Tristani v. Richman’s Empirical Analysis
652 F.3d 360 · 2011
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396K (§ 1912 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396P (§ 1917 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 2 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Blum v. Stenson · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · William Marbury v. James Madison · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the Ahlborn Court acknowledged the existence in state law of “special rules and procedures” for allocating settlements, and left open the possibility that such rules may be employed ,to address concerns about settlement manipulation, 547 U.S. at 288 n. 18, 126 S.Ct. 1752 , it did not give states unfettered discretion to allocate settlements without regard to the actual portion aft tributable to medical expenses. Indeed, Ahlborn expressed a preference for resolving allocation disputes “either by obtaining the State’s advance agreement to an allocation or, if necessary, by submitting the matter to a court for decision.” Id. at 288 , 126 S.Ct. 1752 . We express no view as to whether allocation disputes of this type must be adjudicated by a court, or may instead be resolved through other “special rules and procedures.” Id. at 288 n. 18, 126 S.Ct. 1752 . We hold merely that in determining what portion of a Medicaid beneficiary’s third-party recovery it may claim in reimbursement for Medicaid expenses, the state must have in place procedures that allow a dissatisfied beneficiary to challenge the default allocation. As the Beneficiaries point out, without such a rule nothing would prevent states from allocating 75%, 90% or even 100% of a settlement to medical expenses, thereby eviscerating the rule promulgated by Ahlborn. Because the District Court .concluded otherwise, we will reverse its order in this respect and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]o the extent that payment has been made under the State plan for medical assistance in any case where' a third party has a legal liability to make payment for such assistance, the State has in effect laws under which, to the extent that payment has been made under the State plan for medical assistance for health care items or services furnished to an individual, the, State is considered to have acquired the rights of such individual to payment by any other party for such health care items or services!.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions evince congressional intent to protect the assets of Medicaid recipients, and to ensure that beneficiaries are not forced to personally bear the costs of their medical care. Meanwhile, the reimbursement and forced assignment provisions require states to recover the costs of medical assistance payments despite the apparent prohibition against seeking recovery of medical assistance payments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.