PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3537
No. 09-3538
___________
RITA L. TRISTANI,
by and through her Attorney in Fact, MARIA C. KARNES;
JOSHUA C. VALENTA, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated;
A. H., individually and as parents and natural guardian
of A.H., a minor
v.
ESTELLE RICHMAN,
in both her individual and official capacity;
FEATHER O. HOUSTON, in her individual capacity,
Estelle Richman, in both her individual and official capacity;
Feather O. Houston, in her individual capacity,
Appellants in 09-3537
Rita L. Tristani, by and through her Attorney in Fact, Maria C.
Karnes; Joshua C. Valenta, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
Appellants in 09-3538
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 06-cv-00694)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
___________
Argued April 15, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges and
POLLAK*, District Judge.
(Filed: June 29, 2011)
Patrick J. Loughren [ARGUED]
Loughren, Loughren & Loughren
3204 Grant Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-0000
Robert F. Daley
D. Aaron Rihn
Robert Peirce & Associates
707 Grant Street
2500 Gulf Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-0000
Veronica A. Richards
Richards & Richards
16020 Perry Highway
*
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge
for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2
614 Penn Street
Warrendale, PA 15086
Attorneys for Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Jason W. Manne [ARGUED]
Office of General Counsel
Department of Public Welfare
300 Liberty Avenue
303 State Office Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-0000
Attorneys for Appellants/Cross-Appellees
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
In 1965, Congress amended the Social Security Act to
create a program for states to assist the poor with their medical
expenses. Through this program, known as Medicaid, the fifty
states pay medical expenses on behalf of qualified beneficiaries.
For more than thirty years, in circumstances where third parties are
liable for such medical expenses, the Pennsylvania Department of
Public Welfare (DPW) has recouped its expenditures by asserting
liens against future settlements or judgments. In Arkansas
Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S.
268, 280 n.9, 291-92 (2006), the Supreme Court assumed without
deciding that such liens, when limited to the portion of a settlement
or judgment constituting reimbursement for medical costs, are an
implied exception to the federal law prohibiting states from
imposing liens on the property of Medicaid beneficiaries. We now
3
must decide whether these liens in fact constitute such an
exception.
I
This appeal involves a putative class action filed by three
Pennsylvania Medicaid beneficiaries subject to DPW liens. The
District Court certified a question for interlocutory review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), asking us to determine whether state
agencies responsible for administering the Medicaid program have
the authority to assert such liens and, if so, whether Pennsylvania‘s
statutory framework is consistent with the Supreme Court‘s
decision in Ahlborn.
We begin by reviewing the facts of the state court cases
filed by each of the three plaintiffs (collectively, the Beneficiaries).
A
1
Rita L. Tristani underwent a bunionectomy in 1999 that
resulted in pain and discoloration in her leg. Her surgeon
suspected that she was suffering from deep venous thrombosis, and
immediately referred her to the hospital. Upon her arrival, Tristani
was examined by a medical resident who misdiagnosed her
condition as superficial thrombophlebitis. Roughly one week after
the misdiagnosis, Tristani suffered a massive pulmonary embolism
and stroke, which left her partially paralyzed, disfigured, and
brain-damaged. Consequently, Tristani resides in a facility where
she receives full-time medical care.
Tristani was eligible for assistance under Pennsylvania‘s
Medicaid program, and the DPW—the state agency responsible for
administering Medicaid—paid for her medical care. In September
2001, Tristani filed a medical malpractice action in which she
sought, inter alia, the costs of medical expenses that had been paid
4
on her behalf by the DPW. Approximately two months after the
complaint was filed, the DPW wrote Tristani‘s counsel that, as a
recipient of medical assistance, Tristani had assigned her right to
recover medical expenses to the DPW. In May 2002, Tristani
preliminarily settled her malpractice claim for $5.2 million.
Thereafter, seeking to recoup funds it had expended for Tristani‘s
medical care, the DPW sent Tristani‘s counsel another letter
asserting a lien of $247,514.98 against her settlement. The agency
later reduced this lien by 40% to $148,508.99 to bear its
proportionate share of Tristani‘s contingency fee obligation to her
counsel. On June 2, 2005, the state trial court issued an order
directing payment of the DPW‘s lien in full.
2
In January 2005, Joshua Valenta was injured in a traffic
accident and suffered relatively minor, but permanent injuries.
Valenta was eligible for government assistance, and the DPW paid
$15,539.61 for his medical expenses.1 Following his accident,
Valenta sued the tortfeasor, whose insurance carrier settled the
case for $130,000. In April 2005, the DPW sent Valenta‘s attorney
a letter informing him that, as counsel for a Medicaid recipient in a
1
Unlike Tristani, Valenta was enrolled in a managed
care organization (MCO) that contracts with Pennsylvania to
provide medical assistance. Pursuant to that contractual
arrangement, the MCO receives a monthly capitation fee for
each enrolled member, in exchange for which the MCO pays
health service providers for the cost of the member‘s medical
care. Although Valenta was enrolled in an MCO, the DPW
paid the bulk of his medical fees directly. In addition to these
direct payments, the DPW also paid the MCO $1,001.90 in
capitation fees on Valenta‘s behalf, and the MCO ultimately
disbursed $42.35 in connection with his injuries.
5
third-party liability tort action, Pennsylvania law required him to
satisfy the DPW‘s claim prior to making a distribution to his client.
In August 2005, the DPW sent another letter asserting a lien for
$15,581.56 against Valenta‘s settlement, which it reduced to
$10,000 to account for attorneys‘ fees. Valenta‘s attorney
promptly mailed the DPW a check for $10,000 to satisfy the lien.
3
A.H. is a young girl who suffered brain injuries following
surgery to correct a congenital heart defect. The DPW enrolled
A.H. in an MCO and paid capitation fees totaling $25,095.91 on
her behalf. The MCO‘s payments to A.H.‘s health care providers
totaled $171,617.18. The DPW also paid $1,458.10 on a fee-for-
service basis for A.H.‘s benefit. In June 2005, A.H. filed a medical
malpractice claim against her doctors, which was settled in April
2007 for an undisclosed amount. After the settlement, the DPW
asserted a lien for $106,306.88 to reflect the cost of her medical
care, less attorneys‘ fees and pro-rata costs. A.H. challenged the
validity of the DPW‘s lien, and, instead of paying the lien directly,
A.H.‘s mother obtained court approval to place the disputed funds
in an escrow account pending the outcome of this litigation.2
2
In addition to challenging the validity of the DPW‘s
liens generally, A.H. asserts that the DPW‘s practice of
recouping the cost of medical care exceeding the capitation
fees it paid is impermissible. The District Court order did not
address whether the DPW is limited to recouping the amount
it paid in capitation fees, or if it could instead seek
reimbursement for the full amount of medical payments
expended by the MCO. Because this issue was not addressed
below, we decline to address it in this interlocutory appeal.
6
B
In May 2006, Tristani and Valenta commenced a putative
class action in the District Court against: Estelle B. Richman,
Pennsylvania‘s Secretary of Public Welfare; Feather Houston,
Richman‘s predecessor; and the DPW. Tristani and Valenta
sought a refund of their payments to the DPW, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating Medicaid liens
generally. They argued that the DPW‘s claims were prohibited by
the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions of the Social Security
Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)-(b). Alternatively, they asserted
that Pennsylvania‘s scheme for recouping medical expenses from
Medicaid recipients was impermissible under the Supreme Court‘s
holding in Ahlborn.3
3
In Ahlborn, the Supreme Court reviewed an
Arkansas law that permitted the imposition of liens on
recoveries made by Medicaid beneficiaries against third
parties. Pursuant to the Arkansas statute, the state could
impose a lien in an amount equal to the medical assistance
payments made on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, without
regard to what portion of the settlement related to medical
costs. The Court assumed without deciding that liens limited
to medical costs are an implied exception to the federal law
prohibiting liens on the property of Medicaid beneficiaries.
Ahlborn, 547 U.S. at 284-85 (―To the extent that the forced
assignment is expressly authorized by the terms of §§
1396a(a)(25) and 1396k(a), it is an exception to the anti-lien
provision. . . . [T]he exception carved out by §§ 1396a(a)(25)
and 1396k(a) is limited to payments for medical care.‖)
(internal citation omitted). The Court held that, because the
Arkansas statute permitted the State to lien portions of the
recovery not relating to medical costs, it was preempted by
7
Several months after Tristani and Valenta commenced their
action, Richman and Houston (collectively, the Secretaries) filed a
motion to dismiss. Following two amendments to the complaint,
the Secretaries again filed a motion to dismiss and, after oral
argument, the District Court denied their motion without prejudice.
In April 2008, Richman and Houston filed a motion for
summary judgment. The next day, Tristani and Valenta filed a
motion for partial summary judgment in which they sought a
declaration that: (1) Pennsylvania‘s practice of asserting Medicaid
liens is invalid; (2) the DPW‘s ability to recover medical payments
made by MCOs is limited to the capitation payments made by the
State; and (3) Pennsylvania‘s current method of determining the
portion of a settlement that constitutes medical costs violates the
Supreme Court‘s holding in Ahlborn.
The District Court issued a comprehensive opinion denying
Tristani and Valenta‘s motion for partial summary judgment and
granting in part and denying in part the Secretaries‘ motion. The
District Court determined that federal law prohibits the DPW from
asserting liens against third-party recoveries obtained by Medicaid
beneficiaries. Nevertheless, the District Court denied Tristani‘s
and Valenta‘s claims for monetary damages, holding that the
Secretaries were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court
also held that Pennsylvania‘s practice of apportioning settlements
between medical costs and other portions of the recovery was
permissible under Ahlborn. The Court denied the Secretaries‘
motion for summary judgment as to Tristani‘s and Valenta‘s
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, but noted an
unresolved issue regarding their standing to seek equitable relief.
