Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over the adjusted Medicaid reimbursement rates for for-profit residential health care facilities in New York. The New York State Department of Health and its Commissioner, in response to a legislative mandate, eliminated a component known as the "residual equity reimbursement factor" from the computation formula used to set these rates. This change was part of a broader effort to reduce Medicaid costs in the state. The petitioners, 116 for-profit nursing homes, challenged this adjustment, arguing that it was retroactively applied and violated their rights under the Public Health Law and the Equal Protection Clause.The Supreme Court partially granted the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the clause pending a final determination of the proceeding. It also partially granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the petitioners' claims that the adjusted rates were not "reasonable and adequate to meet costs" under the Public Health Law and violated their equal protection rights. However, the court found that the adjusted rates were improperly applied retroactively. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.The New York Court of Appeals, in its review, held that the Department of Health did not violate the legislature's intent when it announced the recalculated rates for services provided on or after April 2, 2020. The court found that the legislature clearly expressed its intent for the elimination clause to be applied without delay, and that the initial implementing ratemaking was not subject to the usual 60-day advance notice requirement. The court also rejected the petitioners' claims that the adjusted rates were not "reasonable and adequate to meet costs" and violated their equal protection rights. The court modified the order of the Appellate Division in accordance with its opinion and, as so modified, affirmed it. View "In re Aaron Manor Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., LLC v Zucker" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff, Susan Ann Scholle, acting as the personal representative for the Estate of Daniel B. Scholle, sued the defendants, Edward Ehrichs, M.D.; Michael Rauzzino, M.D.; and HCA-HealthONE, LLC. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' negligence during a back surgery led to severe complications, including cardiac arrest, infection, kidney injuries, stroke, and the need for multiple additional surgeries. The jury found the defendants negligent and awarded the plaintiff over $9 million in economic damages.The defendants argued that the damages should be capped at $1 million, as per the Health Care Availability Act (HCAA). The trial court, however, found good cause to exceed the cap, citing the severity of the plaintiff's injuries, the financial burden on his family, and the unfairness of limiting the damages due to the catastrophic outcome of the surgery.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by not considering the plaintiff's insurance contract liabilities in its good cause analysis. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's insurers had waived their subrogation rights, meaning the plaintiff was not responsible for repaying the $4.1 million billed by the hospital.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the appellate court's decision, holding that the contract exception to the collateral source statute prohibits a trial court from considering a plaintiff's insurance contract liabilities in determining whether good cause exists to exceed the HCAA's damages cap. The court remanded the case for the trial court to recalculate interest and enter judgment accordingly. View "Scholle v. Ehrichs" on Justia Law

The case involves James Fejes, a pilot who held a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 49 U.S.C. § 44703. Fejes used his aircraft to transport and distribute marijuana to retail stores within Alaska, an activity that is legal under state law but illegal under federal law. After an investigation, the FAA revoked Fejes's pilot certificate under 49 U.S.C. § 44710(b)(2), which mandates revocation when a pilot knowingly uses an aircraft for an activity punishable by more than a year's imprisonment under a federal or state controlled substance law.Fejes appealed the FAA's decision to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who affirmed the revocation. He then appealed the ALJ's decision to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which also affirmed the ALJ. Throughout the agency proceedings, Fejes admitted that he piloted an aircraft to distribute marijuana within Alaska, but argued that his conduct fell outside of § 44710(b)(2)'s reach.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Fejes's petition for review of the NTSB's order affirming the FAA's revocation of his pilot certificate. The court rejected Fejes's argument that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to revoke his pilot certificate because Congress cannot authorize an administrative agency to regulate purely intrastate commerce like marijuana delivery within Alaska. The court held that airspace is a channel of commerce squarely within congressional authority, and therefore, Congress can regulate Fejes's conduct. The court also rejected Fejes's argument that his conduct was exempt under FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.19, and that the FAA misinterpreted § 44710(b)(2). The court concluded that the FAA's revocation of Fejes's pilot certificate was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. View "FEJES V. FAA" on Justia Law

Antonio Davis, who was serving a 210-month prison sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, petitioned the district court for compassionate release due to his elevated risk of severe COVID-19 and a change in the law regarding his career offender status. The district court denied his request, concluding that Davis was not due compassionate release based on his susceptibility to COVID-19 and did not fully consider each of Davis’s arguments.Davis was indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin in January 2013. He pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin in June of that year. Davis received a career offender enhancement because he had previously been convicted of certain other offenses and because the offense at issue here was a “controlled substance offense” at the time of conviction. In February 2021, Davis filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that he was uniquely susceptible to the potential spread of COVID-19 due to his type-2 diabetes and hypertension. He also argued that a recent court decision invalidated his career offender Guidelines designation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part the district court's decision. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Davis failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release based on the pandemic. However, the court found that the district court did not properly address Davis’s arguments regarding intervening changes in law and rehabilitation. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s denial of compassionate relief and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a public-records request made by Randy Ludlow, a reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Ludlow requested a digital spreadsheet copy of the Electronic Death Registration System (EDRS) database, which contains information for all death certificates delivered to ODH. While ODH provided a spreadsheet with details such as decedents’ sex, age, race, birth date, marital status, and date, time, place, manner, and cause of death, it withheld the names and addresses of the decedents, claiming that this information was exempt from disclosure under R.C. 3701.17 as "protected health information."The Court of Claims initially ordered ODH to provide the requested records, arguing that the information was not exempt from disclosure as it was public information under a different statute, R.C. 3705.23(A). However, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the names and addresses of the decedents, when combined with their causes of death, were properly withheld as protected health information.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The court held that the names and addresses of a decedent, when combined with information regarding his or her cause of death, are protected health information under R.C. 3701.17 and are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The court noted that while this information may be obtainable under other statutes, those statutes require the requester to satisfy certain requirements before they may receive the information requested. View "Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Tyshawn Michael Lewis, a prisoner diagnosed with rapidly progressing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), appealed the denial of a petition for his compassionate release under Penal Code section 1172.2. Lewis was serving a 75-year sentence for first-degree murder committed in 2020. In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recommended his release due to his deteriorating health condition. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that despite his physical condition, Lewis posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, based on his criminal history, the nature of his crime, and his alleged gang affiliations.The trial court's decision was based on a diagnostic study and evaluation report that suggested Lewis retained the capacity to commit or influence others to commit criminal acts endangering public safety. The court also considered Lewis's criminal history, including his conviction for first-degree murder, his lack of remorse, and his alleged ongoing association with a violent criminal street gang.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying Lewis's petition for compassionate release. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the trial court's finding that Lewis posed an unreasonable risk of committing a violent felony. The court noted that Lewis's mere capacity to commit a crime did not prove that he posed an unreasonable risk of doing so. The court also found that the evidence of Lewis's gang involvement was ambiguous and did not support the trial court's finding. The court reversed the trial court's order and directed it to grant the petition for compassionate release. View "People v. Lewis" on Justia Law

