Main & Assocs., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. (In re Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala.)
Citation | 90 So.3d 158 |
Decision Date | 17 February 2012 |
Docket Number | 1101464. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Ex parte BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA. (In re Main & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Southern Springs Healthcare Facility v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama). |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Cavender C. Kimble and Jason B. Tompkins of Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, for petitioner.
J. Matthew Stephens, Phillip W. McCallum, Robert G. Methvin, Jr., and Rodney E. Miller of McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Birmingham; and Myron C. Penn and L. Shane Seaborn of Penn & Seaborn, Union Springs, for respondents.
Richard Brockman, Angela Cameron, Monica Nelson Fischer, and Zachary Trotter of Johnston Barton Proctor & Rose, LLP, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Alabama Nursing Home Association, in support of the respondent.
Main & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Southern Springs Healthcare Facility (“Southern Springs”), filed an action in the Bullock Circuit Court, on behalf of itself and a putative class of Alabama nursing homes, against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (“BCBS”), asserting claims of breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, negligence and/or wantonness, and unjust enrichment and seeking injunctive relief. BCBS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division (“the federal court”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(b), arguing, among other things, that SouthernSprings' claims arose under the Medicare Act and that the Medicare Act, as amended by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“the MMA”), Pub.L. No. 108–173 (Dec. 8, 2003), 117 Stat. 2066, completely preempts Southern Springs' state-law claims. Southern Springs moved the federal court to remand the case to the circuit court, arguing that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over its claims. The federal court granted the motion and remanded the case to the Bullock Circuit Court.
After remand, BCBS moved the circuit court for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Southern Springs had not exhausted its administrative remedies and that, therefore, the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Specifically, BCBS argued that Southern Springs had “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief [could] be granted because all of [its] claims, which are ostensibly based on state law, are expressly preempted by the Medicare Act.” BCBS also argued that Southern Springs could challenge BCBS's “alleged conduct only under the Medicare Act and federal standards promulgated thereunder[,] standards [that] are subject to a detailed administrative review process and, if applicable, to subsequent judicial review in federal court.” (Emphasis in original.) The circuit court denied BCBS's motion, and BCBS timely petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss Southern Springs' claims. We conclude that Southern Springs' claims are inextricably intertwined with claims for coverage and benefits under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq., and that, therefore, pursuant to Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984), the claims arise under the Medicare Act and are subject to the mandatory administrative procedures and limited judicial review set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405. Southern Springs has not exhausted its administrative remedies, and the circuit court does not have jurisdiction over its claims. Therefore, we grant BCBS's petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the claims against BCBS.
The following facts are from the opinion of the federal court remanding the case to the Bullock Circuit Court:
Main & Assocs., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 776 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1273–74 (M.D.Ala.2011) (footnote omitted).
Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So.2d 478, 480 (Ala.2003).
BCBS argues that Southern Springs' claims “arise under and are expressly preempted by the Medicare Act, as amended by the MMA, which mandates administrative appeal prior to judicial review only in the federal courts.” BCBS's petition, at 8. BCBS goes on to argue that “[t]he Medicare Act's administrative review process is mandatory and requires presentment [of claims] and exhaustion” of administrative remedies. BCBS's petition, at 8.
The United States Supreme Court has stated: “The third sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), made applicable to the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii, provides that § 405(g), to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising under’ the Medicare Act.” Ringer, 466 U.S. at 614–15.Section 405(g) provides, in pertinent part:
The MMA specifically provides that the judicial review of Medicare Advantage claims must be pursuant to § 405...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Behavioral Health v. Maricopa Integrated Health Sys.
... ... its subsidiary Pacificare Behavioral Health, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellants v. MARICOPA INTEGRATED ... at 614, 624, 104 S.Ct. 2013 ; see Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 90 So.3d 158, 164 ... ...
-
K.L.R. v. K.G.S.
... ... and also the president of Adoption Rocks, Inc., a nonprofit entity that aids in facilitating ... See 2610A34(a), Ala. Code 1975 (allowing payments for ... Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Hodurski , 899 ... I agree with that aspect of the main opinion that dismisses the appeal from the August ... ...
-
K.L.R. v. K.G.S.
... ... and also the president of Adoption Rocks, Inc., a nonprofit entity that aids in facilitating ... See 26-10A-34(a), Ala. Code 1975 (allowing payments for ... Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Hodurski , 899 ... ...
-
United Behavioral Health v. Maricopa Integrated Health Sys.
... ... its Subsidiary Pacificare Behavioral Health, Inc., Plaintiffs/Appellants v. Maricopa Integrated ... governed by the Act); Lone Star OB/GYN Assocs. v. AETNA Health Inc. , 579 F.3d 525, 531 (5th ... (internal citation omitted)); Ex parte Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala. , 90 So.3d 158, ... ...
-
The Shifting Sands of Mandamus Review
...Care, Inc., 91 So.3d 682 (Ala. 2012); and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ex parte Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala., 90 So.3d 158 (Ala. 2012). These are merely exemplary of the innumerable kinds of rulings that need to be reviewed immediately if the injury from the ruling ......