After the District Court issued its order, the parties filed a
joint motion to add a party to cure the potential standing problem.
the federal ban on placing liens on the property of Medicaid
beneficiaries.
8
The Court permitted the parties to add A.H. who, both parties
agreed, had standing with respect to the remaining issues. The
District Court thus amended its prior order to deny the Secretaries‘
motion for summary judgment with regard to the validity of 62 PA.
STAT. ANN. § 1409(b)(7)—Pennsylvania‘s statutory mechanism
for attaching liens to recoveries made by Medicaid beneficiaries—
and granted the parties‘ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
II
Although the parties agree that we have jurisdiction over
this interlocutory appeal, we ―have an independent obligation to
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
absence of a challenge from any party.‖ Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (internal citation omitted). The District
Court had jurisdiction over the Beneficiaries‘ federal claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and exercised supplemental
jurisdiction over their state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a).
The District Court certified an interlocutory appeal to this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides:
[w]hen a district judge, in making in a civil action
an order not otherwise appealable under this
section, shall be of the opinion that such order
involves a controlling question of law as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion
and that an immediate appeal from the order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.
The Court of Appeals which would have
jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may
thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be
9
taken from such order, if application is made to it
within ten days after the entry of the order . . . .
Consistent with the requirements of § 1292(b), the Secretaries
timely petitioned this Court for leave to appeal. After we granted
the Secretaries‘ petition for interlocutory appeal, the Beneficiaries
filed a notice of cross-appeal in the District Court.
The first issue we must confront with respect to our
jurisdiction is whether the Secretaries have standing to appeal the
order of the District Court. ―The general rule is that a party may
not appeal a favorable decision.‖ Ryan v. C.I.R., 680 F.2d 324,
325 (3d Cir. 1982) (citing Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts
Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)). Here, although the District Court
held that the Medicaid liens asserted by the DPW were
impermissible, it ultimately concluded that Richman and Houston
were entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, the Secretaries
prevailed on this issue in the District Court. Cf. Horne v.
Coughlin, 191 F.3d 244, 247-48 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that when a
District Court makes an adverse constitutional holding followed by
a determination that qualified immunity exists, appellate review of
the constitutional decision may be precluded for lack of standing).
After issuing its opinion, however, the District Court
permitted the parties to add A.H. to the litigation to ensure that the
Beneficiaries would have standing to pursue declaratory and
injunctive relief. Following the addition of A.H., and prior to
certifying this interlocutory appeal, the District Court amended its
order to deny the Secretaries‘ motion for summary judgment with
respect to the validity of the Pennsylvania law permitting Medicaid
liens. This issue was included in the District Court‘s certification
for interlocutory appeal, and constitutes an adverse judgment from
which the Secretaries may properly seek appellate review.4
4
We also note that the Supreme Court has held that
―[i]n an appropriate case, appeal may be permitted from an
10
Having decided that we possess jurisdiction over the
Secretaries‘ appeal, we must now determine whether we have
jurisdiction over the Beneficiaries‘ cross-appeal. Although they
filed a notice of cross-appeal in the District Court, the
Beneficiaries failed to petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
We must decide whether this omission deprives us of jurisdiction
over the issues raised in their cross-appeal. Stated differently,
when an appellant has timely sought and received leave to appeal,
is a cross-appellant obligated to separately seek permission to
appeal?5
adverse ruling collateral to the judgment on the merits at the
behest of the party who has prevailed on the merits, so long as
that party retains a stake in the appeal satisfying the
requirements of Art[icle] III.‖ Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank,
Jackson, Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 334 (1980). To the
extent the Secretaries otherwise lack standing, we hold that
their continuing interest in the outcome of this litigation,
combined with the importance of the District Court‘s
collateral determination regarding the validity of the
Pennsylvania law, makes this an appropriate case for
appellate review.
5
The Courts of Appeals for the Second and Tenth
Circuits have held that § 1292(b) requires a separate cross-
application for leave to file a cross-appeal. See Tranello v.
Frey, 962 F.2d 244, 247-48 (2d Cir. 1992); United Transp.
Union Local 1745 v. City of Albuquerque, 178 F.3d 1109,
1114 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding no jurisdiction under §
1292(b), but exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction); cf.
Roth v. King, 449 F.3d 1272, 1282-83 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
(recognizing the tension between the filing requirements of
Rule 5 and the jurisdiction granted by § 1292(b), but avoiding
the problem by declining to engage in discretionary review).
11
In Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199,
205 (1996), the Supreme Court explained: ―[a]s the text of §
1292(b) indicates, appellate jurisdiction applies to the order
certified to the court of appeals . . . . [Therefore,] the appellate
court may address any issue fairly included within the certified
order.‖ Accordingly, when we granted the Secretaries‘ petition for
leave to appeal pursuant to § 1292(b), we obtained jurisdiction
over the entire certified order of the District Court, including any
portions that were decided in the appellant‘s favor. See United
Transp. Union Local 1745 v. City of Albuquerque, 178 F.3d 1109,
1122 (10th Cir. 1999) (Briscoe, J., concurring and dissenting).
Thus, to the extent that the issues raised in the Beneficiaries‘ cross-
appeal were included in the certified order of the District Court,
they are properly before us on appeal.6
We note that both the Second and Tenth Circuits based
their analyses in part on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
5(b), which governs appeals by permission, and provides that
a cross-petition for leave to file a cross-appeal may be filed
within 10 days after the initial petition is served. At the time
these cases were decided, it was understood that Rule 5 was
jurisdictional. More recently, however, the Supreme Court
has clarified that non-statutory rules of procedure cannot be
regarded as jurisdictional because ―[o]nly Congress may
determine a lower federal court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction.‖
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 452-56 (2004).
6
Our holding with respect to our jurisdiction under §
1292(b) should not be understood to imply that cross-appeals may
be omitted with impunity. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
5(b)(2) requires a putative § 1292(b) cross-appellant to file a cross
application ―within 10 days after the [initial] petition is served.‖
Because Rule 5(b)(2) is not jurisdictional, however, it must be
raised by a party. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 452-56
12
III
We exercise plenary review over an order resolving cross-
motions for summary judgment. Cantor v. Perelman, 414 F.3d
430, 435 n.2 (3d Cir. 2005). In determining whether summary
judgment is appropriate, we apply the same standard as the District
Court. Bucks Cnty. Dep’t of Mental Health/Mental Retardation v.
Pennsylvania, 379 F.3d 61, 65 (3d Cir. 2004). Summary judgment
should be granted when ―the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.‖ FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
IV
A
Having established that jurisdiction lies, we proceed to the
principal substantive issue, namely, the lawfulness of the DPW‘s
practice of imposing liens on judgments or settlements that
Medicaid beneficiaries obtain from third parties. We begin with an
overview of the applicable statutory provisions.
The Social Security Act provides that, as a condition to
receiving Medicaid assistance, states must require individuals ―to
assign [to] the State any rights . . . to support . . . and to payment
for medical care [the individual has] from any third party.‖ 42
(holding that court-adopted claim processing rule ―can . . . be
forfeited if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the
point‖). In this appeal, the Secretaries have forfeited their Rule
5(b)(2) argument. Although they make a one-line reference to the
impropriety of the Beneficiaries‘ cross appeal in a footnote to their
opening brief, and again in a footnote to their reply brief, they also
concede that we have ―discretion‖ to consider issues presented by
the Beneficiaries in their cross-appeal.
13
U.S.C. § 1396k(a)(1)(A). The Act also requires states to ―ascertain
the legal liability of third parties . . . to pay for care and services
under the plan‖ and, ―in any case where such a legal liability is
found to exist after medical assistance has been made . . . [, to]
seek reimbursement . . . to the extent of such legal liability.‖ Id. §
1396a(a)(25)(A)-(B).
However, and of significance to this appeal, the Act also
provides:
No lien may be imposed against the property of any
individual prior to his death on account of medical
assistance paid or to be paid on his behalf under the
State plan, except–
(A) pursuant to the judgment of a court on
account of benefits incorrectly paid on
behalf of such individual, or
(B) in the case of the real property of an
individual–[who is in a nursing home and
required by law to spend his own income on
those expenses, and who cannot reasonably
be expected to return home.]
Id. at § 1396p(a)(1). This is known as the ―anti-lien‖ provision.
Of equal importance, the Act provides that ―[n]o
adjustment or recovery of any medical assistance correctly paid on
behalf of an individual under the State plan may be made, except
[in limited circumstances not at issue in this case].‖ Id. at §
1396p(b)(1). This is known as the ―anti-recovery‖ provision.
B
14
Pennsylvania has enacted a detailed statutory framework in
an attempt to comply with the requirements of the Social Security
Act. Consistent with the federal mandate, 62 PA. STAT. ANN. §
1404(b) provides that ―[t]he acceptance of medical assistance
benefits shall operate as an assignment to [the DPW], by operation
of law, of the assistance recipient‘s rights . . . to payment for
medical care from any third party.‖
Although a Medicaid beneficiary must assign the portion of
her recovery relating to medical costs to the State, Pennsylvania‘s
statutory framework provides the beneficiary with a number of
options for prosecuting the remainder of her claim against a third
party. For example, after providing notice to the DPW, a Medicaid
beneficiary may elect not to include medical costs as damages in
her lawsuit against a third party. See 62 PA. STAT. ANN. §
1409(b)(5).7 If the beneficiary chooses not to include medical
costs as part of her damages, the State will not be involved in the
prosecution of her claim.
When a Medicaid beneficiary chooses to pursue damages
for medical costs, however, the method of transferring this portion
of the recovery to the State will vary depending on whether the
State is involved in the lawsuit. If the action is prosecuted by the
Medicaid beneficiary alone, after the payment of litigation
expenses and attorneys‘ fees, ―the court or agency shall allocate
the judgment or award between the medical portion and other
damages and shall allow [the DPW] a first lien against the medical
portion of the judgment or award, [in the] amount of [the DPW‘s]
expenditures for the benefit of the beneficiary under the medical
7
Although § 1409(b)(5) was not enacted until 2008, it
is relevant because the Beneficiaries seek declaratory and
injunctive relief.
