Democratic states appeal Obamacare ruling to Supreme Court

U.S. Court News

In a move that could put the Obama-era health law squarely in the middle of the 2020 election, Democratic-led states Friday asked the Supreme Court for a fast-track review of a recent appeals court decision declaring a key part of the law unconstitutional and casting a cloud over the rest.

A coalition of 20 states filed a petition seeking expedited review, according to the office of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. They hope to get a Supreme Court hearing and decision by this summer, before the November elections. For the court to agree to such a timetable would be unusual, but not unprecedented.

Defenders of the Affordable Care Act are arguing that the issues raised by the case are too important to let the litigation drag on for months or years in lower courts, and that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans erred when it struck down the health law's now toothless requirement that Americans have health insurance.

The 5th Circuit's 2-1 decision left the health law in effect for now. Open enrollment season for 2020 has been able to proceed without any disruption.

Related listings

  • Court: Washington drivers must use turn signals to turn

    Court: Washington drivers must use turn signals to turn

    U.S. Court News 12/29/2019

    The state Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that drivers must use their signal every time they turn or change lanes on a roadway.Thursday’s ruling reverses a Court of Appeals ruling that said a signal is required only when public safety is af...

  • Supreme  Court won't accelerate appeal on e-cigarettes

    Supreme Court won't accelerate appeal on e-cigarettes

    U.S. Court News 12/27/2019

    The Michigan Supreme Court says it won't take an expedited appeal from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in a dispute over flavored e-cigarettes. The court says any appeal should follow a traditional course to the Court of Appeals. A Court of Claims judge in Oct...

  •  Roberts will tap his inner umpire in impeachment trial

    Roberts will tap his inner umpire in impeachment trial

    U.S. Court News 12/19/2019

    In a ruling hailed as an “immense victory for climate justice,” the Netherlands’ top court ruled Friday in favor of activists who have for years been seeking legal orders to force the Dutch government into cutting greenhouse gas emi...

Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs

When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.

In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.

In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.