Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

The Clinics filed suit challenging California Welfare and Institutions Code 14131.10, which eliminated certain Medi-Cal benefits that the state deemed optional, including adult dental, podiatry, optometry, and chiropractic services. The court reversed the district court's holding that the Clinics have a private right of action to challenge the Department's implementation of the state plan amendments (SPA) prior to obtaining approval; affirmed that the Clinics have a private right of action to bring a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging the validity of section 14131.10; and reversed the district court's interpretation of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., holding that section 14131.10 impermissibly eliminated mandatory services from coverage. View "California Ass'n of Rural Health Clinics v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, by and through her adoptive parents, brought this action challenging South Carolina's reduction of monthly adoption assistance benefits, claiming that the reduction violated the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq. The court held in this case that section 673(a)(3) did set forth a privately enforceable right under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but that the parents have failed to plead any violation of that right by defendants. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hensley v. Koller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the termination of her Medicaid benefits. At issue was the enforceability of a provision of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8), under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that section 1396a(a)(8) created a right enforceable under section 1983, and that exhaustion of Louisiana's procedure for judicial review was not required before a Medicaid claimant filed suit in federal court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying DHH's motion to dismiss because plaintiff's claims were properly before the district court. View "Romano v. Greenstein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Tyla Newbold appealed a magistrate judge's order that granted her Social Security benefits from October 2006 to November 2007, but denied them thereafter. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration determined Plaintiff had been disabled during that period due to physical and mental impairments, but that she recovered and the disability ceased. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) used the proper medical-improvement standard in deciding Plaintiff ceased being disabled. Finding that the ALJ used the proper standard, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Newbold v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the Secretary's denial of their claims for Medicare coverage for dental services. Plaintiffs contended that this denial was premised on the Secretary's unreasonable interpretation of the Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, which contravened the intent of Congress and violated plaintiffs' right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court concluded that, although the statutory provision for exclusion of dental services was ambiguous in the sense that plausible divergent constructions could be urged, the Secretary's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court also concluded that the Secretary's statutory interpretation warranted Chevron deference and the Secretary's statutory interpretation was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fournier v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

This case involved the interplay between the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (MSP), 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b), and Texas workers' compensation law. At issue was whether the MSP preempted a state law that required a workers' compensation claimant to obtain preauthorization from the relevant carrier before incurring certain medical expenses. The court held that it did not. The court concluded that Congress intended the MSP to complement, no supplant, state workers' compensation rules. This included the preauthorization requirement that plaintiff failed to meet before he filed suit. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that Medicare's conditional payment for his surgeries - which equated to a determination that his surgeries were medically unnecessary - rendered the state-law preauthorization requirement "moot" because preauthorization likewise depended on a showing of medical necessity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Caldera v. The Ins. Co. of the State of PA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of Medicaid beneficiaries who suffered from severe developmental disabilities, sued the NCDHHS, PBH, and the director of PBH, alleging that defendants violated their rights under the Medicaid statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by reducing their health care services without notice and an opportunity for a hearing. On appeal, PBH and the director challenged the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction. However, the NCDHHS did not join the appeal. Given that the NCDHHS had decided not to litigate the appeal, the court concluded that the Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5), and accompanying regulations precluded PBH from appealing in the absence of the NCDHHS. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "K.C. v. Shipman" on Justia Law

Providers brought suit against the State, asserting that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (CWA), 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq., gave them a privately enforceable right under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to receive payments from the State sufficient to cover the cost of certain statutorily enumerated components of foster care. At issue was whether Congress, in enacting the CWA, evinced a clear intent to grant foster care providers an individually enforceable right to foster care maintenance payments sufficiently large to cover the costs of each item enumerated in section 675(4)(A). The court held that Congress did not ambiguously confer such a right and, therefore, affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Providers' complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Midwest Foster Care, etc., et al v. Kincade, et al" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from California's implementation of a change to Medicare in 2006. The Centers argued that California mishandled the shift in payment responsibility for dual-eligibles' prescription drug costs from state Medicaid programs to the new, federal Medicare Part D Program. The Centers brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. Among other things, the Centers urged the federal courts to declare unlawful California's "seizure" of the Centers' Medicare Part D funds, in excess of what would be owed under the per-visit rate for the Centers' expenses. The court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Centers' claims for retroactive monetary relief; the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Centers' claims to the extent that they sought money damages; however, the court reversed the district court and remanded to allow the district court to assess Ex parte Young's application to the Center's remaining claims. View "North East Medical Services v. CA Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, thirteenth North Carolina residents who lost access to in-home personal care services (PCS) due to a statutory change, brought suit challenging the new PCS program. The district court granted plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification. Defendants appealed, raising several points of error. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that a preliminary injunction was appropriate in this case. The court held, however, that the district court's order failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 because it lacked specificity and because the district court neglected to address the issue of security. Accordingly, the court remanded the case. View "Pashby v. Delia" on Justia Law