Charles D. Ulrich v. St. Paul Ramsey ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 96-3651
    ___________
    Charles D. Ulrich,               *
    *
    Appellant,           *
    *
    v.                        *
    * Appeal  from      the   United
    States
    S t . Paul Ramsey Hospital; Hennepin                         *
    District Court for the
    C o u n t y Medical Center; St. Luke’s                       *
    District of Minnesota.
    H o s p i t a l ; St. Joseph’s Medical Center;               *
    [UNPUBLISHED]
    University of Minnesota Hospital and                         *
    Clinic,                          *
    *
    Appellees.          *
    ___________
    Submitted:               May
    21, 1997
    Filed:         May 30,
    1997
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Charles D. Ulrich appeals the district court’s1
    dismissal of his diversity action for failure to state a
    claim. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    Ulrich, a certified public accountant, filed this
    action against five Minnesota hospitals, alleging that
    they received windfall payments as a result of work he
    did in seeking proper reimbursement for unpaid Medicare
    deductibles and coinsurance obligations. In 1988, Ulrich
    discovered that Minnesota hospitals were not being
    properly reimbursed for patients eligible for benefits
    under both Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs. He
    contacted all hospitals that had participated in the
    Minnesota Medical Assistance program and offered to
    pursue reimbursement on their behalf for a contingency
    fee.      More than fifty hospitals agreed to the
    arrangement, but defendants declined.
    Ulrich pursued the claims for his clients, eventually
    settling with the state and receiving his contingency
    fee. Before Ulrich could again approach the remaining
    hospitals about their possibility for recovery, the
    state--to resolve potential outstanding claims--offered
    to pay defendants a portion of what they were owed, using
    the formula that had been used in the settlement Ulrich
    engineered. Ulrich claimed that because defendants did
    not pay him a contingency fee, they were unjustly
    enriched by his efforts. The district court dismissed
    the action for failure to state a claim.
    We review de novo the district court’s interpretation
    of Minnesota law, see Kovarik v. American Family Ins.
    Group, 
    108 F.3d 962
    , 964 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Salve
    Regina College v. Russell, 
    499 U.S. 225
    , 231 (1991)), and
    are bound by the decisions of the Minnesota courts, see
    
    Kovarik, 108 F.3d at 964
    .     We also review de novo a
    -3-
    dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Alexander v.
    Peffer, 
    993 F.2d 1348
    , 1349 (8th Cir. 1993).
    We agree with the district court that Ulrich’s claim
    fails, as he has made no allegation that defendants’
    acceptance of payments to which they were entitled was
    fraudulent or illegal in any way, and he has stated no
    facts to support an allegation that defendants’ actions
    were morally wrong. See First Nat’l Bank v. Ramier, 
    311 N.W.2d 502
    , 504 (Minn. 1981) (no claim for unjust
    enrichment absent illegal or unlawful
    -4-
    conduct by defendant); see also Servicemaster of St.
    Cloud v. GAB Business Servs., Inc., 
    544 N.W.2d 302
    , 306
    (Minn. 1996) (unjust-enrichment claim failed because
    defendant did not receive security interest in home
    “under any cloud of impropriety”); Ventura v. Titan
    Sports, Inc., 
    65 F.3d 725
    , 729 (8th Cir. 1995)
    (characterizing Minnesota unjust-enrichment law as “well
    settled”; plaintiff won unjust-enrichment claim where
    defrauded by defendant), cert. denied, 
    116 S. Ct. 1268
    (1996); Spiess v. Schumm, 
    448 N.W.2d 106
    , 108 (Minn. Ct.
    App. 1989) (constructive trust imposed where it would be
    morally wrong for property holder to retain funds).
    Ulrich is not entitled to compensation from
    defendants merely because his efforts in representing his
    clients may have incidentally conferred a benefit upon
    defendants. See Galante v. Oz, Inc., 
    379 N.W.2d 723
    , 726
    (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
    The judgment is affirmed.      Ulrich’s           motion   for
    attorney’s fees and costs is denied.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK,   U.   S.     COURT   OF   APPEALS,   EIGHTH
    CIRCUIT.
    -5-