Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-02T00:12:09.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supreme Court Hears Whether Medicaid Recipients and Physician Providers May Invoke the Supremacy Clause to Sue California for Reducing Reimbursement Rates Without Adhering to Medicaid's Statutory Procedures – Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Michael J. Rugnetta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Case Developments
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 690 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., No. 09-958 (U.S. argued Oct. 3, 2011).

2 Maxwell-Jolly v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 992 (2011).

3 Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2009), argued sub nom. Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., No. 09-958 (U.S. argued Oct. 3, 2011).

4 Santa Rosa Mem’l Hosp. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 380 F. App’x 656 (9th Cir. 2010), argued sub nom. Douglas v. Santa Rosa Mem’l Hosp., No. 10-283 (U.S. argued Oct. 3, 2011); Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 596 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2010), argued sub nom. Douglas v. Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n, No. 09-1158 (U.S. argued Oct. 3, 2011).

5 Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d at 648.

6 Id. at 649 (“[Among other sections, AB 5] added §§ 14105.19 and 14166.245 to the California Welfare and Institutions Code.”).

7 Id. (citing CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE §§ 14105.19, 14166.245 (West 2008), amended by Act of Sept. 30, 2008, ch. 758, §§ 44, 57, 2008 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 758 (A.B. 1183) (West)). For the full text of AB 5, see 2008 Cal. Legis. Serv. 3rd Ex. Sess. Ch. 3 (A.B. 5) (West).

8 Id.

9 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) (2006), quoted in, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell- Jolly, 572 F.3d at 649.

10 Brief for Petitioner at 14, Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., No. 09-958 (U.S. May 19, 2011), 2011 WL 2062344, at *14.

11 Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Belshe, 103 F.3d 1491, 1496 (9th Cir. 1997).

12 Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d at 652.Google Scholar

13 Maxwell-Jolly v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 992, 992 (2011).

14 Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d at 652 (citing Orthopaedic Hosp., 103 F.3d at 1495).

15 Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 523 (1990) (“Nor do we find any indication that Congress specifically intended that this administrative procedure replace private remedies available under § 1983.”); id. at 501-02 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A) (1982 ed., Supp. V)) (“[T]he Boren Amendment … requires reimbursement according to rates that a ‘State finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities’ … .”).

16 See Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, § 4711, 111 Stat. 251, 507-08 (1997).

17 Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d at 655 (quoting Alaska Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., 424 F.3d 931, 941 (9th Cir. 2005)).

18 See id. at 653.

19 Id.

20 Id. (quoting Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

21 Id.

22 Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 596 F.3d 1098, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010), argued sub nom. Douglas v. Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n, No. 09-1158 (U.S. argued Oct. 3, 2011).

23 Id.

24 Lyle Denniston, Argument recap: To narrow Ex parte Young, or not, SCOTUSBLOG (Oct. 3, 2011, 4:45 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/10/argument-recap-to-narrow-ex-parte-young-ornot/.

25 Brief for Petitioner at 24 n.6, Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., No. 09-958 (U.S. May 19, 2011), 2011 WL 2062344, at *24 n.6.

26 See Denniston, supra note 24.