Steve Bruzonsky - Arizona\'s get well, get on with life attorney Peer Review Rated Steve Bruzonsky - Arizona\'s get well, get on with life attorney






Steven J. Bruzonsky

Attorney At Law

Law Office of
Steven J. Bruzonsky
917 E. San Angelo Ave.
Gilbert, AZ 85234
480-969-3003

Call 480-969-3003

 

Please note that Attorney Bruzonsky has been doing this regular “Liens Corner” column since April 2006. His last “Liens Corner” article was for the November/December 2017 issue of The Advocate, having stepped down from this regular column, as he now works part-time (and is part-time retired) exclusively handling large subrogation/lien claims in very large personal injury and medical malpractice cases for other attorneys. However, attorney Bruzonsky may add notes to this website under the subject lien article headers from time to time. (Please keep in mind that this site contains general information for educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advise, which can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiair with all the facts and circumstances of your specific case and relevant law.) 

 

 

2013-09/10: Recent Medicare Advantage Lien Cases Pt 1

June 25th, 2016 12:08:20 pm


This article has been published in “The Advocate”, a publication of the Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, September-October 2013 issue, @2013 by Steven J. Bruzonsky, Esq.

 

 

Recent Medicare Advantage Lien Cases, Part 1

 

This is the first part of a two part series of articles discussing recent Medicare Advantage lien cases. This article, the first part, discusses the recent Ninth  Circuit Parra v. PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc.The following article will discuss the recent  Maricopa County Superior Court Pradia v. Recovery Management System, the Third Circuit In re Avandia Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation and some other less significant cases.

 

Parra v. PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., ___ F.3d ___. 2013 WL 1693713

(9th Cir. 4-19-2013):

 

This is an appealfrom the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, in Parra v. PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., 2011 WL 1119736 (Dist. Az 2011) (CV 10-008-TUC-DCB).

 

After Manuel Parra died from injuries suffered in an accident, his surviving wife and children made a demand for wrongful death damages against the driver’s $500,000 GEICO automobile insurance policy. PacifiCare, a Medicare Advantage plan, made a claim against the GEICO policy for the $136,630.90 it expended for Parra’s care. Parra’s Survivors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the settlement proceeds were not subject to Pacificare’s claims on the basis that (1) the survivors’ wrongful death settlement was only for the survivors’ damages, per A.R.S. § 12-613 (allowing damages in

a wrongful death action “with reference to the injury resulting from the death to the surviving

parties”) and Gartin v. St. Joseph’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 749 P.2d 941, 943–45 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988) (which held that wrongful death awards are not subject to a decedent’s debts); and (2) PacifiCare as a Medicare Advantage plan has no greater rights than Medicare, and Medicare will not seek reimbursement from wrongful death proceeds that do not include payment for the decedent’s medical expenses. PacifiCare counterclaimed that it was entitled to reimbursement

under the terms of its contract with Parra (Count I) and also directly under the Medicare Act (Count II).

 

The motions were referred to a magistrate judge sua sponte who recommended dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court, rather than dismissing Count II for lack of jurisdiction, granted the Survivors’ motion for summary judgment for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, finding that PacifiCare “does not have a private cause of action under the Medicare statute or the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act”; and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pacificare’s contract claim (Count I).

 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the causes of action arising under the Medicare Act (Count II) for failure to state a claim, and also affirmed the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pacificare’s contract claim (Count I).

The Court cites In re Avandia Mktg., 685 F.3d 355, 357 (3d Cir. 2012) that “[B]ecause interpretation of the federal Medicare Act presents a federalquestion,” the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the Medicare Act created a cause of action of PacifiCare against the Survivors.

 

The Ninth Circuit holds that PacifiCare does not have a private right of action to pursue reimbursement under the MAO (Medicare Advantage Organizations) statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(a)(4).

