The Medicare Advocacy Recovery (MARC) Coalition has filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that it review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Hadden v. U.S. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that Medicare was entitled to a 100% recovery of its conditional payments even though Mr. Hadden was forced to settle for 10% of the case value because the at-fault driver was never found.
The petition claims that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals majority erred in its decision in Hadden v. U.S., stating that the “MSPA’s text, structure and purpose all lead to the conclusion that, where a beneficiary receives a discounted settlement, the government must receive a similar reduction in its recovery.” Furthermore, the petition argues that the issue is a public policy issue of exceptional importance because it affects tens of millions of Americans. Finally, the petition makes the case that Supreme Court review is warranted because the 6th Circuit’s decision in Hadden v. U.S. conflicts with the 11th Circuit’s in Bradley v. Sebelius.
According to the Supreme Court rules, four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case for review. The court usually chooses to hear cases that have national significance, might solve conflicting decisions in the federal circuit courts, and/or have precedential value. The court accepts between 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Those odds may seem low, but this case does meet all three of the Supreme Court’s criteria for review, so it would not be surprising if it decides to hear the case.
To view our 12/30/2011 post on 6th Circuit opinion in Hadden v. U.S., click here.