Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Florida Medicaid in Settlement Dispute
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Monday in favor of Florida’s Medicaid program in a dispute over how much money the state can take from an accident victim’s private settlement to recover the costs of their care.
Gianinna Gallardo was just 13 when she was struck by a truck shortly after she stepped off her Florida school bus.
Florida’s Medicaid agency paid $862,688.77 to cover Gallardo’s initial medical expenses, and the agency continues to pay her medical expenses.
While this was going on, Gallardo, through her parents, sued the truck’s owner and driver, as well as the Lee County School Board.
According to the Supreme Court’s summary of the case, Gallardo sought compensation for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, lost earnings, and other damages. That litigation resulted in a settlement for $800,000, with $35,367.52 expressly designated as compensation for past medical expenses
The settlement did not specifically allocate any amount for future medical expenses.
The Medicaid Act requires participating states to pay for certain needy individuals’ medical costs and then to make reasonable efforts to recoup those costs from liable third parties.
Under Florida’s Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act, the court said, “a beneficiary like Gallardo who ‘’accept[s] medical assistance’ from Medicaid ‘automatically assigns to the [state] agency any right’ to third-party payments for medical care.”
Applied to Gallardo’s settlement, Florida’s statutory framework entitled the state to $300,000— 37.5% of $800,000, the percentage the statute sets as presumptively representing the portion of the settlement compensating for future medical expenses.
On review, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held the relevant Medicaid Act provisions do not prevent a state from seeking reimbursement from settlement monies allocated for future medical care.
Gallardo argued that the Medicaid Act’s anti-lien provision — which prohibits states from recovering medical payments from a beneficiary’s ‘property,’ forecloses recovery from settlement amounts other than those allocated for past medical care paid for by Medicaid.
But in a ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court majority held that the provision does not apply to state laws “expressly authorized by the terms of… the Medicaid Act.”
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “the court’s atomizing interpretation has little to commend it, particularly when contrasted with the consistent, administrable scheme Congress crafted.
“The court’s reading also undercuts Congress’ choice to allow Medicaid beneficiaries to place their excess recovery funds in Special Needs Trusts, protecting their ability to pay for important expenses Medicaid will not cover.”
In short, she said, the majority’s holding “is inconsistent with the structure of the Medicaid program and will cause needless unfairness and disruption.”
In The News
WASHINGTON — The letter, delivered to President Joe Biden Wednesday afternoon, was as modest and straightforward as the man who... Read More
WASHINGTON — The letter, delivered to President Joe Biden Wednesday afternoon, was as modest and straightforward as the man who signed it. "This past January, I wrote to inform you of my intent to retire from regular active service as an associate justice of the Supreme... Read More
WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court ruling Wednesday broadens the rights of veterans to sue state agencies for employment discrimination based... Read More
WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court ruling Wednesday broadens the rights of veterans to sue state agencies for employment discrimination based on their military service. The ruling revives a lawsuit by a former Texas state trooper who said he was forced out of his job because of... Read More
WASHINGTON — It began with a simple question: Do the federal government and a state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute... Read More
WASHINGTON — It began with a simple question: Do the federal government and a state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in what the federal government continues to refer to as “Indian country”? But the ruling in the case,... Read More
CHICAGO — Justice Stephen Breyer, on the verge of retirement after 28 years on the Supreme Court, is being awarded... Read More
CHICAGO — Justice Stephen Breyer, on the verge of retirement after 28 years on the Supreme Court, is being awarded the ABA Medal, the highest honor conferred by the American Bar Association. Breyer, who for many years has served as the anchor of the so-called liberal... Read More
WASHINGTON — Among the questions now being asked in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v.... Read More
WASHINGTON — Among the questions now being asked in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning 50 years of abortion rights protections, is what the long-term impact will be on the nation’s adoption and foster care systems.... Read More
WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said on Monday that prosecutors must prove doctors knowingly misprescribed drugs... Read More
WASHINGTON — In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court said on Monday that prosecutors must prove doctors knowingly misprescribed drugs to secure convictions against them for the unlawful distribution of controlled medicines, like opioids. The decision came down in a case brought by two doctors, Xiulu... Read More