15
assistance program.‖ Id. § 1409.1(b)(1).8 By contrast, if the claim
is prosecuted jointly by the beneficiary and the DPW, after
payment of litigation expenses and attorneys‘ fees, ―the court or
agency shall allocate the judgment or award between the medical
portion and other damages and shall make an award to [the DPW]
out of the medical portion of the judgment or award [in] the
amount of [the] benefits paid on behalf of the beneficiary under the
medical assistance program.‖ Id. § 1409.1(b)(2).
C
The Beneficiaries claim the DPW‘s practice of asserting
liens on recoveries made by Medicaid recipients violates the anti-
lien and anti-recovery provisions of the Social Security Act.
Despite having assigned to Pennsylvania the portion of their
recovery relating to medical costs, the Beneficiaries claim they
retain a property interest in their choses in action, including their
claims for medical expenses. Thus, they claim that §
1409.1(b)(1)—which permits Pennsylvania to take a lien on the
portion of a settlement that constitutes medical costs—effectively
authorizes the imposition of a lien on a Medicaid beneficiary‘s
property in violation of federal law. The DPW counters that its
liens fall within an exception to the federal prohibitions on
8
Section 1409.1 was enacted in response to the Supreme
Court‘s decision in Ahlborn, to permit settlements or judgments
that include Medicaid and non-Medicaid components to be
apportioned between the two items of recovery. In all respects
relevant to the imposition of liens at issue here, it is identical to §
1409(b)(7), which was in force before Ahlborn and which remains
valid law except as modified by § 1409.1‘s apportionment
provisions. See 62 PA. STAT. ANN. § 1409(b)(7) (―[T]he court . . .
shall . . . allow as a first lien against the amount of such judgment
or award, the amount of the expenditures for the benefit of the
beneficiary under the medical assistance program.‖).
16
imposing liens on the property of Medicaid beneficiaries and on
recovering medical assistance payments made on their behalf. The
DPW further asserts that the Supreme Court‘s decision in Ahlborn,
in which the Court assumed without deciding that such an
exception exists, demonstrates that its liens are valid.
The District Court held that the Pennsylvania statute
authorizing Medicaid liens was preempted by federal law. The
District Court recognized the tension between the plain language
of the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions of the Social Security
Act, which prohibit states from recouping medical assistance
payments made on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, and the forced
assignment and reimbursement provisions of the Act, which
require states to recover medical assistance payments made on
behalf of beneficiaries. Relying on dicta in the Ahlborn decision,
the District Court determined that Medicaid beneficiaries, despite
having assigned their recovery of medical costs to the State, retain
an enduring property interest in this portion of their recovery. See
Tristani v. Richman, 609 F. Supp. 2d 423, 480 (W.D. Pa. 2009)
(―Since Pennsylvania law permitted Tristani and Valenta to
recover the entire amounts of their damages (including the
amounts of payments made by the DPW to provide them with
medical assistance), the entire settlement awards were their
‗property.‘‖ (citing Ahlborn, 547 U.S. at 285)). The District Court
then attempted to harmonize the conflicting provisions of the
Social Security Act by interpreting them to require Pennsylvania to
take an active role in the recovery of medical costs, either by
intervening in lawsuits initiated by Medicaid beneficiaries or by
directly pursuing liable third parties.9 Based on this approach, the
9
Like the District Court, our dissenting colleague
suggests that the language of the Social Security Act implies
that ―Congress wanted states to initiate suits against or
intervene in actions against liable third parties, and wanted
Medicaid recipients to cooperate in those efforts by providing
state agencies with any information they might require.‖
17
District Court held that § 1409.1(b)(1) is preempted by the anti-
lien provision. As we shall explain, we are unpersuaded by the
District Court‘s analysis.10
Dissent Typescript at 7. Although it is true that §
1396a(a)(25)(A) speaks of ―pursuing claims against . . . third
parties,‖ we note that § 1396a(a)(25)(A) addresses only the
duty of the state or local agency ―to ascertain the legal
liability of third parties‖ whereas § 1396a(a)(25)(B), which
discusses what must be done once a third party is deemed
liable, provides only that ―the State or local agency will seek
reimbursement . . . to the extent of such legal liability.‖ The
absence of the phrase ―against . . . third parties‖ from the
portion of the statute that directs states to seek reimbursement
is telling.
10
To date, no federal appellate court has ruled on the
validity of Medicaid liens limited to medical costs.
Numerous district courts and state appellate courts, however,
have assumed that such liens are valid in the wake of
Ahlborn. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Cansler, --- F. Supp. 2d ---,
2010 WL 2629740 (W.D.N.C. 2010) (endorsing the use of
Medicaid liens limited to the portion of a settlement
attributable to medical costs as consistent with Ahlborn);
State v. Peters, 946 A.2d 1231 (Conn. 2008) (concluding that
federal law does not prohibit the use of liens for recouping
medical expenses); see also In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.,
452 F. Supp. 2d 458 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (permitting the use of
Medicaid liens limited to the portion of a recovery
attributable to medical costs); Lima v. Vouis, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d
183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (upholding the use of Medicaid liens
to recover medical expenses after Ahlborn, but requiring the
trial court to determine what portion of a settlement
18
constitutes payment for medical expenses); Russell v. Agency
for Health Care Admin., 23 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2010) (permitting the use of Medicaid liens to reimburse the
State for medical costs); Dep’t of Health and Welfare v.
Hudelson, 196 P.3d 905 (Idaho 2008) (holding that liens on
medical costs are an exception to the anti-lien provision);
Weaver v. Malinda, 980 So. 2d 55 (La. Ct. App. 2008)
(permitting the State to take a Medicaid lien limited to the
portion of a settlement allocated to medical expenses);
Andrews v. Haygood, 669 S.E. 2d 310 (N.C. 2008)
(permitting the use of liens to recover Medicaid expenses
limited to medical costs); Edwards v. Ardent Health Servs., --
- P.3d ---, 2010 WL 4276067 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010)
(upholding the use of Medicaid liens limited to the portion of
a recovery attributable to medical costs); E.D.B. v. Clair, 987
A.2d 681 (Pa. 2009) (acknowledging that Ahlborn‘s holding
invalidated the Arkansas law while permitting Pennsylvania‘s
DPW to place liens on the medical expenses of Medicaid
recipients).
Although these decisions have permitted the use of
Medicaid liens limited to medical costs, the majority of them
have not clearly articulated their rationale for doing so.
Indeed, some courts appear to be under the misapprehension
that the Supreme Court held such liens to be permissible in
Ahlborn. See, e.g., In re Matey, 213 P.3d 389, 394 (Idaho
2009) (―[A] state may not seek reimbursement from damages
awarded for lost earnings, lost household services, non-
economic injury and the like because, according to the
Supreme Court, those damages are the property of the
Medicaid recipient. However, the Supreme Court specifically
stated that damages received for medical care did not
19
D
―Our task is to give effect to the will of Congress, and
where its will has been expressed in reasonably plain terms, ‗that
language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.‘‖ Griffin v.
Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 570 (1982) (quoting
Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S.
102, 108 (1980)). As outlined above, the Social Security Act
requires states to ―seek reimbursement‖ for medical assistance
payments made on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries whenever
―legal liability [of a third party] is found to exist.‖ 42 U.S.C. §
1396a(a)(25)(B). Notably, this provision is silent regarding the
method by which reimbursement must be sought. The Act also
states that, as a condition to eligibility, Medicaid beneficiaries
must assign to the state any right they may have to recover medical
costs from a third party. The difficulty we perceive in this case is
that the plain language of these provisions conflicts with the
equally plain prohibition against states imposing ―liens . . . against
the property of‖ Medicaid beneficiaries, 42 U.S.C. §
1396p(a)(1)(A), or ―recover[ing] . . . any medical assistance
correctly paid on behalf of an individual,‖ id. § 1396p(b)(1). The
initial question, therefore, is whether the plain language of these
provisions can be reconciled.
The District Court attempted to resolve the apparent
conflict by interpreting the Act to require intervention by the
states. However, the Court did not adequately explain, nor is it
apparent to us, how its holding is consistent with the anti-recovery
provision, which prohibits states from seeking ―adjustment or
recovery of any medical assistance correctly paid on behalf of an
individual under the State [medical assistance] plan.‖ Id. By its
terms, the anti-recovery provision limits the ability of states to
recover medical assistance payments made on behalf of Medicaid
constitute property subject to the anti-lien provisions.‖)
(citing Ahlborn, 547 U.S. at 284).
20
beneficiaries, regardless of the specific collection method utilized.
Thus, the District Court‘s conclusion that Pennsylvania must
intervene in tort actions filed by Medicaid beneficiaries cannot be
reconciled with the anti-recovery provision.
E
The Supreme Court has stated that ―[w]hen ‗interpreting a
statute, the court will not look merely to a particular clause in
which general words may be used, but will take in connection with
it the whole statute . . . and the objects and policy of the law, as
indicated by its various provisions, and give to it such a
construction as will carry into execution the will of the
legislature.‘‖ Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 (1974)
(quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194 (1857)). When we
consider the Social Security Act as a whole, including its text,
structure, purpose, and legislative history, we conclude that the
DPW‘s practice of asserting liens against that portion of a
Medicaid beneficiary‘s recovery relating to medical costs must be
viewed as an exception to the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions.
The anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions significantly
predate the reimbursement and forced assignment provisions. As
we shall explain, Congress was pursuing different goals in enacting
these two sets of provisions. While the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions were intended to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries
were not forced to directly bear the costs of their medical care, the
reimbursement and forced assignment provisions were intended to
allow states to recoup their expenditures for medical assistance
payments when third parties are held liable. By allowing states to
recover these expenditures, Congress both protected the public fisc
and ensured that beneficiaries did not receive a windfall by
recovering medical expenses they did not pay. In order to
effectuate the goals animating these conflicting provisions, we
21
must view the reimbursement and forced assignment provisions as
exceptions to the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions.11
1
An examination of the Social Security Act reveals that
Congress has consistently pursued the dual goals of protecting the
personal property of Medicaid beneficiaries while ensuring that
liable third parties reimburse states for Medicaid expenditures. As
we shall describe below, the Act‘s evolution over time reveals that
Congress has not viewed these objectives to be in conflict. Rather,
the available evidence indicates that Congress did not intend that
liens for medical costs would fall within the scope of the anti-lien
and anti-recovery provisions.
The anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions were first
incorporated into the Social Security Act in 1960, some five years
before Medicaid came into being. They required state medical
assistance plans for the aged to:
11
This analysis is entirely consistent with the
Supreme Court‘s holding in Ahlborn. The purpose of the
anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions was to ensure that
Medicaid beneficiaries would not bear the burden of their
medical costs during their lifetimes. Consequently, to the
extent that a settlement or judgment paid by a third party does
not pertain to medical costs, the state has no recourse to those
funds. As the reimbursement and forced assignment
provisions make clear, however, the portion of a settlement or
judgment that does relate to medical costs properly belongs to
the state. To hold to the contrary would be to provide
Medicaid beneficiaries with a windfall in direct contravention
of the congressional mandate that states recoup the costs of
medical assistance from liable third parties.
22
provide that no lien may be imposed against the
property of any individual prior to his death on
account of medical assistance for the aged paid or to
be paid on his behalf under the plan (except
pursuant to the judgment of a court on account of
benefits incorrectly paid on behalf of such
individual), and that there shall be no adjustment or
recovery (except, after the death of such individual
and his surviving spouse, if any, from such
individual‘s estate) of any medical assistance for the
aged correctly paid on behalf of such individual
under the plan.
42 U.S.C. § 302(a)(11)(E) (Supp. II 1959-1961).12 By its terms,
this provision creates a system in which elderly recipients of
12
In 1962, the language of § 302 was duplicated in 42
U.S.C. § 1382(a)(15)(D), a provision governing state plans
for aid to the aged, blind, or disabled. See Pub. L. 87-543, tit.
I, § 141(a), 76 Stat. 172, 197 (1962). Discussion during
hearings before the Senate indicates that the purpose of the
provision was to protect the homes of blind recipients of aid.
See An Act to Extend and Improve the Public Assistance and
Child Welfare Services Programs of the Social Security Act,
and for Other Purposes: Hearings Before the Comm. on
Finance of the S., 87th Cong. 362 (1962) (statement of John
F. Nagle, Chief, Washington Office, National Federation of
the Blind) (―State laws which require an applicant for blind
aid to accept a lien on his property before he will be granted
assistance, serve to convince the applicant–as nothing else
can–of the full extent of his pauperized state. . . . A lien is
such a restriction upon property and its free use that, although
a home may represent a lifetime of thrift and denial, it is not
available for use to the blind owner who wishes to make a
23
new start in life.‖). In 1965, largely the same language was
included in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(18), a provision governing
federal grants to states for medical assistance programs. See
Pub. L. 89-97, tit. I, § 121(a), 79 Stat. 286, 344 (1965); cf. S.
REP. No. 89-404, at 80 (1965) reprinted in 1965
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1943, 2020 (stating that pursuant to § 1396a
―adjustment or recovery would be made only at a time when
there is no surviving child who is under the age of 21 or who
is blind or permanently disabled‖).
These three anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions
remained in place until 1982, when Congress consolidated
them into 42 U.S.C. § 1396p. See Pub. L. 97-248, tit. I. §
132(b), 96 Stat. 324, 370 (1982). Section 1396p actually
broadened the authority of states to seek reimbursement from
Medicaid beneficiaries by allowing them, in certain
circumstances, to impose liens on the homes of beneficiaries
during their lifetimes. See S. REP. No. 97-530, at 437 (1982)
(―States are allowed to impose liens on real property
including the home, of institutionalized [M]edicaid
beneficiaries who the State determines, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing, are reasonably likely to remain in a
nursing home for the remainder of their lives.‖). Section
1396p remains in force today, and has undergone numerous
amendments adjusting the exact circumstances under which
states may recover from Medicaid beneficiaries. For
purposes of our analysis, however, the various iterations of
the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions are irrelevant. Our
focus is on the fact that the provisions have been in force
since 1960, have been repeatedly re-enacted, and have
consistently been animated by a legislative intent to insulate
24
medical assistance are insulated from paying the costs of their care
during their lifetimes and the lifetimes of their surviving spouses.
Nevertheless, this system, which ultimately allows a state to
recoup its medical assistance expenditures directly from the estate
of a deceased beneficiary, in no way entitles beneficiaries to retain
monies paid to them by liable third parties in compensation for
their medical costs.
The legislative history of the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions confirms this understanding.13 As a Senate Report
discussing the provision stated, pursuant to the congressional
framework ―[a] State would not be permitted as a condition of
medical assistance to impose a lien on the property of a recipient
during [her] lifetime. . . . However, the bill would permit the
recovery from an individual‘s estate after the death of [her] spouse
if one survives [her].‖ S. REP. No. 86-1856, at 6 (1960), reprinted
in 1960 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3608, 3615. The report then explains that
―[t]his provision was inserted in order to protect the individual and
[her] spouse from the loss of their property, usually the home,
during their lifetime.‖ Id. Congress‘s concern for protecting a
Medicaid beneficiaries from the costs of their medical
expenses, and, in particular, to protect the family home.
13
The Supreme Court has instructed that ―where . . .
resolution of a question of federal law turns on a statute and
the intention of Congress, we look first to the statutory
language and then to the legislative history if the statutory
language is unclear.‖ Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896
(1984). As we explained supra, the plain language of the
forced assignment and reimbursement provisions of the
Social Security Act irreconcilably conflicts with that of the
anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions. Accordingly, recourse
to legislative history is necessary here.
25
Medicaid beneficiary‘s personal assets—not her interest in
recovering medical costs paid on her behalf—clearly animated the
enactment of the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions. Moreover,
a beneficiary‘s property interest in her home is readily
distinguishable from the inchoate interest that she retains in her
chose in action, particularly since Congress has mandated
assignment of that chose to the state.14 We cannot agree that
Congress intended these provisions to prohibit states from placing
liens on recoveries from liable third parties, especially in light of
the reimbursement and forced assignment provisions it later added
to the Social Security Act.
The reimbursement provision of the Act was first enacted
in 1967, and required state medical assistance plans to provide:
(A) that the State or local agency administering
such plan will take all reasonable measures to
ascertain the legal liability of third parties to pay for
care and services (available under the plan) arising
out of injury, disease, or disability, (B) that where
the State or local agency knows that a third party
has such a legal liability such agency will treat such
legal liability as a resource of the individual on
whose behalf the care and services are made
available for [purposes of determining a potential
recipient‘s eligibility for medical assistance] . . .
[and] that in any case where such a legal liability is
14
We need not decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries
have more than a nominal property interest in the portion of
recoveries from third parties attributable to medical costs.
Whatever the extent of that property interest, it is sharply
curtailed by the forced assignment provision, which requires
potential Medicaid beneficiaries to assign this interest to the
state as a condition of eligibility.
26
found to exist after medical assistance has been
made available on behalf of the individual, the State
or local agency will seek reimbursement for such
assistance to the extent of such legal liability.
42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25) (Supp. III v.2 1965-1968). The plain
language of this provision requires states to consider third-party
liability when making Medicaid eligibility determinations, and to
seek reimbursement of sums expended when third-party liability is
unknown at the time payments are made. In this way, the
reimbursement provision protects the public fisc while preventing
Medicaid beneficiaries from receiving a windfall. Although the
anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions were in force when the
reimbursement provision was enacted, Congress made no attempt
to reconcile this new requirement with the prohibition against
states recovering medical assistance payments made on behalf of
Medicaid beneficiaries. Instead, the statute simply requires states
to consider any known third-party liability as an asset of the
individual in determining eligibility, and to seek reimbursement
when liability is discovered after medical assistance payments have
been made.15
The legislative history of the reimbursement provision
confirms that Congress intended to ensure that states recover
15
The reimbursement provision permits states to deny
Medicaid benefits outright when third-party liability is known
at the time Medicaid eligibility is determined and to recover
their outlays when third-party liability is later discovered.
Thus, although the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions
protect the assets of the Medicaid beneficiary, the
reimbursement provision demonstrates that Congress did not
believe that individuals should be entitled to have their
medical expenses paid twice.
27
medical assistance payments made on behalf of Medicaid
beneficiaries whenever third parties are found liable for medical
expenses. As stated during a Senate hearing:
Unquestionably, many beneficiaries will be paid
twice through receipt of benefits under the
[M]edicaid program, and from obligations imposed
upon the insurance industry by the liability system.
To the extent that the [Medicaid] program is
intended to assist the medically indigent, it is not
consistent to apply [M]edicaid benefits to those
whose needs are being met by a third party under a
legal or contractual obligation. To the extent that
health care protection is being provided from
sources other than under the social security
program, the resulting duplication is discriminatory
and a wasteful, inefficient use[] of public funds.
Social Security Amendments of 1967: Hearing Before the S.
