Morrison v. Health Plan of Nev., Inc.

Citation328 P.3d 1165,130 Nev. Adv. Op. 55
Decision Date24 September 2014
Docket NumberNo. 61082.,61082.
PartiesLouis MORRISON, Appellant, v. HEALTH PLAN OF NEVADA, INC.; Sierra Health Services, Inc.; Sierra Health and Life Insurance Company, Inc.; Sierra Health–Care Options, Inc.; United Healthcare Insurance Company; and United Healthcare Services, Inc., Respondents.
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

328 P.3d 1165
130 Nev.
Adv. Op. 55

Louis MORRISON, Appellant,
v.
HEALTH PLAN OF NEVADA, INC.; Sierra Health Services, Inc.; Sierra Health and Life Insurance Company, Inc.; Sierra Health–Care Options, Inc.; United Healthcare Insurance Company; and United Healthcare Services, Inc., Respondents.

No. 61082.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

July 10, 2014.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 2014.


[328 P.3d 1166]


Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP, and Will Kemp and Eric M. Pepperman, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Holland & Hart, LLP, and Constance L. Akridge and Matthew T. Milone, Las Vegas; Bryan Cave LLP and Lawrence G. Scarborough, J. Alex Grimsley, and Meridyth M. Andresen, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents.


McDonald Carano Wilson LLP and Debbie A. Leonard and Seth T. Floyd, Las Vegas; Crowell & Moring LLP and Arthur N. Lerner and April N. Ross, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae America's Health Insurance Plans, Inc.

Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd., and Matthew L. Sharp, Reno; Gillock & Killebrew and Gerald I. Gillock and Nia C. Killebrew, Las Vegas; Edward M. Bernstein & Associates and Patti S. Wise and Gary W. Call, Las Vegas; Friedman Rubin and Richard H. Friedman and William S. Cummings, Bremerton, WA, for Amici Curiae Dolores J. Cappetto, Carole Grueskin, James London, Rodolfo Meana, and Dorothy Rogers.

Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas and James L. Wadhams and Alexis L. Brown, Las Vegas, for Amicus Curiae Nevada Association of Health Plans.

Before the Court En Banc.1

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether a Medicare beneficiary's state common law negligence claim against his private health insurance company, through which he is receiving his Medicare benefits, is preempted by the federal Medicare Act. Because we conclude that state common law negligence claims regarding the retention and investigation of contracted Medicare providers are expressly preempted by the Medicare Act, we affirm the district court's order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondents Health Plan of Nevada, Inc.; Sierra Health Services, Inc.; Sierra Health and Life Insurance Company, Inc.; Sierra Health–Care Options, Inc.; United Healthcare Insurance Company; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. (collectively, HPN) are health insurance businesses that specialize in health maintenance and/or managed care. They are engaged in the joint venture of providing insurance, including providing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries through the administration of Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans. Appellant Louis Morrison is a Medicare beneficiary who received his Medicare benefits through an MA Plan offered by HPN. Under HPN's insurance contract, Morrison was required to seek medical care from providers chosen by HPN. Since at least 2004, HPN had contracted with the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada, and the doctors employed or associated with the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada (collectively, the Clinic). 2 In 2006, Morrison was treated by the Clinic based on its status as a contracted provider for HPN; as a result of his treatment there, he became infected with hepatitis C.

Morrison's second amended complaint alleged that HPN breached its duty to “use reasonable care to select its health care providers” and “to inquire into the medical practices at the clinic” and was negligent in directing him to seek treatment at the Clinic.3

[328 P.3d 1167]

The complaint alleged that HPN failed to properly investigate the Clinic and knew or should have known that since at least 2004 the Clinic engaged in unsafe medical practices causing a high risk of transmission of blood borne pathogens, such as hepatitis C, to patients at the Clinic. The district court ultimately dismissed Morrison's second amended complaint with prejudice, finding that Morrison's claim was preempted by the federal Medicare Act pursuant to this court's decision in Pacificare of Nevada, Inc. v. Rogers, 127 Nev. ––––, 266 P.3d 596 (2011). Morrison argues on appeal that the district court erred in applying Rogers to dismiss his claim because the Medicare Act's preemption statute does not apply to his state common law negligence claim.

DISCUSSION

To resolve this appeal, we must determine whether state common law negligence claims against Medicare plan providers are preempted by the federal Medicare Act.4 The Medicare Act, enacted as Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395– 1395kkk (2012), “creates a federally subsidized nationwide health insurance program for elderly and disabled individuals.” Rogers, 127 Nev. at ––––, 266 P.3d at 598. Pursuant to Part C of the Act, beneficiaries may receive Medicare benefits through MA plan's provided by private entities called MA organizations. Id. (citing 42 C.F.R. § 422.2 (2010)).

