Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over the taxability of personal property used by a hospital at an outpatient rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff, a hospital owned by a health system, operates a rehabilitation facility in a leased suite. The plaintiff claimed that the personal property used at this facility was exempt from taxation under Connecticut General Statutes § 12-81 (7) or (16), which provide tax exemptions for charitable and hospital property, respectively. The town's assessor denied the tax exemption, and the town's board of assessment appeals upheld this denial.The trial court reviewed the case and sided with the plaintiff, granting its motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that although the plaintiff is part of a health system, the personal property was located at a leased facility, not owned by the health system, and therefore did not fall under the purview of General Statutes § 12-66a. The court concluded that the personal property was exempt from taxation under § 12-81 (7) and (16).The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the personal property used at the rehabilitation facility is taxable under § 12-66a, even if it would otherwise be exempt under § 12-81 (7) or (16). The Court determined that the term "acquired" in § 12-66a includes leased property, not just purchased property. The Court emphasized that the statute aims to protect municipalities from losing tax revenue due to health systems acquiring tax-exempt status for properties they use, whether owned or leased. The Court also clarified that the plaintiff, as part of a health system, falls under the statute's provisions, making the personal property taxable.The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and for further proceedings. View "William W. Backus Hospital v. Stonington" on Justia Law

Roy Lee Williams, a death-row inmate with a history of mental illness, was held in solitary confinement for twenty-six years. Williams filed a lawsuit claiming that his prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) was entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim and that Williams could not prove deliberate indifference under the ADA.Before the summary judgment, the District Court dismissed Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim. Williams appealed both the summary judgment and the dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the Secretary had "fair and clear warning" that keeping Williams in solitary confinement without penological justification was unconstitutional, thus rejecting the qualified immunity defense. The court held that it was clearly established that someone with a known preexisting serious mental illness has a constitutional right not to be held in prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification.Regarding the ADA claim, the court found that the District Court erred in concluding that a trier of fact could not find the DOC deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm caused by placing and keeping Williams in solitary confinement despite his mental illness. The court vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment on both the Eighth Amendment and ADA claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim. View "Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves an encounter between the Hawai'i Police Department (HPD) and Steven Hyer, which resulted in Hyer's death. On June 22, 2018, HPD officers responded to calls about Hyer's erratic behavior. Hyer, who had a history of mental illness, barricaded himself in his apartment. After several hours of failed negotiations and attempts to subdue him, including the use of a Taser and chemical munitions, HPD officers deployed a police dog. When Hyer allegedly threatened the officers with a compound bow, Corporal Torres shot and killed him.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the City and County of Honolulu, and several HPD officers. The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert reports, finding them speculative, unreliable, and containing legal conclusions. The court ruled that the use of force was objectively reasonable and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and various state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in excluding the entirety of the plaintiffs' expert reports, as the reports were based on sufficient facts and data. The Ninth Circuit found that the exclusion of these reports was prejudicial because they created genuine disputes of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the use of deadly force and chemical munitions, as well as potential ADA violations. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment on these claims but affirmed the grant of qualified immunity regarding the use of the police dog, as the law was not clearly established. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "HYER V. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Infusion Center Association (NICA) and other plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act. This program requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, setting a "maximum fair price" between 40% and 75% of the market price. Manufacturers who do not comply face significant fines or must withdraw from Medicare coverage entirely.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed NICA's lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court reasoned that NICA's claims had to be "channeled" through HHS as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405, which mandates that claims arising under the Medicare Act be decided by the relevant agency before being brought to federal court. The district court also dismissed the remaining plaintiffs due to improper venue without NICA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that NICA had standing based on both economic and procedural injuries. The court determined that NICA's claims did not arise under the Medicare Act but rather under the Inflation Reduction Act, and thus did not require channeling through HHS. The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over NICA's claims and reversed the lower court's dismissal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Natl Infusion Center v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The case involves hundreds of plaintiffs who allege that they were injured by the drug Fosamax, manufactured by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Merck), due to inadequate warnings about the risk of atypical femoral fractures. The plaintiffs claim that they would not have taken the drug if they had been properly warned. Merck contends that it proposed a label change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to address this risk, but the FDA rejected the proposed change due to insufficient scientific support.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of Merck, concluding that the plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted by federal law. The court found that Merck had fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the proposed warning and that the FDA had rejected the proposed label change, thus preempting the state law claims. The court relied on the FDA's Complete Response Letter and other communications to determine that the FDA's rejection was based on a lack of sufficient scientific evidence linking Fosamax to atypical femoral fractures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit concluded that the District Court erred in its preemption analysis by giving too little weight to the presumption against preemption. The appellate court found that the FDA's Complete Response Letter was ambiguous and that the District Court placed too much reliance on informal FDA communications and an amicus brief to interpret the letter. The Third Circuit emphasized that the presumption against preemption is strong and that Merck did not meet the demanding standard of showing that federal law prohibited it from adding any and all warnings that would satisfy state law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Fosamax" on Justia Law