Comm. On Finance, 90th Cong. 1572 (1967) (statement of Wallace
M. Smith).
The forced assignment provision of the Social Security Act
was first enacted in 1977. As a condition of receiving Medicaid
benefits, the forced assignment provision obligates states to require
individuals
to assign the State any rights, of the individual or of
any other person who is eligible for medical
assistance under this title and on whose behalf the
individual has the legal authority to execute an
assignment of such rights, to support (specified as
support for the purpose of medical care by a court
or administrative order) and to payment for medical
care from any third party.
28
42 U.S.C. § 1396k(a)(1)(A). By its terms, this provision requires
individuals, as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits, to
confer upon the state their right to recover the costs of their
medical care. This is further evidence of congressional intent to
ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries do not receive a windfall by
recovering medical costs they did not pay.
Our review of the evolution of the various provisions of the
Social Security Act reveals that the only way to harmonize the
conflicting language of the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions
with the later-enacted reimbursement and forced assignment
provisions is to conclude that the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions do not apply to medical costs recoverable from liable
third parties. 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. It defies
common sense to conclude that Congress intended to protect the
rights of Medicaid beneficiaries to recover medical costs that they
never paid in the first place. Indeed, federal law requires
beneficiaries to assign their right to recover such medical costs to
the state, because it is the state—not the beneficiaries—that pays
these costs.
2
Our conclusion that liens on medical costs are excepted
from the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions is bolstered by the
forced assignment provision. The District Court viewed the forced
assignment provision as evidence of congressional intent to require
states to intervene in lawsuits initiated by Medicaid beneficiaries
against third parties. We see it differently.
29
As the Secretaries correctly point out, a partial assignment
typically creates a lien on a portion of the recovery in favor of the
assignee. See, e.g., Matchett v. Wold, 818 F.2d 574, 576 (7th Cir.
1987) (―An ordinary lien attaches to property in being; the
statutory attorney‘s lien attaches to an expectation [of recovery],
the court thought the statute better described therefore as making
the attorney in effect a partial assignee of his client‘s interest in the
lawsuit . . . .‖); Angeles Real Estate Co. v. Kerxton, 737 F.2d 416,
419 (4th Cir. 1984) (―[U]nder general common law principles, a
partial assignment creates an equitable lien in favor of the
assignee.‖); Law Research Serv., Inc. v. Martin Lutz Appellate
Printers, Inc., 498 F.2d 836, 837 (2d Cir. 1974) (―[T]he
assignment of [part of] an existing right [under a judgment] creates
an immediate lien in favor of the assignee that is valid against later
lien creditors of the assignor.‖). We do not believe that Congress
would prohibit states from imposing liens to recoup medical costs
while at the same time imposing a requirement that has the legal
effect of creating such liens. The more logical conclusion is that
Congress understood that the legal effect of the forced assignment
provision would be to provide the states with a lien on recoveries
of medical costs. Thus, in our view, the forced assignment
provision is evidence of Congress‘s intent to except recoveries of
medical assistance payments whenever third parties are found
liable for them.
Unlike the District Court, we do not believe that Congress
intended to require states to intervene in Medicaid beneficiaries‘
lawsuits in order to recoup medical costs from third parties.
Congress enacted the forced assignment provision more than a
decade after it began requiring states to ―seek reimbursement‖ for
medical costs from liable third parties. The purpose of the
provision was to ensure that states were able to recoup their
outlays. Thus, far from restricting the state‘s ability to recoup
medical expenses, the forced assignment provision was intended to
facilitate the state‘s recovery of those funds.
30
Finally, practical considerations weigh in favor of our
holding today. At present, over thirty states use liens to recoup
medical expenses paid on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries from
liable third parties. See State v. Peters, 946 A.2d 1231, 1239 n.19
(Conn. 2008). And disparate federal and state courts have
overwhelmingly endorsed this practice. See supra note 9. In
Pennsylvania, the authority for imposing such liens dates back to
1980. See 1980 Pa. Laws 510 (―After payment of . . . expenses
and attorneys‘ fees the court or agency shall, on the application of
the department, allow as a first lien against the amount of such
judgment or award, the amount of the department‘s expenditures
for the benefit of the beneficiary under the medical assistance
program . . . .‖). Since then, Congress has had occasion to amend
the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions, and has chosen not to
prohibit this widespread and pervasive practice. Its failure to do so
further supports our holding that Medicaid medical expense liens
are excepted from the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions. See
Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978) (―Congress is
presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation
of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it reenacts a
statute without change.‖).
3
The text of the Social Security Act, when combined with its
structure, purpose, and legislative history, reveals that Congress
sought to accomplish different goals in enacting the anti-lien and
anti-recovery provisions on the one hand, and the reimbursement
and forced assignment provisions on the other hand. While the
anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions were intended to protect the
assets of Medicaid recipients, the subsequently-enacted forced
assignment and reimbursement provisions were intended to limit
the financial burden of Medicaid on the states and ensure that
Medicaid beneficiaries did not receive a windfall by recovering
31
medical costs they did not pay.16 In this context, the forced
assignment and reimbursement provisions are best viewed as
creating an implied exception to the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions of the Act. Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that
the statutory mechanism created by Congress for beneficiaries to
relinquish their right to recover medical assistance payments to the
state—a partial assignment—itself creates a lien. Consequently,
we hold that liens on settlements or judgments limited to medical
costs are not prohibited by the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions of the Social Security Act.
IV
A
Having determined that liens limited to recoveries for
medical costs are not prohibited by the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions, we now turn to Pennsylvania‘s method of apportioning
settlements between medical costs and the remainder of a
beneficiary‘s recovery. Typically, a Medicaid beneficiary‘s
recovery from a third party will compensate her for a variety of
damages, including medical costs, lost wages and pain and
suffering. Pursuant to the Supreme Court‘s holding in Ahlborn,
states may be reimbursed only for the portion of the recovery
constituting compensation for medical expenses. Many
settlements, however—including those at issue in this appeal—are
not specifically apportioned between medical costs and other types
of damages. The question before us is how, in the absence of
16
Although the Dissent shares our concern in this
respect, it argues that any windfall to Medicaid beneficiaries
can be avoided by precluding beneficiaries from claiming
amounts paid by Medicaid in their suits against third parties.
We are unpersuaded by this approach because it would result
in a windfall to tortfeasors.
32
explicit allocation, one may ascertain what portion of a settlement
is allocable to medical expenses recoverable by the state.
Pennsylvania has addressed this allocation problem by
providing:
Except as otherwise provided in this act,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
entire amount of any settlement of the injured
beneficiary‘s action or claim, with or without suit, is
subject to the department‘s claim for reimbursement
of the benefits provided any lien filed pursuant
thereto, but in no event shall the department‘s claim
exceed one-half of the beneficiary‘s recovery after
deducting for attorney‘s fees, litigation costs, and
medical expenses relating to the injury paid for by
the beneficiary.
62 PA. STAT. ANN. § 1409(b)(11). As the District Court noted, the
DPW has construed this provision as ―‗establish[ing] a statutory
default rule of allocation for tort recoveries consistent with
Ahlborn.‘‖ Tristani v. Richman, 609 F. Supp. 2d 423, 464 (W.D.
Pa. 2009) (quoting 37 Pa. Bull. 4881, 4228 (Sept. 8, 2007)).
Pursuant to the DPW‘s construction of section 1409(b)(11), in the
absence of a judicial allocation of damages, the DPW is entitled to
recover the lesser of its actual expenditures on medical costs or one
half of the beneficiary‘s recovery after expenses.
In this appeal, the Beneficiaries‘ medical costs constitute
less than one-half of their recoveries; therefore, the DPW has
recovered (or, in A.H.‘s case, seeks to recover) the full amount of
its Medicaid expenditures, less a pro rata reduction for attorneys‘
fees and costs. The Beneficiaries argue, however, that they settled
their claims for less than full value, and that the DPW‘s recovery
for medical costs should be reduced correspondingly. Because no
such reduction occurred, the Beneficiaries claim that the DPW‘s
33
liens exceed the scope of the interests they assigned to the agency
in violation of Ahlborn.
B
The District Court rejected the Beneficiaries‘ argument,
concluding that Pennsylvania law validly adopted a default
apportionment mechanism to divide settlements between medical
costs and other expenses. The District Court noted that although
section 1409(b)(11) predates Ahlborn, thereafter the DPW has
interpreted it as establishing a default apportionment between non-
medical and medical expenses. This interpretation has since been
codified in 55 PA. CODE § 259.2, which states:
(b) In determining the portion of a tort recovery
that represents payment for medical care by a third
party, the Department will apply the following
interpretations:
....
(2) In the absence of a court order
allocating tort proceeds among categories of
damages, ½ of the net proceeds are allocated
by law to be available to repay injury-related
[Medicaid] expenses. The amount of net
proceeds is computed by deducting from the
gross proceeds the attorney‘s fees, litigation
costs and medical expenses relating to the
injury that were paid for by the beneficiary
prior to the settlement of the injured
beneficiary‘s action or claim.
....
(5) The Department is not bound by a
private agreement between the parties to a
34
tort claim regarding allocation of the
proceeds.
(d) If a court does not adjudicate the amount of the
Department‘s claim against a settlement, the Bureau
of Hearings and Appeals has jurisdiction to hear and
determine an appeal by a beneficiary contesting the
amount of the Department‘s claim.
This regulation explains section 1409(b)(11)‘s relationship to the
rule of Ahlborn, and formally establishes a default method for
establishing the portion of a recovery relating to medical costs.17
The District Court found this scheme to be consistent with
federal law. The Court noted that Ahlborn recognized the
possibility that plaintiffs would manipulate settlement agreements
to artificially depress the portion attributable to medical expenses.
