Gallardo v. Marstiller (20-1263)

argument 20-1263

Gallardo v. Marstiller

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 45m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is Medicaid and why is it considered a benefit, not a loan?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case twenty twelve

Chris J. Gowdy 0:02

sixty three, Gayardo versus Marstiller. Mr. Gowdy? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Medicaid provides a benefit to persons needing medical care. It is not a loan to be repaid later. The anti-lean and anti-recovery provisions, part of the original 1965 Medicaid law, reflect this policy by prohibiting states from taking any property belonging to the To a beneficiary, including her third party liabilities. But in 1968, Congress, in sub-paragraphs A and B, established a limited pool of third-party liabilities from which a State could seek reimbursement for Medicaid expenses. States were directed and I quote to ascertain the legal liability of third parties to pay for care and services available under the plan and to seek reimbursement to the extent of such legal liability.

Chris J. Gowdy 1:11

A liability for future medical expenses does not pay for care available under the Medicaid plan and thus is not part of the pool of reimbursement funds. The procedural tools enacted by Congress after 1968 did not change the pool of reimbursement funds. To the contrary, subparagraph H confirmed. terms that a state acquires only a beneficiary's rights to third party payments and I quote for health care items or services furnished. To the beneficiary. Finally, Florida's isolated reading of the assignment clause cannot be right because it forces beneficiaries to make lifetime assignments, leading to absurd results that convert Medicaid from a benefit to a loan.

Clarence Thomas 2:08

Um council, the um uh the limitations that you would uh apply in this case to the assignment. Would you also apply it to child support?

Chris J. Gowdy 2:24

Um they apply the they apply the same, Your Honor, however, child support works differently than a tort recovery. Child support normally requires ongoing payments to cover all of the child's medical care. A tort payment is a one-time payment for limited medical care that was caused by the tort. So there it's a Well I

Clarence Thomas 2:51

understand that, but you you said that these provisions limit uh the the provision you're talking about, the assignment provision, is very broad. Yes. It doesn't have these built in limitations. And I will take I will also agree that perhaps child support is very broad in a different way. Um but you said that the And they appear generally in the same part of the statute, but you say that the provisions that you mentioned restrict uh the assignment, uh the broad assignment language. Why doesn't that also apply to the child support language?

Chris J. Gowdy 3:32

Well, Your Your Honor, the analysis would still be the same whether it's child support or tort recovery. The analysis would be the the medical care and I said yes when you said it is very broad, but the medical care mentioned in the assignment clause, in our view, when read in the whole text is shorthand for medical care covered by Medicaid, furnished the case. furnished by Medicaid, paid for by Medicaid. And therefore the analysis will be whether the third party liability covers the same care, service, or item covered by Medicaid. And my point about distinguishing between tort recoveries and child care is tort recovery uh does often pays for uh items, care, and service not covered by Medicaid. Uh for example, uh if you're a disabled person, uh you will need a special uh vehicle with medical equipment to be transported to your appointments.

Chris J. Gowdy 4:42

Medicaid does not cover for that, but a tort visor may have to pay for that. Child care, I think, is different in the r other regard in that child care requires the parent to pay for all medic medical care, whether it is covered by Medicaid or not. And therefore, I I think it will operate differently in that context than in the tort recovery context. Thank you. Um I'd like to turn back to the uh the third party liability provision if the court doesn't have any questions. The Solicitor General has correctly uh stated this is the anchor or main provision that sets a state's general duty to reinvert reimbursement. And to quote a little bit more than I did in my opening, in sub subparagraph B, it says where such