“MA Organizations and their plans contract with, and are subject to extensive regulation by, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).” Id.; see, e.g.,42 U.S.C. § 1395w–26(b)(1) (2012). Importantly, each MA organization that maintains one or more MA plans is required to adhere to a federally regulated quality improvement program. 42 C.F.R. § 422.152(a) (2013). The regulations specifically require that the MA organization “[m]ake available to CMS information on quality and outcomes measures that will enable beneficiaries to compare health coverage options and select among them.” Id. § 422.152(b)(3)(iii). The quality improvement program also requires that each MA organization “have written policies and procedures for the selection and evaluation of providers.” Id. § 422.204(a). An MA organization must also ensure that each physician or other health care professional be initially credentialed by review of verified “licensure or certification from primary sources, disciplinary status, eligibility for payment under Medicare, and site visits as appropriate.” Id. § 422.204(b)(2)(i).

Although CMS does not directly select the physicians or facilities that are included in an MA plan's network, federal regulations require an MA organization to select and retain only those providers that meet the qualifications specified in the Medicare Act. See id. § 422.204(b). Furthermore, CMS has specified “requirements for relationships between ... MA organizations[ ] and the physicians and other health care professionals and providers with whom they contract to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in an MA plan.” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Managed Care Manual, Ch. 6, § 10 (Rev. 24, June 6, 2003).

Morrison's common law negligence claim is expressly preempted by the Medicare Act

The Medicare Act contains an express preemption clause which states that

[t]he standards established under this part shall supersede any State law or regulation (other than State licensing laws or State laws relating to plan solvency) with respect to MA plans which are offered by MA organizations under this part.

[328 P.3d 1168]

42 U.S.C. § 1395w–26(b)(3) (2012). The scope of this preemption statute is very broad, and the “MA standards set forth in 42 CFR 422 supersede any State laws, regulations, contract requirements, or other standards that would otherwise apply to MA plans,” with the exception of laws relating to licensing and plan solvency. Medicare Managed Care Manual, Ch. 6, § 30.1 (Rev. 101, August 18, 2011). “In other words, unless they pertain to licensure and/or solvency, State laws and regulations that regulate health plans do not apply to MA plans offered by MA organizations.” Id.


When Congress explicitly conveys its intent to preempt in a statute, express preemption exists. Rolf Jensen & Assocs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. ––––, ––––, 282 P.3d 743, 746 (2012) (“The preemption doctrine emanates from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, pursuant to which state law must yield when it frustrates or conflicts with federal law.”). “When a federal act contains an express preemption provision, this court's primary task is to ‘identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language.’ ” Rogers, 127 Nev. at ––––, 266 P.3d at 600 (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996)). In doing so, we must “ ‘focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent.’ ” Id. (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993)). Even when there is no statutory language expressly preempting state law, preemption may be implied if Congress intended to thoroughly occupy the field or when the federal law conflicts with state law. Rolf Jensen, 128 Nev. at ––––, 282 P.3d at 746. “Whether state law claims are preempted by federal law is a question of law that we review de novo, without deference to the findings of the district court.” Id.

With respect to Medicare Act preemption, we previously considered this clause in Rogers. 127 Nev. at ––––, 266 P.3d at 600. In that case, the plaintiff filed suit against Pacificare, her Medicare provider, for injuries resulting from treatment she received at a Pacificare-approved facility under its MA plan. Id. at ––––, 266 P.3d at 598. Similar to this case, the plaintiff asserted that Pacificare was liable for her injuries because it neglected to employ a proper quality assurance program. Id. We did not address whether her claims were preempted by the Medicare Act, however, because Pacificare argued that an arbitration provision included in the parties' contract governed, necessitating dismissal of plaintiff's claims, and thus the question before us was whether Nevada's common law unconscionability doctrine is preempted by the Medicare Act.

In resolving that issue, we considered the express language and legislative history of the Medicare Act's preemption provision. Id. at ––––, 266 P.3d at 600–01. We stated that “[p]rior to 2003, Congress recognized a presumption against preemption unless a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Wehbi
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 17, 2021
    ...when they implicate 'conduct that was governed by federal Medicare standards.'" (quoting Haaland, 292 F.Supp.3d at 1231)); Morrison, 328 P.3d at 1169 (holding that state are preempted "as long as a federal [Medicare] standard exists regarding the conduct at issue"). Finally, because § 1395w......
  • Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Wehbi
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • November 17, 2021
    ...N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp. v. WellCare of N.Y., Inc. , 801 F. Supp. 2d 126, 140 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ); accord Morrison v. Health Plan of Nev. , 130 Nev. 517, 328 P.3d 1165, 1169 (2014) ; Trezza v. Trezza , 104 A.D.3d 37, 957 N.Y.S.2d 380, 387 (2012) ; cf. Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc. , 620 F.3......
  • Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • January 5, 2021
    ...FEHBA and Medicare "to be conceptually indistinguishable" from the preemption analysis under ERISA),3 with Morrison v. Health Plan of Nev. , 130 Nev. 517, 328 P.3d 1165, 1171 (2014) ("ERISA and Medicare are fundamentally different programs and cannot be analyzed in the same way."), and Orth......
  • Quishenberry v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 21, 2021
    ......Pruett for Defendants and. Respondents Health Care Partners Medical Group and Healthcare. Partners LLC. . ... Medicare Advantage (MA) Health Maintenance Organization plan. to Eugene; and Healthcare Partners, which provided physician. ... consumer protection act claims]; Morrison v. Health Plan. of Nev., Inc. (Nev. 2014) 130 Nev. 517, 523 [328 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT