Doe v. Vermont Office
of Health Access, 2012
VT 15A.
Don’t sequels always disappoint? Today’s case is a re-publishing of a decision
that the SCOV issued back in March and was first summarized here.
Since then, it appears that the parties, most likely the
State, has asked for re-argument and modification to the original
decision. Such requests are common, but
they are rarely granted. It looks like
something in the State’s brief struck a chord.
The revision does not change the outcome. The trial court is reversed, and the amount
that the State gets to claim against Plaintiff’s New York State settlements is
still limited to the amount of payments actually made.
In fact, the primary alterations come around paragraphs 22, 23,
and 24. The new version chops the SCOV’s
broader analysis, which included an entire paragraph dedicated to discussing an
analogous Arizona case. The SCOV also
makes clear that their analysis stops short of any comment on the post-2008
statutory revisions to the state Medicaid lien provisions.
The result is a shorter decision with tighter
reasoning. The SCOV’s new section reads
more decisively.
So that is all. The
case is revised and arguably improved.
It shows that the SCOV is writing with several audiences in mind. First, this change likely came from a party’s
motion, but it also serves the broader legal audience as the final decision
becomes a better and more persuasive document.
But like any sequel, this is just a retread of the original.
Comments
Post a Comment