 

Medicare Part C, enacted, by Congress in 1997, provides for private MAOs (Medicare Advantage Organizations). Medicare Part C and the MAO (Medicare Advantage Organizations) statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(a)(4), “authorizes, but does not compel, a MAO to charge a primary plan for medical expenses paid on behalf of a participant”. - - - The MAO Statute simply allows PacifiCare to provide via its contracts that its insurance is secondary to other available plans and allows recovery from a primary plan that refuses to reimburse the MAO for payments made on behalf of a participant. In the end, the MAO’s claim thus arises by virtue of its decision to include provisions allowing such recovery in its contract with plan participants.”  The Ninth Circuit cites in this regard Care Choices HMO v. Engstrom, 330 F.3d 786, 788-90 (6th Cir. 2003), that 42 U.S.C. § 1395mm(e)(4), a provision virtually identical to the MAO statute governing Medicare  HMOs, merely permitted HMOs to create a contractual right of reimbursement; and Nott v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc.,303 F. Supp. 2d 565, 571 (E.D. Pa. 2004), that “[W]hile granting statutory

permission to include recovery provisions in their contracts, Congress did not create a mechanism for the private enforcement of subrogation rights of Medicare substitute[s].”.

 

The MAO statute cross-references 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(iii), which provides that the United States may bring an action against any or all entities that are required or responsible to make payment under a primary plan. This “cross-reference - - - simply explains when MAO coverage is secondary to a primary plan - - - under the same circumstances when insurance through traditional Medicare would be secondary, and does not create a federal cause of action in favor of a MAO.”

 

42 C.F.R. § 422.108(f) provides that MAOs exercise “the same rights to recover from a primary plan, entity, or individual that the Secretary exercises under the MSP regulations.” This “regulation adds nothing to a MAO’s claim to a private right of action. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 291 (2001) (“Language in a regulation may invoke a private right of action that Congress through statutory text created, but it may not create a right that Congress has not.”); Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is the relevant laws passed by Congress, and not rules or regulations passed by an administrative agency, that determine whether an implied cause of action exists.”).

 

The Ninth Circuit holds that PacifiCare does not have a private right of action to pursue reimbursement under the “Private Cause of Action” statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A). 

The Ninth Circuit notes that “PacifiCare relies heavily on In re Avandia Mktg., 685 F.3d at 356, which held that § 1395y(b)(3)(A) provided a MAO a private right of action against third-party tortfeasors for medical expenses advanced on behalf of plan participants. We need not resolve whether Avandia was decided correctly because it does not aid PacifiCare.” The Private Cause of Action statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A), “was intended to allow private parties to vindicate wrongs occasioned by the failure of primary plans to make payments. See Woods, 574 F.3d at 98 (“[T]he MSP allows a private party . . . to bring suit in the party’s own name to remedy the wrong done to it . . . .”). This statute, which allows recovery of double damages, was not intended to apply to a primary plan which, for all intents and purposes, has interpleaded a sum subject to conflicting claims. Indeed, had GEICO filed an interpleader action rather than tendering the joint check to PacifiCare and the Survivors, the district court would not have had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, because PacifiCare and the Survivors are all citizens of Arizona. We see no warrant in the Private Cause of Action to reach a different result here, and we hold that the district

court properly dismissed the causes of action arising under the Medicare Act for failure to state a claim.”

 

The Ninth Circuit holds thatthe doctrine of complete preemption (which would confer

federal subject matter jurisdiction over the question of whether there is a private right of action for a MAO to pursue reimbursement under the MAO statute is inapplicable. This doctrine “confers exclusive federal jurisdiction in certain instances where Congress intended the scope of a federal law to be so broad as to entirely replace any state-law claim. - - -  But we need not tarry over this issue. Complete preemption is plainly not applicable here – Medicare contains no civil enforcement scheme, and Congress has not indicated any intent to permit removal of all disputes over insurance proceeds to the federal courts. See Nott, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 570–73.”

 

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not exercising supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the remaining state claims. However, once the district court, at an early stage of the litigation, dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in also dismissing the remaining state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”

 

(For more Medicare Advantage lien information and discussion of other Medicare Advantage lien cases not discussed in this article, please see my previous “Liens Corner” articles May – August 2009 “Federal Medicare Advantage Liens Update” and  June 2011 “Litigation Update: Medicare Advantage Liens and the Recent Parra v. Pacificare Case”.)



Return to Articles

© Copyright 2006, Steven J. Bruzonsky, Attorney
Terms of Use: This site contains general information for educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advise, which can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of your specific case and relevant law. If you use this site, or send information or e-mail the attorney, such action does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advise please personally consult with an experienced attorney like Steven J. Bruzonsky.