Gallardo v. Marstiller
596 U.S. ___ (2022) (2022)
Rule of Law:
Under the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396k(a)(1)(A), a State is authorized to seek reimbursement for Medicaid payments from any portion of a beneficiary's third-party tort settlement allocated for medical care, regardless of whether that allocation represents past or future medical expenses.
Facts:
- Thirteen-year-old Gianinna Gallardo suffered catastrophic injuries resulting in a persistent vegetative state after being struck by a truck upon exiting her school bus in Florida.
- Florida’s Medicaid agency paid $862,688.77 specifically for Gallardo’s initial medical expenses and continues to pay for her ongoing care.
- Gallardo’s parents sued the truck's owner, driver, and the local school board for damages, including past medical expenses, future medical expenses, and lost earnings.
- The parties settled the lawsuit for $800,000, a figure representing only a small fraction of the $20 million in damages sought.
- The settlement agreement explicitly designated $35,367.52 for past medical expenses but did not specifically allocate a dollar amount for future medical expenses, though it acknowledged some portion covered them.
- Under Florida's Medicaid Third-Party Liability Act, the state is presumptively entitled to 37.5% of a total settlement (in this case $300,000) to recover medical assistance paid, unless rebutted by the beneficiary.
- Florida asserted a lien against the settlement calculated via its statutory formula, which exceeded the amount the settlement explicitly allocated for past medical expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Gallardo challenged Florida's presumptive allocation amount in a state administrative proceeding, placing the disputed funds in escrow.
- Gallardo sued the Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida seeking declaratory relief.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Gallardo, declaring that Florida could not recover from future medical expense allocations.
- The Secretary appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling, holding that federal law does not prohibit seeking reimbursement from future medical allocations.
- Gallardo filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Medicaid Act prohibit a State from seeking reimbursement for past Medicaid payments from the portion of a tort settlement designated for a beneficiary's future medical care?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No, the Medicaid Act does not prohibit a State from recovering funds allocated for future care. 42 U.S.C. §1396k(a)(1)(A) mandates that beneficiaries assign to the State 'any rights... to payment for medical care,' a broad phrase that naturally encompasses rights to payment for both past and future medical expenses. The Court held that the relevant statutory distinction is between medical and non-medical expenses (such as pain and suffering), not between past and future medical expenses. While other sections of the Medicaid Act contain language limiting recovery to payments for care actually 'furnished' or 'paid,' §1396k(a)(1)(A) lacks such limiting language, and the Court presumes this omission was intentional. Consequently, Florida's assignment statute falls within the exception to the Medicaid anti-lien provision established in precedent, allowing the State to recover its costs from settlement funds representing any form of medical care.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes, the Medicaid Act should preclude such recovery because the statutory scheme, viewed as a whole, limits a State's reimbursement to payments for care it has actually furnished. The dissent argued that the majority's reading isolates one provision while ignoring the context of the 'anti-lien' and 'anti-recovery' provisions, which generally protect a beneficiary's property. Justice Sotomayor emphasized that the 'third-party liability' and 'acquisition' provisions of the Act specifically reference care 'available under the plan' or 'furnished' by the State, implying a limitation to past paid expenses. Furthermore, the dissent contended it is fundamentally unjust and contrary to insurance law principles for a State to reimburse itself for past expenses by taking funds designated for a beneficiary's future medical needs that the State has not yet paid for and may never pay for.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of assets available to States for Medicaid reimbursement. By interpreting the assignment provision of the Medicaid Act broadly, the Court effectively overruled the interpretation held by the Florida Supreme Court and narrowed the protections previously thought to exist under Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn. Practically, this means that when settling tort cases, Medicaid beneficiaries cannot shelter funds from state liens simply by allocating them to 'future medical expenses' rather than 'past medical expenses.' The ruling places a heavier burden on plaintiffs to prove that settlement funds are allocated to non-medical damages (like pain and suffering) if they wish to protect those funds from state recovery actions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Gallardo v. Marstiller (2022)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"