrey Thompson v. District of Columbia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Washington D.C. Healthcare Systems, Inc. and Jeffrey Thompson v. District of Columbia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 4

DATE: January 13, 2015

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 4

/s/ Gary Feldon

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 88

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

D.C. HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.,

a District of Columbia Corporation,

clo Nicholas G. Karambelas

2938 Upton Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008,

clo Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP

1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W., Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20036,

WAYNE TURNAGE, individually and

Office of the Attorney General

Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 88

Office ofthe Attorney General

in his official capacity as

Serve: Mayor Vincent Gray

DANIEL L. WATKINS, individually and

WILLIAM WHITE, individually

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 88

a Delaware limited liability company

Serve: The Corporation Trust Company

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 88

The District then used Chartered's financial distress as a pretext to force

Once the District took control of Chartered pursuant to the rehabilitation, it

engineered a "settlement" with itself

That is, the District settled Chartered's claims for

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 5 of 88

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 6 of 88

Mr. Thompson is DCHSI's sole shareholder. Mr. Thompson served as Chairman

Defendant Chester A. McPherson is sued in his official capacity. Mr. McPherson

By law, the DISB Commissioner also serves as the

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 7 of 88

Defendant Daniel L. Watkins, who is sued individually and in his official

At all times material hereto, Mr.

Defendant Mercer LLC, d/b/a Mercer Government Human Services Consulting

("Mercer''), is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York.

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 8 of 88

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mercer pursuant to 13

individual Defendants in their personal and official capacities.

THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

The D.C. Medicaid Program.

Across the U.S., Medicaid programs provide healthcare services to low-income

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 9 of 88

The Federal Medicaid Program and the District's Participation.

actuarially sound.") (emphasis added).

Capitation rates refer to capitation, which is a per-member monthly amount paid

Case 1:15-cv-00046-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 10 of 88

THE DISTRICT'S CONTRACTS WITH CHARTERED.

DCHSI purchased Chartered out of bankruptcy with the District's approval in

The DHCF Contract required Chartered to provide medical services to over

100,000 District residents monthly. As a result, Chartered developed a significant provider

The calculations included money to cover

Under the DHCF Contract, if the District imposed additional or changed