Legal Opinion

Conlan v. Shewry

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 15, 2005No. A106278PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

POLLAK, J. —

Nearly three years ago, this court interpreted state and federal law governing Medi-Cal, California’s implementation of Medicaid, to require that beneficiaries receive reimbursement for covered medical expenses incurred during the three-month period before they apply for assistance (the retroactivity period). (Conlan v. Bontá (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 745 [125 Cal.Rptr.2d 788] (Conlan I).) In order to comply with federal law, we held the California Department of Health Services (DHS or the Department) must provide a means by which those who incur covered expenses during the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Nally v. Grace Community ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Griset v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. KarrikerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. City of Gardena v. Rikuo Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. County of San Diego v. BowenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  5. 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022

1 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