Protest 988432-G of Delaney

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because enrollees \were obligated to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing this action.\
• finding that a New York anti-subrogation statute was preempted based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-26(b)(3) and 42 C.F.R. § 422.108(f)
• noting that the complete preemption doctrine will apply where \Congress intended that ... the statute completely supplant all state law causes of action\ (quoting Nott v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. , 303 F.Supp.2d 565 , 568 (E.D. Pa. 2004) )
• dismissing claims arising under the Medicare Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because “Plaintiffs were obligated to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing this action”
• “judicial review of claims arising under the Medicare Act is available only after the Secretary renders a final decision on the 2 The Second Circuit has not always been clear on this point, stating, at times, that on a Rule 12(b)(1
• *A claim ‘arises under’ the Medicare Act (1) if ‘both the standing and substantive basis* for the claim is the Medicare Act, or (2) if the claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a claim for benefits under the Medicare Act.” (citing Heckler, 466 U.S. at 614—-15)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).