Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment in Affordable Care Act "Reinsurance" Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.08.19
In Conway v. United States (October 3, 2019), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Colorado HealthOp, in a case of first impression relating to Reinsurance payments owed pursuant to §1341 of the ACA, which HHS had offset against other ACA payments it claimed Colorado HealthOp owed to HHS. The Court decided on the merits that: (i) Section 1341 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Colorado insurance liquidation law applies to prohibit HHS’ unilateral offset of Reinsurance payments to Colorado HealthOp; and (iii) HHS’ “Netting Rule” does not preempt Colorado law. Importantly, the Court held that HHS’s Netting Rule, which explains the method by which HHS would aggregate and offset monies owed by or to different insures under various ACA payment programs, lacks statutory authority and therefore does not preempt state law, and as a result, HHS does not have an offset right in an insurance liquidation proceeding. Analyzing the ACA, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Colorado insurance liquidation statute, and Colorado Supreme Court case law, the Court agreed with Colorado HealthOp that HHS cannot leap-frog claimants with higher priority under the liquidation priority scheme by effectuating an offset. The Court noted that the federal policy expressed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and its application to priority schemes that protect policyholders’ commercial expectations weigh against displacing Colorado’s policyholder-protecting priority scheme with a uniform federal rule of administrative efficiency. The Colorado HealthOp decision is a significant decision regarding the ACA’s Reinsurance program, and the most recent in a string of ACA-related decisions involving C&M (previously discussed here and here).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
DOJ Promises NPAs to Certain Individuals Through New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Pilot Program
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.23.24
