Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.
| Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc. | |
|---|---|
![]() | |
| Decided June 21, 2022 | |
| Full case name | Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc. |
| Citations | 596 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| The Medicare Secondary Payer statute does not authorize disparate-impact liability, and the Marietta Plan’s coverage terms for outpatient dialysis were lawful because those terms applied uniformly to all covered individuals. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Kagan, joined by Sotomayor |
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Medicare Secondary Payer statute does not authorize disparate-impact liability, and the Marietta Plan’s coverage terms for outpatient dialysis were lawful because those terms applied uniformly to all covered individuals.[1][2]
References
External links
- Text of Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., 596 U.S. ___ (2022) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.
