Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs-Respondents father and daughter Jose and Nayeli Carrillo, father and daughter, sued Boise Tire Co. (Boise Tire), alleging that Boise Tire improperly performed a tire rotation on their vehicle and that as a result, the Carrillos and Marisela Lycan, Jose’s wife and Nayeli's mother, were in a motor vehicle accident. Marisela was killed, Jose was injured, and eighteen-month old Nayeli underwent testing that revealed no physical injury. A jury found that Boise Tire's conduct was reckless. Boise Tire moved for new trial on the grounds that: (1) the Carrillos' pleadings merely alleged negligence and therefore the court committed legal error by permitting the Carrillos to argue that Boise Tire's conduct was reckless; (2) the jury verdict was excessive and the result of passion or prejudice; and (3) the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. The district court issued a remittitur as to Nayeli's noneconomic damage award but otherwise denied the motion. Boise Tire appealed that denial and the court's holding that I.C. 6-1606 did not require the Carrillos' damage awards to be reduced by the subrogation interest transferred from the Carrillos' insurer to their attorney, nor by social security benefits obtained by the Carrillos. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Boise Tire's motion for a new trial, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for the district court to reduce Jose's personal injury reward by the value of his social security benefits when judgment was originally entered. View "Carrillo v. Boise Tire Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Main & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Southern Springs Healthcare Facility, filed an action in the Bullock Circuit Court, on behalf of itself and a putative class of Alabama nursing homes, against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBS), asserting claims of breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, negligence and/or wantonness, and unjust enrichment and seeking injunctive relief. BCBS removed the case to the the federal court, arguing among other things, that Southern Springs' claims arose under the Medicare Act and that the Medicare Act, as amended by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the MMA) completely preempted Southern Springs' state-law claims. Southern Springs moved the federal court to remand the case to the circuit court, arguing that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. The federal court granted the motion and remanded the case to the Bullock Circuit Court. After remand, BCBS moved the circuit court for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Southern Springs had not exhausted its administrative remedies and that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The circuit court denied BCBS's motion, and BCBS petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss Southern Springs' claims. Upon review, the Court concluded that Southern Springs' claims were inextricably intertwined with claims for coverage and benefits under the Medicare Act and that they were subject to the Act's mandatory administrative procedures and limited judicial review. Southern Springs did not exhaust its administrative remedies, and the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. Therefore, the Court granted BCBS's petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the claims against BCBS. View "Main & Associates, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama" on Justia Law

States participating in Medicaid in a managed care environment are required to make, at least every fourth month, supplemental “wraparound” payments to federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) equal to the difference between a rate set by statute multiplied by the number of Medicaid patient encounters, and the amount paid to FQHCs by managed care organizations (MCOs) for all Medicaid-covered patient encounters, 42 U.S.C.1396. Concerned that gaps in FQHC claim verification led to overpayments, the New Jersey Department of Human Services changed its calculation: instead of basing wraparound payments solely on the number of Medicaid encounters and total MCO receipts as self-reported by FQHCs, the state would rely on data reported by MCOs absent receipt of certain additional data from the FQHCs. Because MCOs report only encounters that they have approved and paid, prior MCO payment would be a prerequisite to wraparound reimbursement under the new system. An association of FQHCs sued, claiming that the change violated their due process rights as well as state and federal law, resulting in budget shortfalls. The district court granted the association summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit affirmed the holding that the requirement that wraparound payments be contingent on prior MCO payment violated the Medicaid statute’s requirement that FQHCs receive timely full wraparound payment for all Medicaid-eligible claims. View "NJ Primary Care Assoc. v. NJ Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed that PacifiCare was not entitled to any reimbursement payments out of the wrongful death benefits paid by an insurance policy to them. PacifiCare counterclaimed, arguing that it was entitled to reimbursement under both the terms of its contract with the deceased (Count I) and directly under the Medicare Act (Count 11), 42 U.S.C. 1395. At issue was whether a private Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) plan could sue a plan participant's survivors, seeking reimbursement for advanced medical expenses out of the proceeds of an automobile insurance policy. Because interpretation of the federal Medicare Act presented a federal question, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether that act created a cause of action in favor of PacifiCare against plaintiffs. The district court properly dismissed the causes of action arising under the Medicare Act for failure to state a claim where section 1395y(b)(2) did not create a federal cause of action in favor of a MAO and where, under section 1395y(b)(3)(A), the Private Cause of Action applied in the case of a primary plan which failed to provide for primary payment, which was not applicable in this instance. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Count II for failure to state a claim as well as its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 1. View "Parra v. Pacificare of Arizona" on Justia Law

