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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.