A California-based psychologist, Dr. Rick Q. Wilson, was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for potential violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Wilson's medical, prescription, and billing records. Wilson challenged the subpoena on statutory, constitutional, and privacy grounds.The district court initially dismissed the United States' petition to enforce the subpoena, finding it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Fourth Amendment. However, upon reconsideration, the court granted the United States' motion to amend the petition and enforce a narrowed version of the subpoena.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the modified subpoena complied with HIPAA, was not unreasonably burdensome under the Fourth Amendment, and did not violate Wilson's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination due to the required-records exception. The court held that the subpoena was issued within the DEA's authority, was relevant to the DEA's investigation, and was not unreasonably broad or burdensome. The court also found that the records requested fell within the required-records exception to the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case involves the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) in Rhode Island, which was held in contempt by the Family Court for failing to place a minor, N.D., in a residential facility appropriate for her level of need. N.D., a teenager with severe mental health issues, was under the temporary custody of DCYF. Despite the court's order, DCYF was unable to find an appropriate in-state or out-of-state placement for N.D. due to her high level of need and the lack of available facilities. The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) filed a motion to adjudge DCYF in contempt for this failure.The Family Court found DCYF in contempt, rejecting DCYF's defense that it was unable to comply with the court's order. The court imposed a contempt sanction of $1,000 per day until N.D. was placed in an appropriate facility, with the sanction to be placed in a trust for N.D.'s benefit. DCYF appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the order of the Family Court. The Supreme Court found that while DCYF was in technical violation of the Family Court's order, it had demonstrated that it was literally unable to comply because an appropriate placement for N.D. was not presently within its power. The court noted the lack of appropriate facilities for girls with N.D.'s level of need in Rhode Island, staffing issues, and an increase in mental health problems among adolescents. The case was remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings. View "In re N.D." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a minor, A.L., who developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura after receiving the DTaP, Hib, and MMR vaccines. Her parents, Victoria and Kevin Leming, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that the vaccines caused A.L.'s condition. The Lemings argued that A.L.'s condition met the "surgical intervention" severity requirement of the Vaccine Act, as she was hospitalized for two weeks and underwent a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy.The Court of Federal Claims initially ruled that the Lemings could not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that A.L. satisfied the “surgical intervention” severity requirement. The court held that the bone marrow aspiration and biopsy performed on A.L. was purely diagnostic and did not qualify as a "surgical intervention" under the Vaccine Act. On appeal, the case was reassigned to another special master who requested the Lemings offer more evidence to address the “residual effects” prong of the severity requirement. The Lemings failed to prove that A.L. suffered from the “residual effects” of the vaccine injury for more than six months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the term “surgical intervention,” as used in the Vaccine Act, requires a surgical act or measure, either diagnostic or therapeutic, taken to prevent harm to a patient or to improve the health of a patient. The court found that the bone marrow aspiration and biopsy performed on A.L. was a surgical intervention as it was a surgical act taken to improve the health of and prevent harm to A.L. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "LEMING v. HHS " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware considered an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court regarding the adoption of a Medicare Advantage Plan for State retirees by the State Employee Benefits Committee (SEBC). The Superior Court had found that the SEBC's decision was subject to the requirements of Delaware’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA), granted a motion to stay the implementation of the Medicare Advantage Plan, and required the State to maintain its retirees’ Medicare Supplement Plan. The Superior Court also denied the plaintiffs' application for attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware disagreed with the lower court's ruling. It found that the SEBC's decision to adopt a Medicare Advantage Plan was not a "regulation" as defined by the APA. The court reasoned that the decision did not meet the APA's definition of a regulation because it was not a "rule or standard," nor was it a guide for the decision of future cases. Therefore, the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to stay the implementation of the plan. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court.On cross-appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the Superior Court erred by refusing to grant their application for attorneys’ fees. However, the Supreme Court found this argument moot because fee shifting is available only against a losing party in favor of a prevailing party. Since the Supreme Court reversed the decision below, fee shifting was foreclosed. View "DeMatteis v. RISE Delaware, Inc." on Justia Law