Legal Opinion

Taransky v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 29, 2014No. 13-3483PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises under the Medicare as a Secondary Payer Act (MSP Act), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2). Appellant Cecelia A. Taransky, a Medicare beneficiary, contends that she is not required to reimburse the Government 1 for conditional medical expenses that it advanced on her behalf. We disagree.

I

Medicare is a federal entitlement program that provides health insurance benefits to qualified elderly and disabled individuals. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2). When first enacted, Medicare paid its beneficiaries’ medical expenses, even if beneficiaries could recoup them…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Temple University Hospital v. Secretary United States DeptCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2021
  2. Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Big Y Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2022
  3. Collins v. Wellcare Healthcare Plans, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2014
  4. Humana Medical Plan, Inc. v. Western Heritage InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2015
  5. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. GuerreraDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2018

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API