SHARE

June 14, 2022

Supreme Court Rules that Medicaid's Secondary Payer Provision Applies to Future Medical Expenses

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

On June 6, the Supreme Court in Gallardo v. Marstiller resolved an ambiguity in the Medicaid statute that could have significant ramifications for those seeking to settle personal injury cases involving a plaintiff who is on Medicaid.[1] The case focused on a provision in the Medicaid Act requiring states to compel Medicaid beneficiaries to assign their rights "to payment for medical care from any third party[.]"[2] At issue before the Court was whether this provision "permits a State to seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care."[3]

The case involved a 13-year-old who was permanently disabled after being struck by a truck and, as a result, became a Florida Medicaid beneficiary.[4] Florida, rather than permitting the state to recover a beneficiary's entire settlement, limits the state's recovery to no more than half of the settlement or judgment after deducting 25% for attorney's fees and costs.[5] The case settled for $800,000, $35,367.52 of which was expressly designated to cover past medical expenses, and arguably the remainder (after deducting attorney's fees) was allocated implicitly to future medical care.[6] Florida, which had already spent more than $800,000 on medical care when the case settled, sought $300,000, the full amount it was entitled to receive under its own statute ($300,000 = 50% x 75% x $800,000).[7]

The plaintiff sued the state, arguing that the Medicaid provision only authorized the state to recoup past medical expenses and there was nothing that permitted it to seek "recovery" for future medical expenses.[8] The plaintiff argued that an express federal statutory authorization was required because another provision in the Medicaid Act prevented a state from placing a lien on any property of a beneficiary unless authorized by federal law.[9]

The Court, in holding that the Medicaid provision encompassed both past and future medical expenses, reasoned that the lack of a past-expenses-only limitation in the statute is proof that Congress did not intend such a limitation to apply.[10] The Court reasoned that if Congress had wanted to draw a distinction between past and future payments, it easily could have done so but did not.[11]

The Court noted that there were two provisions in the Act addressing third-party liability. One, a mandatory state plan provision, limited third-party liability to payments made in the past by a state Medicaid plan: "payment [that] has been made under the State plan for medical assistance for health care items or services furnished to an individual[.]"[12]See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H). The other, at issue in this case, required a beneficiary to assign his or her recovery from a third-party to the state Medicaid plan. That one contained no such temporal limitation.[13]Seeid. at 1396k(a)(1)(A).

Plaintiff-petitioner urged the Court to engraft the "past tense only" language from the state-plan provision onto the separate mandatory assignment provision.[14] The Court not only declined to rewrite the statute but also reasoned that the existence of this limitation elsewhere in the statute was evidence that Congress knew how to limit the assignment to past medical payments and chose not to do so in Section 1396k(a)(1)(A).[15] Since the Court found that Section 1396k(a)(1)(A) permitted recovery for future medical expenses, Florida's assignment provision falls within the exception to the anti-lien provision.[16]

Special thanks to Summer Associate Hunter Shattuck, a 3L at The George Washington University Law School, for his valuable contributions to this GT Alert.


[1] Gallardo v. Marstiller, No. 20-1263 (U.S. June 6, 2022), slip op. at 6.

[2] 42 U.S.C. § 1396k(a)(1)(A).

[3] Id. at 1.

[4] Id. at 4.

[5] Id. at 3.

[6] Gallardo v. Marstillerid., slip op. at 4.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 5.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 7.

[11] Gallardo v. Marstiller, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), slip op. at 7.

[12] Id. (first emphasis added).

[13] Id. at 6 (first emphasis added).

[14] Id. at 7.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 7-8.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

New York's Proposed Moratorium on Cryptocurrency Mining Operations

By William B. Mack Greenberg Traurig June 23 , 2022

On June 2, 2022, the New York Senate passed Senate Bill S6486D (the Bill), which would amend the state’s environmental conservation law and set forth a two-year moratorium on certain cryptocurrency mining operations in the state of New York. The Bill passed the New York Assembly earlier in 2022 and now awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature. If signed, the Bill would prohibit the issuance of permits for certain electric-generating facilities that provide energy for mining operations that use proof-of-work (PoW) authentication methods to validate blockchain transactions. The legislation also would require a comprehensive generic environmental impact statement review by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation in consultation with the state’s Department of Public Service.

Major Influencers Under the Loupe - Dutch Media Authority Publishes New Policy Rule Effective July 1

By Wouter van Wengen Greenberg Traurig June 23 , 2022

Success comes with a price. As of July 1, 2022, influencers with more than 500,000 followers (“Major Influencers”) will be under Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat van de Media) supervision due to a new Policy Rule. As such, Major Influencers will be required to comply with additional advertising rules from the Dutch Media Act (Mediawet). This GT Alert reviews the reason for the new Policy Rule (Beleidsregel kwalificatie commerciële mediadiensten op aanvraag 2022)1, the conditions to qualify as a Major Influencer, and the additional advertising rules and implications. 

NYDFS Becomes First US Financial Regulator to Issue Stablecoin Expectations to Virtual Currency Industry

By Michael A. Berlin Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

On June 8, 2022, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a new Regulatory Guidance, setting foundational criterial for USD-backed stablecoins used by DFS-regulated entities. This represents the first U.S. state agency to regulate issuers of stablecoins. Generally, issuers that currently issue U.S.-dollar-backed stablecoins under DFS supervision are expected to come into compliance with the Regulatory Guidance within three months. This GT Alert summarizes the Regulatory Guidance.

More From Health Care Law

Major Influencers Under the Loupe - Dutch Media Authority Publishes New Policy Rule Effective July 1

By Wouter van Wengen Greenberg Traurig June 23 , 2022

Success comes with a price. As of July 1, 2022, influencers with more than 500,000 followers (“Major Influencers”) will be under Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat van de Media) supervision due to a new Policy Rule. As such, Major Influencers will be required to comply with additional advertising rules from the Dutch Media Act (Mediawet). This GT Alert reviews the reason for the new Policy Rule (Beleidsregel kwalificatie commerciële mediadiensten op aanvraag 2022)1, the conditions to qualify as a Major Influencer, and the additional advertising rules and implications. 

NYDFS Becomes First US Financial Regulator to Issue Stablecoin Expectations to Virtual Currency Industry

By Michael A. Berlin Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

On June 8, 2022, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a new Regulatory Guidance, setting foundational criterial for USD-backed stablecoins used by DFS-regulated entities. This represents the first U.S. state agency to regulate issuers of stablecoins. Generally, issuers that currently issue U.S.-dollar-backed stablecoins under DFS supervision are expected to come into compliance with the Regulatory Guidance within three months. This GT Alert summarizes the Regulatory Guidance.

The Responsible Financial Innovation Act: A Comprehensive Proposal to Regulate Digital Assets

By Tonya M. Esposito Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

On June 7, 2022, U.S. Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA), a bill that would create the first comprehensive regulatory framework of digital assets in the United States.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...