ILNews

High court remands Medicaid case to lower court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ordered a Marion Superior Court to let Medicaid recipients involved in a decades-long lawsuit present evidence to demonstrate the transportation they may be entitled to by law and if they have been or will be denied services because of lower pay rates to Medicaid transportation providers.

The high court granted transfer Monday and released a 7-page per curiam opinion in Anne W. Murphy, et al. v. Jannis Fisher, et al., No. 49S02-1008-CV-463, a suit first filed in 1992 by Medicaid recipients and transportation service providers when federal officials found the state’s Medicaid transportation costs were high, leading the state to implement lower pay rates to those that provide Medicaid transportation services.

The plaintiffs sued under the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(30)(A), arguing the reimbursement rates were so low they violated the law and the recipients’ access to medical care was reduced in violation of the statute.

The trial court ordered the state to increase the reimbursement rate, but ordered that the higher rate be applied prospectively; the trial court didn’t enter any specific relief for the recipients except that the state must pay the plaintiffs’ attorney fees. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and directed judgment for the state, finding neither plaintiff group had a private right of action to challenge the reimbursement rates.

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the lower appellate court’s ruling that the transportation providers do not have a private right to sue the state based on Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002). The justices also agreed that the Medicaid recipients do have a right to sue. The state had conceded in the trial court that the recipients had a private right of action and the state invited any court error with respect to the right of recipients to sue for relief in this case, wrote the justices.

“We acknowledge the State’s argument that the rights of Medicaid recipients may have been in a state of flux at the time the State filed its trial court brief in 2004, but the issue appears to have been in play by that time, and federal circuit courts of appeal began issuing decisions applying Gonzaga before the State filed its opening appellate brief. Accordingly, the State will be held to its concession that Recipients have a private right of action in this case,” the justices wrote.

The high court ordered the trial court to allow the recipients to present evidence establishing the transportation to which they may be entitled under Section 30(A), that they have been or will be denied the services to which they are entitled, and what relief they are due. Any relief will be prospective only.

Justice Frank Sullivan did not participate in the ruling.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT