Conlan v. Shewry
California Court of Appeal
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
- Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Nally v. Grace Community ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. KarrikerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- City of Gardena v. Rikuo Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- County of San Diego v. BowenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.