In Ahlborn, the Supreme Court suggested that this risk could ―be
avoided either by obtaining the State‘s advance agreement to an
allocation or, if necessary, by submitting the matter to a court for
decision.‖ Ahlborn, 547 U.S. at 288. In a footnote, the Court
stated:
[s]ome States have adopted special rules and
procedures for allocating tort settlements in
17
We note that, with the exception of subsection (d),
which permits a beneficiary to appeal the default allocation of
his recovery, this regulation is identical to the law in force
prior to the Ahlborn decision. Because the Beneficiaries‘
claims predate the regulation, there is some uncertainty as to
whether they may avail themselves of the regulatory appeal
process. The parties agree, however, that to date the DPW
has not engaged in any individualized apportionment of the
Beneficiaries‘ settlements.
35
circumstances where, for example, private insurers‘
rights to recovery are at issue. Although we express
no view on the matter, we leave open the possibility
that such rules and procedures might be employed
to meet concerns about settlement manipulation.
Id. at n.18. The District Court held that Pennsylvania‘s 50%
allocation and agency appeal provisions are ―special rules and
procedures‖ of this kind that are consistent with the federal
requirement that the State‘s recovery not exceed the portion of the
third-party recovery attributable to Medicaid-paid expenses. The
Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Idaho have reached similar
conclusions with respect to analogous state laws. See State Dep’t
of Health & Welfare v. Hudelson, 196 P.3d 905, 911 (Idaho 2008);
Andrews ex rel. Andrews v. Haygood, 669 S.E. 2d 310, 314 (N.C.
2008).
Alternatively, the District Court held that Pennsylvania‘s
apportionment scheme is valid because, under Pennsylvania law, a
settlement represents full compensation for an individual‘s
damages, which implies that the Beneficiaries cannot, after
settling, claim that they were not made whole. Under
Pennsylvania law, ―when a subrogor settles a claim, he essentially
waives his right to a judicial determination of his losses, and
therefore conclusively establishes the settlement amount as full
compensation for his damages.‖ Goldman v. Workers’ Comp.
Appeal Bd. (Girard Provision Co.), 620 A.2d 550, 552 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 1993). ―Hence, in effect, [Pennsylvania] law
indicates that when an individual settles his suit he is later
estopped from claiming that his damages exceed the amount
settled for.‖ Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clarke, 527 A.2d 1021, 1025 n.4
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1987). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never
explicitly adopted this rule, but as the cases quoted above
demonstrate, it has gained some traction in the lower courts.
Accordingly, the District Court held that, even in the absence of
the statutory default allocation, the ―made whole‖ doctrine would
36
fix the portion of the Beneficiaries‘ settlement attributable to
Medicaid expenses at an amount equal to the DPW‘s actual
expenditures.
We agree with the District Court‘s conclusion that
Pennsylvania‘s apportionment scheme is valid. Pursuant to the
current statutory framework, beneficiaries unhappy with its results
may appeal the default allocation. This mechanism is consistent
with the Supreme Court‘s holding in Ahlborn, and comports with
the practice of other states. Therefore, we will affirm this portion
of the District Court‘s order.18
C
Despite the validity of Pennsylvania‘s current
apportionment scheme, the question remains whether the prior
scheme, which did not provide a right of appeal from the default
allocation, is valid under Ahlborn.19 The District Court upheld the
scheme, but we find it problematic.
18
Because we uphold Pennsylvania‘s framework, we
do not reach the merits of the District Court‘s alternative
holding premised on the ―made whole‖ doctrine.
19
Tristani‘s and Valenta‘s claims regarding the
validity of the apportionment scheme are moot because the
District Court correctly determined that any recovery on their
part is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of
qualified immunity. A.H., however, challenged the validity
of the DPW‘s lien prior to making a payment. Moreover, the
DPW asserted its lien before section 1409 was amended.
A.H. therefore has a viable claim for declaratory and
injunctive relief.
37
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, it did not give states unfettered discretion to
allocate settlements without regard to the actual portion
attributable 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.
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. 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.
V
In Ahlborn, the Supreme Court assumed without deciding
that liens on recoveries made by Medicaid beneficiaries for
medical costs constitute an exception to the anti-lien and anti-
recovery provisions of the Social Security Act. Medicaid
beneficiaries in Pennsylvania have questioned this assumption by
challenging the State‘s practice of utilizing such liens. Our
examination of the text, structure, history and purpose of the Social
Security Act leads us to conclude that liens limited to medical
costs are not prohibited by the anti-lien and anti-recovery
38
provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold Pennsylvania‘s
longstanding practice of imposing such liens.
The Beneficiaries have also challenged Pennsylvania‘s
practice of disaggregating medical costs to comport with the
requirements of Ahlborn. We hold that Pennsylvania‘s current
statutory framework, which affords Medicaid recipients a right of
appeal from the default allocation, is a permissible default
apportionment scheme. The prior framework, which did not afford
beneficiaries a right of appeal, is invalid under Ahlborn.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm in part, vacate in
part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
39
Tristani v. Richman, Nos. 09-3537, 09-3538, Consolidated
POLLAK, District Judge, dissenting.
I.
I agree with the majority that we possess jurisdiction
over the defendants‘ appeal, and that we possess jurisdiction
over the issues raised in the plaintiffs‘ cross-appeal to the
extent those issues were included in the certified order of the
District Court. However, like the District Court, I do not
believe Congress intended to permit state Medicaid agencies,
such as the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare
(―DPW‖), to impose liens on judgments and settlements
obtained by Medicaid beneficiaries from third parties.1 I
therefore respectfully dissent.
1
As the majority recognizes, the Supreme Court‘s
decision in Arkansas Department of Health and Human
Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268, 280 n.9 (2006), assumed
without deciding that ―a State can . . . requir[e] an
‗assignment‘ of part of, or plac[e] a lien on, the settlement
that a Medicaid recipient procures on her own.‖ After
making this assumption, the Court cited to §§
1396k(a)(1)(B)–(C) with a ―cf.‖ signal, noting in a
parenthesis that under those provisions a Medicaid ―recipient
has a duty to identify liable third parties and to ‗provid[e]
information to assist the State in pursuing‘ those parties.‖ Id.
(emphasis and alteration in original). As will be discussed
below, the language emphasized by the Court undercuts the
majority‘s construction of the Social Security Act.
1
II.
A.
As a condition of participating in Medicaid, states
must prepare a state Medicaid plan to comply with various
requirements set out in the Social Security Act. See generally
42 U.S.C. § 1396a. As relevant here, a state Medicaid plan
must permit the state to seek ―reimbursement‖ when third
parties are liable for medical services provided by Medicaid.
Specifically, the plan must provide:
(A) that the State or local agency
administering such plan will take all
reasonable measures to ascertain the
legal liability of third parties . . . to pay
for care and services available under the
plan, including
(i) the collection of sufficient
information . . . to enable the
State to pursue claims against
such third parties, . . .
(ii) the submission to the Secretary of
a plan (subject to approval by the
Secretary) for pursuing claims
against such third parties . . . ;
(B) that in any case where such a legal
liability is found to exist after medical
assistance has been made available on
behalf of the individual and where the
amount of reimbursement the State can
2
reasonably expect to recover exceeds the
costs of such recovery, the State or local
agency will seek reimbursement for such
assistance to the extent of such legal
liability; . . . .
Id. §1396a(a)(25)(A)-(B) (emphasis added) (―reimbursement‖
provision).
A state‘s Medicaid plan must also require individuals
enrolled in Medicaid to assign to the state their right to
payment for medical care from third parties, and to cooperate
with the state‘s efforts to recover those payments. In
relevant part, this ―assignment/cooperation‖ provision states
that:
(a) For the purpose of assisting in the
collection of medical support payments
and other payments for medical care
owed to recipients of medical assistance
under the State plan approved under this
subchapter, a State plan for medical
assistance shall
(1) provide that, as a condition of
eligibility for medical assistance
under the State plan to an
individual who has the legal
capacity to execute an assignment
for himself, the individual is
required
(A) to assign the State any
rights . . . to support
3
(specified as support for
the purpose of medical care
by a court or administrative
order) and to payment for
medical care from any
third party;
(B) to cooperate with the State
. . . in obtaining support
and payments (described in
subparagraph (A)) for
himself . . . ; and
(C) to cooperate with the State
in identifying, and
providing information to
assist the State in
pursuing, any third party
who may be liable to pay
for care and services
available under the plan . .
(b) Such part of any amount collected by the
State under an assignment made under
the provisions of this section shall be
retained by the State as is necessary to
reimburse it for medical assistance
payments made on behalf of an
individual with respect to whom such
assignment was executed . . . and the
remainder of such amount collected
shall be paid to such individual.
4
Id. § 1396k(a)-(b) (emphasis added).2
In addition to the reimbursement and
assignment/cooperation provisions, the Social Security Act
contains an ―anti-lien‖ provision, which states that:
No lien may be imposed against the property of
any individual prior to his death on account of
medical assistance paid or to be paid on his
behalf under the State plan, except
2
Similarly, a state‘s Medicaid plan must ensure that
the state has in place a legal framework by which the state
acquires the right to payment from third parties for medical
expenditures made by Medicaid. That is, the plan must
provide:
that to 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 . . . .
Id. § 1396a(a)(25)(H).
5
(A) pursuant to the judgment of a
court on account of benefits
incorrectly paid on behalf of such
individual, or
(B) in the case of the real property of
an individual [when the individual
is an inpatient in a medical
institution, is required to spend
her own income as a condition of
receiving services in the
institution, and is unlikely to ever
be discharged from the institution
and to return home].
Id. at § 1396p(a)(1). The Act also contains an ―anti-
recovery‖ provision, which states that ―[n]o adjustment or
recovery of any medical assistance correctly paid on behalf of
an individual under the State plan may be made, except [in
limited circumstances not at issue in this case].‖ Id. at §
1396p(b)(1).
