Nott v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a Medicare+Choice organization did not have a federal right of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395mm(e)(4) and 1395w-22(a)(4)
• concurring with Care Choices HMO as to both the HMO and the MAO provision
• finding 12 The circuit court’s finding of jurisdiction was based on section 86.011, Florida Statutes, and Care Choices HMO v. Engstrom, 330 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2003
• “There is no federal cause of action created by [the statute], let alone one whose pervasive federal character displaces all state cause of action.”
• “[W]hile granting statutory permission to include recovery provisions in their contracts, Congress did not create a mechanism for the private enforcement of subrogation rights of Medicare substitute[s].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).