Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. v. Nielsen
Citation | 714 So.2d 293 |
Parties | BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, INC. v. John O. NIELSEN, D.M.D. 1961757. |
Decision Date | 17 April 1998 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Cavender C. Kimble and Leigh Anne Hodge of Balch & Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham, for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc.
William M. Slaughter and Richard H. Walston of Haskell, Slaughter & Young, L.L.C., Birmingham, for John O. Neilsen, D.M.D.
Bill Pryor, atty gen.; Jeffery H. Long, asst. atty. gen.; and Michael A. Bownes, general counsel, Department of Insurance, for amicus curiae Office of the Attorney General.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified to this Court questions regarding the interpretation of Alabama laws regulating companies that offer health care benefits and regarding whether certain laws designed to protect a patient's right to select his or her doctor, dentist, or pharmacist apply to a company like Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. ("Blue Cross"), which is organized under the provisions of a specific state statute. The specific questions certified are as follows:
The facts, as provided by the Court of Appeals, are as follows (the Court of Appeals certification to this Court is published; see Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 116 F.3d 1406, 1408-09 (11th Cir.1997)):
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Nielsen, 116 F.3d 1406, 1408-09 (11th Cir.1997).
The first question presented could be restated as follows: Did the Legislature, when it adopted acts permitting patients to choose their medical-services providers, intend to exempt Blue Cross from the coverage of those acts? We conclude that Blue Cross is exempted, by the provisions of §§ 10-4-115 and 27-1-4, Ala.Code 1975, from the coverage of what the Court of Appeals has referred to as the Alabama Provider Acts. Section 10-4-115 (1994 repl. vol.), provides:
"No statute in this state applying to insurance companies shall be applicable to any corporation organized under the provisions of this article and amendments thereto or to any contract made by such corporation unless expressly mentioned in this article and made applicable; except, that such corporation shall be subject to the provisions regarding annual premium tax to be paid by insurers on insurance premiums."
Section 27-1-4, Ala.Code 1975 (1986 repl. vol.), a portion of Title 27 ( ), states:
To decide whether § 10-4-115 and § 27-1-4 exempt Blue Cross from the Alabama Provider Acts, we must examine the legislative intent behind these statutes. In discussing statutory construction this Court has stated:
"[When a court] is called upon to construe a statute, the fundamental rule is that the court has a duty to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent expressed in the statute, which may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purpose sought to be obtained."
Ex parte Holladay, 466 So.2d 956, 960 (Ala.1985). In IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992), this Court further stated with regard to statutory construction:
Based upon our reading of these two Code provisions, and applying the principles of statutory construction heretofore adopted by this Court, we conclude that the language of § 10-4-115 plainly and unambiguously states that corporations formed under § 10-4-110 et seq., as Blue Cross was, are not regulated by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ankrom v. State (Ex parte Ankrom)
...no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.'"'"Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nielsen, 714 So. 2d 293, 296 (Ala. 1998) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'q Assocs. Corp., 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992)); see also Tuscaloosa Count......
-
Tulley v. City of Jacksonville
...room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.’ ”“ ‘Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nielsen, 714 So.2d 293, 296 (Ala.1998) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992) ); see also Tuscaloosa County Co......
-
Hicks v. State (Ex parte Hicks)
...room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.” ’“ ‘ “Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nielsen, 714 So.2d 293, 296 (Ala.1998) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992) ); see also Tuscaloosa County ......
-
Town of Gurley v. M&N Materials, Inc.
...no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.” ’ “Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nielsen, 714 So.2d 293, 296 (Ala.1998) (quoting IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.1992)). Furthermore, Courts are ‘not......