To comply with the foregoing provisions of the Social
Security Act, Pennsylvania has enacted 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. §
1404(b), which provides that the ―acceptance of medical
assistance benefits shall operate as an assignment to the
[DPW], by operation of law, of the assistance recipient's
rights to recover . . . payment for medical care from any third
party.‖ Pennsylvania has also enacted 62 Pa. Stat. Ann. §
1409, which governs third party liability in the context of
Medicaid. Under Section 1409, when Medicaid benefits are
provided to a beneficiary because of an injury for which a
third-party (including an insurer) is liable, both the DPW and
the beneficiary may bring an independent cause of action
6
against the third-party. If the DPW institutes suit, it has ―the
right to recover from such person or insurer the reasonable
value of benefits so provided.‖ Id. § 1409(b)(1). If a
beneficiary brings an action against a liable third party, the
beneficiary may, if he so desires, ―include as part of his claim
the amount of [Medicaid] benefits that have been or will be
provided‖ by the DPW. Id. § 1409(b)(5)(vi).
If the beneficiary institutes an action against such a
third party, the beneficiary must notify the DPW of the suit
within thirty days, id. § 1409(b)(5), and the DPW may
intervene in the suit at any time before trial, id. §
1409(b)(5)(v). However, the DPW is not required to
intervene in a beneficiary‘s suit, and may instead wait until
the suit has proceeded to a judgment or settlement. In such
cases, the resulting judgment or settlement must first be used
to pay the reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys‘ fees
incurred by the beneficiary. Id. § 1409.1(b)(1). Then, in
cases that proceed to a judgment, ―the court or agency shall
allocate the judgment or award between the medical portion
and other damages,‖ and the DPW may assert a ―lien against
the medical portion of the judgment or award,‖ in ―the
amount of the expenditures for the benefit of the beneficiary‖
made by the DPW. Id.3 In cases that settle, and which
therefore lack a judicial allocation of damages, the DPW may
impose a lien upon the settlement to recover its medical
3
As the majority notes, see Slip Op. at 15 n.8,
Pennsylvania enacted the judicial allocation provision in §
1409.1 to comply with the Supreme Court‘s decision in
Ahlborn, which held that a state Medicaid agency may not
seek ―payment for anything other than medical expenses.‖
547 U.S. at 281.
7
expenditures in an amount not exceeding ―one-half of the
beneficiary‘s recovery after deducting for attorney‘s fees,
litigation costs, and medical expenses relating to the injury
paid for by the beneficiary.‖ Id. § 1409(b)(11).
B.
The majority concludes that the various provisions of
the Social Security Act set forth in the preceding section
should be construed to permit state Medicaid agencies, such
as the DPW, to impose liens on future judgments and
settlements obtained by Medicaid beneficiaries from third
parties. The majority opinion derives much of its force from
its argument that this construction prevents Medicaid
recipients from obtaining windfall recoveries, because ―[i]t
defies common sense to conclude that Congress intended to
protect the rights of Medicaid beneficiaries to recover
medical costs that they never paid in the first place.‖ Slip op.
at 29.
I disagree with the majority opinion‘s construction of
the Social Security Act for three primary reasons. First, the
opinion ignores language in the reimbursement and
assignment/cooperation provisions which indicates that
Congress intended states to directly litigate claims against
liable third parties. Second, the opinion erroneously
concludes that because Congress intended to create a limited
implicit exception to the anti-recovery provision, this court
must read an even broader implied exception into the anti-
recovery provision and an additional implied exception into
the anti-lien provision. Third, the opinion fails to recognize
that § 1409(b)(5)(vi), which allows a Medicaid beneficiary to
―include as part of his claim [against a third party] the amount
8
of benefits that have been or will be provided‖ by the DPW,
is preempted by the Social Security Act.
The last of these three reasons deserves particular
emphasis: because § 1409(b)(5)(vi) is preempted by the plain
language of the Social Security Act, Medicaid beneficiaries
will not be able to obtain windfall recoveries. As a result, it is
not necessary to devise textually tenuous implicit exceptions
in order to read the Act in a way that prevents such
recoveries.
1.
Turning to the first reason, the District Court held that
the reimbursement and assignment/cooperation provisions,
taken together, indicate that Congress did not intend to permit
state Medicaid agencies to free-ride on the efforts of plaintiffs
by asserting liens after a judgment or settlement has been
obtained. Rather, Congress wanted states to either initiate
suit against or intervene in actions against liable third parties,
and wanted Medicaid recipients to cooperate in those efforts
by providing state agencies with any information they might
require. As the District Court explained:
Section 1396a(a)(25)(A)(i)-(ii) requires a state
plan for medical assistance to take all
reasonable measures to provide for ―the
collection of sufficient information (as specified
by the Secretary in regulations) to enable the
State to pursue claims against ... third parties,‖
and to further provide for ―the submission to the
Secretary of a plan (subject to approval by the
Secretary) for pursuing claims against such
third parties.‖ This statutory language
9
unambiguously refers to direct actions by state
entities against liable third parties. Section
1396a(a)(25)(B) requires a state to ―seek
reimbursement‖ from liable third parties for the
cost of medical assistance provided to an
individual ―in any case where such a legal
liability is found to exist after medical
assistance has been made available on behalf of
the individual and where the amount of
reimbursement the State can reasonably expect
to recover exceeds the cost of such recovery.‖
The plain language of this statutory provision
reveals that Congress believed that participating
states would not only pursue liable third parties
directly, but that they would also incur costs in
seeking to recover their expenditures.
Under § 1396k(a)(1)(C), a state plan for
medical assistance must provide that, as a
condition of eligibility for medical assistance,
an ―individual is required . . . to cooperate with
the State in identifying, and providing
information to assist the State in pursuing, any
third party who may be liable to pay for care
and services available under the plan.‖ This
statutory language indicates that Congress
expected participating states to need assistance
in pursuing liable third parties. The
reimbursement provision contained in §
1396k(b) likewise evinces a legislative intent
that state entities directly pursue liable third
parties. That provision requires a state entity
which has collected money under an assignment
10
to retain only those proceeds necessary to
reimburse it and the federal government for the
cost of a given Medicaid recipient‘s medical
care, and to pay the remainder of the money to
the recipient. The reimbursement provision
envisions an active role in litigation by state
entities, not the passive role played by the DPW
in the cases involving Tristani and Valenta.
Tristani v. Richman, 609 F. Supp. 2d 423, 469 (W.D. Pa.
2009) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).4
4
I recognize that the construction of the Social
Security Act defended in this opinion would, by requiring the
DPW to litigate claims itself, render it cost-prohibitive for the
DPW to pursue certain claims. However, as the District
Court noted, the reimbursement provision explicitly
recognizes that there will be circumstances under which it
will be too expensive for states to recover from third parties,
and exempts states from any obligation to pursue claims in
such circumstances. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(B) (―in
any case where such a legal liability is found to exist after
medical assistance has been made available on behalf of the
individual and where the amount of reimbursement the State
can reasonably expect to recover exceeds the costs of such
recovery, the State or local agency will seek reimbursement
for such assistance to the extent of such legal liability‖
(emphasis added)).
In addition, it should be noted that other public policy
concerns aside from efficiency are at issue in this case,
notably the attorney-client relationship. Pursuant to §
1409(b)(5)(vi), a plaintiff may pursue claims against third
11
parties for Medicaid expenditures made by the DPW. If her
case settles, then the DPW is entitled to recover its medical
expenditures in an amount of up to one-half of the
beneficiary‘s recovery after deducting for attorney‘s fees and
litigation expenses, regardless of how a court would have
actually allocated the plaintiff‘s medical and non-medical
damages. Id. § 1409(b)(11). As a result of this essentially
arbitrary default rule, a plaintiff whose medical damages were
relatively small in comparison to her non-medical damages is
likely to be under-compensated by the settlement (which was
made in light of the risks that always attend going to trial),
while the DPW will be over-compensated (because the DPW
does not have to factor such risks into its recovery). If the
plaintiff wishes to challenge this default allocation, she must
pursue a potentially expensive administrative appeal. See 55
Pa. Code § 259.2(d).
The plaintiff‘s attorney, however, is in a quite different
position. Because the attorney‘s fees are deducted before the
DPW takes its cut of the settlement, the attorney will always
be fully compensated for her efforts. Thus, under
Pennsylvania‘s statutory scheme, the plaintiff‘s attorney has
an incentive to include the plaintiff‘s Medicaid damages in
the complaint—which is likely to increase the amount of time
the attorney will spend on the case and therefore her fees—
even if that would not be advantageous for her client. While I
am confident that most attorneys in Pennsylvania would (like
plaintiffs‘ counsel in this action) do what is in the best
interests of their clients regardless of what is in their own best
interests, I nonetheless suspect that Congress did not intend to
create such temptations.
12
The majority opinion rejects the District Court‘s
conclusion that states may only seek reimbursement for care
and services provided by Medicaid by bringing their own
lawsuits against third parties or by intervening in suits
brought by Medicaid recipients, suggesting that §
1396a(a)(25)(B) ―is silent regarding the method by which
reimbursement must be sought‖ by the state. Slip op. at 19–
20. This statement is, in a strict sense, accurate: §
1396a(a)(25)(B) does not itself specify whether the state must
seek reimbursement directly from third parties.
However, like the Supreme Court, ―[w]e do not . . .
construe statutory phrases in isolation; we read statutes as a
whole.‖ United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828 (1984);
see also United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood
Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988) (―A
provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often
clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . .‖).
The majority opinion does not quote or otherwise address the
immediately preceding subsection, which indicates that
Congress wanted ―the State to pursue claims against such
third parties.‖ 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(A) (emphasis
added). The opinion also ignores § 1396k(a)(1)(C), which
states that individuals must provide information ―to assist the
State in pursuing‖ liable third parties. And it does not address
§ 1396k(b), which envisions that the state will seek
reimbursement for medical assistance payments directly from
a liable third party, and will pay any ―remainder‖ (i.e.,
amount recovered in excess of the state‘s medical
expenditures) to the individual Medicaid recipient.5 Thus, the
5
This last provision is particularly noteworthy: By
providing for payment by the state Medicaid agency to the
beneficiary of any remainder, § 1396k(b) indicates that
13
majority errs by ignoring language in the reimbursement and
assignment/cooperation provisions indicating that Congress
wants states to initiate or intervene in lawsuits against third
parties.
