• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Donate Now
  • Sign Up

Center for Medicare Advocacy

Advancing Access to Medicare and Healthcare

  • Eligibility/Enrollment
  • Coverage/Appeals
    • Medicare Costs (2021)
    • Self Help Materials – Toolkits & More
  • Topics
    • Basic Introduction to Medicare
    • COVID-19 and Medicare
    • Medicare Costs (2021)
    • Home Health Care
    • Improvement Standard and Jimmo News
    • Nursing Home / Skilled Nursing Facility Care
    • Outpatient Observation Status
    • Part B
    • Part D / Prescription Drug Benefits
    • Medicare for People Under 65
    • Medicare “Reform”
    • All Other Topics
    • Resources
      • Infographics
  • Publications
    • CMA Alerts
    • Fact Sheets & Issue Briefs
    • Infographics
    • The Medicare Handbook
    • SNF Enforcement Newsletter
    • Elder Justice Newsletter
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • Articles by Topic
  • Litigation
    • Litigation News
    • Cases
    • Litigation Archive
    • Amicus Curiae Activities
  • Newsroom
    • Press Releases
    • Editorials & Letters to the Editor
    • CMA Comments, Responses, and Letters
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • CMA in the News
  • About Us
    • Mission Statement
    • CMA FAQs
    • Annual Report
    • Personnel & Boards
    • The Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Connecticut Dually Eligible Appeals Project
    • Ossen Medicare Outreach, Education and Advocacy Project
    • National Medicare Advocates Alliance
    • National Voices of Medicare Summit
    • CMA Webinars
    • Products & Services
    • Testimonials
    • Career, Fellowship & Internship Opportunities
    • Contact Us
  • Support Our Work
    • Donate Now
    • Join the Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Take Action
    • Share Your Health Care Story
    • Tell Congress to Protect Our Care
    • Listen to Medicare & Health Care Stories
    • Sign Up

UHM v. Humana, Inc.(Amicus Curiae Activity)

October 22, 2010

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No. 06-35672 (9th Cir.), case in progress for several years

Updated: October 22, 2009

 

Issue: Whether the actions and inactions of a Medicare Part D plan, defendant Humana, in failing to enroll, and otherwise provide prescription drug coverage to, the plaintiff beneficiaries cannot be challenged under state law fraud and breach of contract causes of actions because the grievance procedures established in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 ("MMA") preempt those claims.

 

Relief sought: Damages on behalf of a putative nationwide class of Part D beneficiaries who did not receive the proper prescription drug benefits from Humana.

 

Status: The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on the ground that the MMA preempted the state law claims raised by the plaintiffs.  2006 WL 1587443 (W.D.Wash., June 2, 2006).  On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially affirmed that decision, holding that the claims were preempted.  540 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2008).  On the plaintiffs-appellants' request for rehearing, however, the panel withdrew that decision.  573 F.3d 865 (2009).  The panel then issued an order asking the federal government to submit an amicus brief.  Before that brief was filed, the National Senior Citizens Law, California Health Advocates, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, and the Medicare Rights Center requested and were granted the right to submit an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs-appellants' position that their state law claims should not be preempted.  The federal government submitted an amicus brief supporting Humana.  The parties then responded to the amicus briefs. 

 

In a decision issued on August 31, 2010, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the district court. 2010 WL 3385546. First, it determined that plaintiffs' breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were "at bottom" claims for benefits, which therefore required exhaustion of administration remedies before they could be brought to court. Since plaintiffs had not exhausted, the district court had lacked jurisdiction over those claims. Second, the court concluded that the consumer protection and fraud claims were collateral to claims for benefits and therefore did not arise under the Medicare Act and were not subject to the exhaustion requirements. But the court held that these claims were preempted by the language of Part D and therefore the district court could not consider them. (For a more detailed description of the decision in Uhm, see the Center's Alert of Sept. 30, 2010.) 

 

 

Filed Under: Article Tagged With: Archived Cases, Litigation

Primary Sidebar

Easy Access to Understanding Medicare

The Center for Medicare Advocacy produces a range of informative materials on Medicare-related topics. Check them out:

  • Medicare Basics
  • CMA Alerts
  • CMA Webinars
  • Connecticut Info & Projects
  • Health Care Stories
  • Se habla Español

Sign Up for CMA Alerts

Jimmo v. Sebelius

Medicare covers skilled care to maintain or slow decline as well as to improve.

Improvement Isn’t Required. It’s the law!

Read more.

Medicare: Build Back Better

By prioritizing Medicare beneficiaries and the health systems that serve them, we can avoid drastic national consequences. The Center for Medicare Advocacy proposes a five-part plan that will make Medicare a bulwark against the worsening health and economic challenges facing the American people.

Learn more.

Latest Tweets

  • A powerful message about #LongTermCare from @LastWeekTonight with @iamjohnoliver explains the insufficient oversigh… https://t.co/iKp8Mi8WSU, 21 hours ago
@CMAorg

Footer

Stay Connected:

  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Products & Services
  • Copyright/Privacy

© 2021 · Center for Medicare Advocacy