On May 11, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Sabree v. Richman. Noting that the Supreme Court "set the bar high for plaintiffs" in the Gonzaga U. v. Doe decision, the Court was nevertheless convinced that Congress unambiguously conferred on plaintiffs the right to enforce provisions of the Medicaid Act through 42 USC 1983. The District Court decision was, therefore, reversed.
The court reviewed the Supreme Court's recent section 1983 decisions, Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Ass'n, Suter v. Artist M., and Blessing v. Freestone. IThe court found that the provisions at issue contained rights-creating language and were written with sufficient specificity, finding persuasive the fact that Gonzaga did not overrule Wright and Wilder. The court also rejected the district court's reading of other provisions of the Medicaid Act (for example, termination of federal funding, section 1396c) as neutralizing the rights-creating language of the Medicaid provisions at issue in the case.
The decision is extremely significant because it reverses a district court opinion that broadly refused to allow plaintiffs to enforce the Medicaid Act. Congratulations to Steve Gold and Ilene Shane, attorneys for the plaintiffs.
The following is a link to the web site.
On May 11, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Sabree v. Richman. Noting that the Supreme Court "set the bar high for plaintiffs" in the Gonzaga U. v. Doe decision, the Court was nevertheless convinced that Congress unambiguously conferred on plaintiffs the right to enforce provisions of the Medicaid Act through 42 USC 1983. The District Court decision was, therefore, reversed.
The court reviewed the Supreme Court's recent section 1983 decisions, Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Ass'n, Suter v. Artist M., and Blessing v. Freestone. IThe court found that the provisions at issue contained rights-creating language and were written with sufficient specificity, finding persuasive the fact that Gonzaga did not overrule Wright and Wilder. The court also rejected the district court's reading of other provisions of the Medicaid Act (for example, termination of federal funding, section 1396c) as neutralizing the rights-creating language of the Medicaid provisions at issue in the case.
The decision is extremely significant because it reverses a district court opinion that broadly refused to allow plaintiffs to enforce the Medicaid Act. Congratulations to Steve Gold and Ilene Shane, attorneys for the plaintiffs.
The following is a link to the web site.