2.
My second reason for disagreement with the majority
opinion arises from its construction of the anti-lien and anti-
recovery provisions. The District Court found that the anti-
lien and anti-recovery provisions can be rendered consistent
with Section 1396a(a)(25), the reimbursement provision, and
Section 1396k, the assignment/cooperation provision, by
construing the latter provisions ―to require an assignment for
the purpose of enabling a participating state to directly pursue
claims against third parties liable for the costs of providing
medical assistance to Medicaid recipients.‖ Tristani, 609 F.
Supp. 2d at 470. The majority opinion rejects this
construction on the ground that ―the District Court‘s
conclusion that Pennsylvania must intervene in tort actions
filed by Medicaid beneficiaries cannot be reconciled with the
anti-recovery provision‖ because ―[b]y its terms, the anti-
recovery provision limits the ability of states to recover
medical assistance payments made on behalf of Medicaid
beneficiaries, regardless of the specific method.‖ Slip op. at
20.
Congress was aware of the problem that a state‘s lawsuit
against a liable third party might obtain an excessive
recovery. It is striking, then, that Congress did not include a
similar provision to address the situation of excessive
recovery by Medicaid beneficiaries.
14
I agree with the majority that the anti-recovery
provision would, if read in isolation, seem to prohibit the state
from using any method from seeking to recover medical
assistance payments expended on behalf of Medicaid
recipients. From this, it follows that the reimbursement and
assignment/cooperation provisions, which expressly state that
states must pursue assigned claims directly against third
parties, must constitute an implicit exception to the anti-
recovery provision permitting states to recover from liable
third parties.
However, it does not follow that the reimbursement
and assignment/cooperation provisions create an exception to
the anti-recovery provision permitting states to recover from
Medicaid beneficiaries. Nor does it follow that the
reimbursement and assignment/cooperation provisions must
be read to impliedly repeal the anti-lien provision. See 42
U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) (―No lien may be imposed against the
property of any individual . . . on account of medical
assistance paid . . . under the State plan . . . .‖ (emphasis
added)).6 Our precedents recognize that ―‗[r]epeals by
implication are not favored and will not be presumed unless
the intention of the legislature to repeal is clear and
6
I agree with the District Court that, under the
reasoning of Ahlborn, the liens imposed by the DPW upon
beneficiaries‘ recoveries of Medicaid expenditures from third
parties are ―imposed on their ‗property‘ for purposes of the
anti-lien provision.‖ Tristani, 609 F. Supp. 2d at 472; see
also id. (―[T]he mere fact that the DPW needed to assert liens
in the first place indicates that the liens were imposed on the
‗property‘ of [plaintiffs].‖); Ahlborn, 547 U.S. at 286 (―Why,
after all, would ADHS need a lien on its own property?‖).
15
manifest.‘‖ Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 154-55 (3d Cir.
2009) (quoting National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 662 (2007)).7 Nowhere in the
majority opinion‘s extended discussion of the various
amendments to and the legislative history of the
reimbursement and assignment/cooperation provisions does
the majority point to any ―clear and manifest‖ Congressional
intent to create an implicit exception to the anti-lien provision
or to permit recoveries directly from Medicaid beneficiaries.8
7
The earliest versions of the anti-lien and anti-
recovery provisions date to 1960, when they were first
incorporated into the Social Security Act. Slip op. at 22. The
earliest versions of the reimbursement and
assignment/cooperation provisions were first enacted in 1967
and 1977, respectively. Id. at 26, 28. As the majority
recognizes, the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions have
―undergone numerous amendments‖ clarifying and in some
cases expanding the circumstances under which states may
seek to recover from Medicaid beneficiaries. Id. at 24 n.12.
Despite these many amendments, Congress has never added
an express exception to the anti-lien provision permitting
state Medicaid agencies to impose liens upon judgments and
settlements obtained by beneficiaries against third parties.
8
Indeed, the one piece of legislative history quoted by
the majority—a statement by a single senator during a
committee hearing—does not use the word ―lien‖ or
otherwise suggest that recoveries may be made directly from
Medicaid beneficiaries. Slip op. at 27–28 (quoting Social
Security Amendments of 1967: Hearing Before the S. Comm.
On Finance, 90th Cong. 1572 (1967) (statement of Wallace
M. Smith)). Far from evincing a clear intention to permit the
16
Such exceptions are not required by the language of the
former provisions, which, as explained above, suggest on
their face that Congress wanted states to directly initiate or
intervene in lawsuits against third parties. As the District
Court recognized, the anti-lien provision can best be
reconciled with the reimbursement and the
assignment/cooperation provisions by construing the latter
according to their plain meaning.
In short, while a limited implied exception must be
read into the anti-recovery provision to permit recoveries
from liable third parties, that fact alone does not require—
much less justify—reading an even broader implied exception
into the anti-recovery provision or an additional implied
exception into the anti-lien provision. Accordingly, I would
affirm the District Court‘s holding that ―[t]o the extent that
sections 1409(b)(7)(i) and 1409.1(b)(1) permit the DPW to
impose liens on the awards obtained by Medicaid recipients
from liable third parties during the lifetimes of the recipients,
they are preempted by § 1396p(a)(1) [the anti-lien
provision].‖ Tristani, 609 F. Supp. at 473. In addition, to the
extent that sections 1409(b)(7)(i) and 1409.1(b)(1) permit the
DPW to seek recoveries of ―medical assistance correctly
paid‖ from Medicaid beneficiaries‘ settlements and
use of liens by states agencies, the statement by Senator
Smith evinces only a more general intent to reduce ―wasteful‖
double recoveries by beneficiaries—a goal accomplished by
requiring states to initiate or intervene in suits against third
parties. Id.
17
judgments, rather than directly from third parties, they are
preempted by § 1396p(b)(1), the anti-recovery provision.9
3.
I would go a step further than the District Court, and
also hold that § 1409(b)(5)(vi)—which permits a Medicaid
beneficiary suing a third-party to ―include as part of his claim
the amount of [Medicaid] benefits that have been or will be
provided‖ by the DPW—conflicts with the Social Security
Act and is therefore preempted. As discussed above, the
reimbursement and assignment/cooperation provisions
indicate that Congress wanted state agencies to pursue claims
9
The majority also notes that under traditional
―common law principles, a partial assignment creates an
equitable lien of favor of the assignee,‖ Angeles Real Estate
Co. v. Kerxton, 737 F.2d 416, 419 (4th Cir. 1984), and
therefore concludes that ―Congress understood that the legal
effect of the [assignment/cooperation] provision would be to
provide the states with a lien on recoveries of medical costs.‖
Slip op. at 29–30. The difficulty with relying on such
common law principles when interpreting the Social Security
Act is that the anti-lien provision expressly prohibits the
imposition of liens against Medicaid beneficiaries for the
recovery of medical expenditures, except in circumstances
not present in this case. See Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v.
Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 168 (2007) (noting, in the context of
the Federal Employers‘ Liability Act (―FELA‖), that
―although common-law principles are not necessarily
dispositive of questions arising under FELA, unless they are
expressly rejected in the text of the statute, they are entitled to
great weight in our analysis‖ (internal quotation omitted)
(emphasis added)).
18
against third parties for reimbursement of Medicaid
expenditures, and imposed upon individual Medicaid
recipients only the obligation that they cooperate with state
agencies by providing them with any information necessary
to pursue their claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(A)(i)
(requiring state plan to provide for ―the collection of
sufficient information . . . to enable the State to pursue claims
against ... third parties‖ (emphasis added)); id. §
1396k(a)(1)(C) (requiring state plan to direct individuals to
―cooperate with the State in identifying, and providing
information to assist the State in pursuing, any third party
who may be liable to pay for care and services available
under the plan‖ (emphasis added)).
The natural reading of these provisions is that
Congress wanted the states, and the states alone, to be able to
pursue claims against third parties for reimbursement of
Medicaid expenditures. Congress did not intend to authorize
Medicaid recipients to include in their suits claims that
properly belong to the states. Such a reading of the Social
Security Act would, because of the anti-lien and anti-recovery
provisions discussed above, permit Medicaid recipients to
obtain a windfall recovery—which, as the majority
recognizes, is an absurd result that Congress cannot have
intended. Thus, I would hold that § 1409(b)(5)(vi) is also
preempted by the third party liability provisions of the Social
Security Act.
I come to this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that
neither party to this litigation has argued that § 1409(b)(5)(vi)
is preempted. The parties‘ positions are perhaps unsurprising,
because both have self-interested reasons for seeking to rely
upon this provision of Pennsylvania law: the plaintiffs hope
to recover (or keep their recoveries of) Medicaid expenditures
19
from third parties, and then shield themselves from the DPW
using the anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions, while the
DPW hopes to free-ride on the efforts of plaintiffs and their
counsel in order to avoid the expenses of actually litigating
claims against third parties. The parties, of course, are
entitled to their litigation positions, but the judiciary‘s duty is
to ―say what the law is.‖ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Because § 1409(b)(5)(vi) permits
Medicaid recipients to assert claims belonging to the DPW,
and is therefore the underlying source of the difficulties in
this case, I would reach the question of whether it is
preempted, and would answer that question in the affirmative.
III.
The construction of the Social Security Act defended
in this dissent remains faithful to the plain language of the
Act, while also eliminating the possibility that Medicaid
recipients will be able to obtain windfall recoveries. For the
reasons outlined above, I respectfully dissent.
20