杏十八新茶分享

 

Wos v. E.M.A.

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Preemption
  • Date Filed: March 20, 2013
  • Case #: 12鈥98
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Kennedy, J., delivered the Court's opinion, which Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.

North Carolina鈥檚 statute requiring that up to one-third of any damages recovered by a Medicaid beneficiary for a tortious injury be paid to the State to reimburse it for payments it made for medical treatment on account of the injury is conflict-preempted by 42 U.S.C 搂1396p(a)(1) which prohibits States from attaching a lien on the property of a Medicaid beneficiary to recover benefits paid by the State on the beneficiary鈥檚 behalf.

Under North Carolina鈥檚 third-party liability statute, the state is allowed to place a lien on a Medicaid beneficiary鈥檚 tort settlement for the lesser of the Medicaid beneficiary鈥檚 incurred medical costs or one-third of the settlement.

Respondent received a lump sum settlement of $1.9 million and Petitioner placed a lien on one-third of the settlement. Respondent sought relief in federal court, claiming that the Supreme Court鈥檚 holding in Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U. S. 268 (2006)鈥攖hat federal Medicaid law prohibits liens against a tort judgment or settlement except to recover actual medical expenses鈥攑reempted North Carolina鈥檚 statute.

The District Court followed a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling and found the state law consistent with the federal law. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the federal law preempts state law and that a lien can only be asserted for recovery of medical expenses and that no recovery can be made until medical expenses have been specified.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit, holding that the Medicaid anti-lien provision preempts the North Carolina statute. The court explained that the federal and state laws are in conflict because the anti-lien provision only allows a state to claim that part of a 鈥淢edicaid beneficiary鈥檚 tort recovery 鈥榙esignated as payment for medical care,鈥欌 and the state statute describes no process for making that distinction. Instead, the statute conclusively presumes 鈥渢hat one-third of the recovery represents compensation for medical expenses.鈥

Advanced Search


Back to Top