You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Medevac MidAtlantic, LLC v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan

Citations: 817 F. Supp. 2d 515; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98234; 2011 WL 3862845Docket: Civil 10-1036

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; August 31, 2011; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a dispute between a Medicaid managed care organization (MCO), Keystone Mercy Health Plan (KMHP), and an emergency air transportation provider, Medevac MidAtlantic LLC. Medevac alleges insufficient payment for services rendered to KMHP members and seeks redress through several claims, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and a claim under Section 1983 for failure to comply with Medicaid's timely payment provisions. KMHP filed motions to dismiss certain claims and to strike references to billed charges and requests for attorney fees. The court evaluates whether specific Medicaid provisions confer enforceable rights under Section 1983 and whether Medevac qualifies as a third-party beneficiary under Pennsylvania law. The court also considers the applicability of federal and state statutes in determining payment obligations. Ultimately, the court dismisses Medevac's Section 1983 and third-party beneficiary claims but denies the motion to strike references to billed charges. The decision emphasizes the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the rights and obligations of parties involved in Medicaid managed care arrangements.

Legal Issues Addressed

Claims for Attorney Fees in Litigation

Application: The court addresses the recoverability of attorney fees, noting that they are typically not recoverable unless authorized by statute or agreement, or in instances of bad faith conduct.

Reasoning: KMHP moves to strike Medevac’s request for attorneys' fees, as such fees are typically not recoverable under Pennsylvania law unless explicitly authorized by statute or agreement, or in instances of bad faith conduct.

Enforceability of Rights under Section 1983

Application: The court assesses whether specific Medicaid provisions create enforceable federal rights under Section 1983, focusing on the statutory language and congressional intent.

Reasoning: KMHP's motion to dismiss Count I is based on two key assertions: first, that the relevant Medicaid provisions do not confer enforceable federal rights to Medevac, and second, that KMHP does not act under color of state law.

Limitations on Reimbursement for Non-Plan Emergency Providers

Application: The court evaluates statutory limitations on payment obligations to non-plan emergency providers, considering the impact of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Reasoning: Specifically, emergency service providers without a contract with an MCO must accept as full payment only the amounts they would receive under the state's fee-for-service Medicaid program, which is less than the billed charges.

Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Application: The court evaluates whether the complaint adequately alleges material elements to support a viable claim, disregarding legal conclusions and accepting factual allegations as true.

Reasoning: The Court's standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion requires accepting the plaintiff's factual allegations as true while disregarding legal conclusions.

Motion to Strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)

Application: The court considers striking irrelevant or prejudicial material from pleadings, but generally disfavors such motions unless they clarify issues or prevent unnecessary litigation.

Reasoning: Rule 12(f) allows striking irrelevant or prejudicial material, but such motions are generally disfavored unless they serve to clarify issues or prevent unnecessary litigation.

Third-Party Beneficiary Claims under Pennsylvania Law

Application: The court determines whether a contract explicitly indicates an intent to benefit a third party, applying stringent requirements for non-parties to enforce government contracts.

Reasoning: Under Pennsylvania law, a contract may create a third-party beneficiary if it clearly indicates mutual intent to benefit that party.