Since enacting a program for black-lung benefits in 1969, known as the Black Lung Benefits Act,83 Stat. 742, Congress has repeatedly amended the claim-filing process, sometimes making it harder for miners and survivors to obtain benefits, sometimes making it easier. The most recent adjustment, part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, reinstated a presumption that deceased workers who had worked for at least 15 years in underground coal mines and had developed a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment were presumed to be totally disabled by pneumoconiosis and to have died from it. The presumption is rebuttable. The Act also reinstated automatic benefits to any survivor of a miner who had been awarded benefits on a claim filed during his lifetime, 124 Stat. at 260. Groves, a miner for 29 years, filed a claim for benefits in 2006 and died four months later. An ALJ denied his widow benefits. The law changed while her appeal was pending. The Benefits Review Board concluded that the new law covered this claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Vision Processing, LLC v. Groves" on Justia Law

Adams worked in coal mines for 17 years, leaving A & E Coal in 1988, after 12 years, because he was having difficulty breathing. He has not worked since. Adams also smoked cigarettes for about 25 years, averaging a pack a day before quitting in 1998 or 1999. Adams filed his first claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act 30 U.S.C. 901 in 1988. His claim was denied: He did not prove that his pneumoconiosis was caused in part by his coal-mine work, or that his pneumoconiosis totally disabled him. In 2007, Adams filed a second claim. Two pulmonologists agreed that he was completely disabled, but disagreed on what lung diseases Adams had, and on what caused them. An Administrative Law Judge awarded benefits, finding that Adams had pneumoconiosis, that the disease was caused by Adams’s exposure to coal dust during his coal-mine employment, and that he was totally disabled because of the disease. The Benefits Review Board and the Third Circuit affirmed. Although the ALJ was not required to look at the preamble to the regulations to assess the doctors’ credibility, he was entitled to do so. View "A & E Coal Co. v. Adams" on Justia Law

Perks applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. An ALJ denied Perks's application. On appeal to the appeals council, Perks submitted additional evidence. The appeals council noted the receipt of the additional evidence but denied further review of Perks's claim. The district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Perks was not disabled; and (2) the additional evidence submitted to the appeals council did not undermine the ALJ's determination, as the ALJ would not have reached a different result with the additional evidence and the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. View "Perks v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Kevin Byes applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on July 30, 2007, claiming disability since November 1, 2005. The Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denied benefits. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Commissioner's decision, concluding that Byes was not disabled from November 1, 2005 through the date of the decision. The district court agreed with the ALJ's decision. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding of no severe mental impairment; and (2) the district court correctly concluded that the ALJ had applied the incorrect grid rule in order to determine Byes was not disabled but that the error was harmless. View "Byes v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Humana sued, alleging that Glaxo was obligated to reimburse Humana for expenses Humana had incurred treating its insureds’ injuries resulting from Glaxo’s drug, Avandia. Humana runs a Medicare Advantage plan. Its complaint asserts that, pursuant to the Medicare Act, Glaxo is in this instance a “primary payer” obligated to reimburse Humana as a “secondary payer.” The district court dismissed, agreeing with Glaxo that the Medicare Act did not provide Medicare Advantage organizations with a private cause of action to seek such reimbursement. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act, in 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(A), provides Humana with a private cause of action against Glaxo. Even if the provision is ambiguous, regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services make clear that the provision extends the private cause of action to MAOs. View "Humana Med. Plan Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, to recover benefits under long-term disability benefit plans maintained by their former employers. The plans provide for reduction of benefits if the disabled employee also receives benefits under the Social Security Act, as both plaintiffs do. They dispute calculation of the reduction, claiming that the plans do not authorize inclusion in the offset of benefits paid to dependent children. Both plans require offsets for "loss of time disability" benefits. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that children's Social Security disability benefits paid based on a parent's disability are "loss of time disability" benefits under the language of the plans. View "Schultz v. Aviall Inc. Long Term Disability Plan" on Justia Law