Caremark, Inc. v. Goetz’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.3d 779 · 2007
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2022
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Christensen v. Harris County · Evanston Hospital v. Hauck · Ammex, Inc. v. United States · Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plan's obligation to honor assignment of benefits made by the participant arises at the time the participant initially requests covered pharmaceutical goods, supplies, or services from a pharmacy and before payment by Medicaid or any individual or other third party. Thus, the plan remains liable for pharmaceutical goods ... provided to a participant and paid for by Medicaid at the point of sale to the same extent that the plan would have been liable if billed at the point of sale.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not necessarily preclude the possibility that assignment occurred at the point-of-sale, or, for that matter, at another point in time prior to payment by TennCare. See id. 25 Third, any lingering confusion about the language of section 71-5-117(b) is promptly put to rest by reading the statute's companion regulations. These regulations explicitly define the nature of a Medicaid beneficiary's assignment of rights, which are mandated by both federal and Tennessee statutes. The”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“restriction contained in certain Caremark-administered plans is not implicated in the present appeal. The present decision addresses only the narrow issue of whether Caremark's card presentation and timely filing restrictions, as applied to TennCare, can serve as permissible bases to deny TennCare's third-party reimbursement requests 2 In this case, the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.