In 2021, Hal de Becker contracted COVID-19 and was treated with ivermectin by his personal physician. Hal was later admitted to Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center, where his ivermectin treatment was stopped without consent, and he was administered remdesivir. Hal's condition deteriorated, and he died shortly after being discharged. Hal's family sued the attending doctors and the hospital, alleging negligence, professional negligence, and wrongful death, claiming the doctors and hospital failed to obtain informed consent and made treatment decisions based on media narratives.The Eighth Judicial District Court dismissed the claims against the doctors and the hospital. The court found that the claims against the doctors were barred by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and that the expert affidavit provided by the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of NRS 41A.071. The court also dismissed the claims against the hospital, finding them similarly barred by the PREP Act and that the claims were for professional negligence rather than ordinary negligence.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were for professional negligence and required an expert affidavit under NRS 41A.071. The court found the expert affidavit insufficient as to the doctors because it did not specify acts of negligence separately for each doctor. However, the affidavit was sufficient as to the hospital. Despite this, the court concluded that the PREP Act barred the claim against the hospital because it related to the administration of remdesivir, a covered countermeasure. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "De Becker v. UHS of Delaware, Inc." on Justia Law

In two separate cases, mothers petitioned the Juvenile Court to involuntarily commit their children for inpatient care due to substance use disorders under Massachusetts General Laws c. 123, § 35. E.S. was committed for ninety days, and J.P. for thirty days, following hearings where family members and court clinicians testified about the juveniles' substance use and behaviors.In the case of E.S., the Bristol County Juvenile Court judge found clear and convincing evidence of a substance use disorder, citing E.S.'s history of alcohol and marijuana use, recent positive tests for fentanyl, and concerning behaviors such as stumbling and passing out. The judge also found a likelihood of serious harm due to the imminent risk posed by E.S.'s substance use and the lack of immediate outpatient care options. E.S.'s commitment was affirmed on appeal.For J.P., the Essex County Juvenile Court judge ordered commitment based on testimony about J.P.'s daily marijuana use, behavioral changes, and a single incident of driving under the influence. However, the court clinician did not find J.P. to be a danger to himself or others. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court found the evidence insufficient to support a likelihood of serious harm, noting the lack of clear evidence of imminent risk. J.P.'s commitment order was reversed.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a finding of a substance use disorder under § 35 must be supported by clinical evidence to comply with substantive due process. The court affirmed E.S.'s commitment but reversed and vacated J.P.'s commitment, remanding the case for entry of an order consistent with its opinion. View "In the Matter of J.P." on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

M.G. and C.V., medically fragile children under New Mexico’s Medicaid program, sued the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) for failing to provide the private duty nursing (PDN) hours they are entitled to. They sought a preliminary injunction to compel HSD to take good faith steps to provide these hours. The district court granted the injunction, and HSD appealed.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico found that M.G. and C.V. were consistently not receiving their required PDN hours, which placed them at risk of severe medical harm. The court concluded that M.G. and C.V. were likely to succeed on the merits of their Medicaid Act claims, which mandate the provision of PDN services. The court also found that the children would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs, and that the injunction was in the public interest. The injunction required HSD to take specific steps, such as negotiating with managed care organizations and increasing monitoring of PDN hour shortfalls, to provide the necessary PDN hours.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that M.G. and C.V. had standing to seek injunctive relief and that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The court found that the injunction was not impermissibly vague and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. did not preclude the issuance of the injunction. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, given the likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest. View "M.G. v. Armijo" on Justia Law

Carl McDaniel, a Wisconsin prisoner with multiple serious medical conditions, sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, claiming the Department violated his rights by denying him a cell in a no-stairs unit, a single-occupancy cell, and a bed without a top bunk. He also brought an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Salam Syed, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department on all claims and for Dr. Syed on the Eighth Amendment claim. McDaniel appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin initially handled the case. McDaniel, representing himself, submitted evidence that he missed approximately 600 meals in one year due to the pain and difficulty of navigating stairs to access meals and medications. The district court, however, largely discounted McDaniel’s factual statements and granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that McDaniel’s cell assignment was reasonable and that his medical treatment did not violate the Eighth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the Department on the claims for a single-occupancy cell and no top bunk, as well as the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Syed. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the refusal to assign McDaniel to a no-stairs unit. The court found that McDaniel presented sufficient evidence that the denial of a no-stairs unit effectively denied him access to meals and medications, which could be seen as an intentional violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The court also held that McDaniel’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims for compensatory damages survived his release from prison and his death.The Seventh Circuit concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the denial of a no-stairs unit amounted to an intentional violation of McDaniel’s rights under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and that the Department was not entitled to sovereign immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "McDaniel v. Syed" on Justia Law