Harding

Harding v. Summit Medical Center

Good Law
136 F. Supp. 2d 1052·2001 WL 313584·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3620
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 23, 2001C-00-3256 VRWCalifornia1,292 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

Currently before the court is a motion filed by defendant Summit Medical Center and joined by defendant Health Advocates to dismiss plaintiff Dynice Harding’s first amended complaint. The court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Civil LR 7 — 1(b). As a result, the hearing scheduled for March 22, 2001, at 2:00 pm is VACATED. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

I

In Harding’s original complaint, she accused defendants of violating federal and state laws by collecting money from her through a lien on a personal injury settlement that she obtained from a third party. Harding’s primary cause of action was based on a provision of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(C), which provides that state Medicaid plans may not allow medical providers (such as defendants) to attempt to collect from a patient who has received payment from a liable third party. By order filed December 29, 2000, the court concluded that the Medicaid Act does not provide a private right of action. 12/29/01 Order (Doc # 18) at 11. Accordingly, Harding’s claim based on this Medicaid provision was dismissed. Id.

Harding also sought a declaratory judgment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.