Supreme Court Rules State Medicaid Programs Can Recoup a Larger Share of Injury Settlements
If you are injured due to another person’s negligence and receive Medicaid benefits to pay for care, the state has a legal right to recover the funds it spends on your care from a personal injury settlement or award. Yet in a legal case involving a Floridian teen who was catastrophically injured more than a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court this week ruled that states have the right to recover funds that they may spend on future medical expenses, too.
Posted on June 13, 2022
The decision affects anyone who receives medical care through Medicaid after suffering a disabling injury that results in a lawsuit.
In 2008, a truck struck 13-year-old Gianinna Gallardo, leaving her in a vegetative state. The state’s Medicaid agency provided $862,688.77 in medical payments on Gallardo’s behalf. Her parents sued the parties responsible, and the case eventually settled for $800,000, of which about $35,000 represented payment for past medical expenses. The settlement also included funds for Gallardo’s future medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.
The state Medicaid agency claimed it was entitled to more than $300,000 in medical payments from this settlement, including money that had been specifically allocated for Gianinna’s future medical expenses.
Gianinna’s parents then sued the agency in federal court, arguing that the state of Florida should be able to recover monies only from that portion of the settlement allocated for past medical expenses.
FREE WEBINAR
5 Things to Know About
Estate Planning
When You Turn Sixty-Five
When a U.S. district court ruled in favor of Gianinna, the Medicaid agency appealed. A court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in order to resolve the conflict.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the state is allowed to recover benefits for Gianinna’s past — as well as future — medical care. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that Medicaid law “distinguishes only between medical and nonmedical care, not between past (paid) medical care payments and future (un-paid) medical care payments.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented. They argued that accepting Medicaid shouldn’t leave a beneficiary indebted to the state for future care that may or may not be needed.
To read the full decision, click here.
More from our blog…
Elder Financial Abuse: How an Elder Law Attorney Can Help
Elder financial abuse is a significant issue affecting many older adults nationwide. It involves someone exploiting or misusing an older person’s finances or assets for [...]
Does Medicare Cover Prescription Weight Loss Drugs?
Americans have a growing appetite for prescription drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro. Originally developed to treat Type 2 diabetes, they are now exploding [...]
How Social Security Overpayment Rules Are Changing
With a new commissioner at the helm, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has been announcing several policy changes in recent weeks. In late March 2024, the [...]
Claiming the Guardianship of an Elderly Parent
Often an aging parent will lose their ability to think clearly or make informed decisions about their life. This may occur because of dementia, mental [...]
Recent blog posts
FREE WEBINAR
5 Things to Know About
Estate Planning
When You Turn Sixty-Five