Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<p>On September 9, 2023, the 9th Circuit held that the CARES Act doesn't create a private right of action for providers to sue payors for COVID-19 reimbursement disputes. In the lawsuit, an out of network provider brought 5 causes of action against Aetna seeking the difference between what Aetna reimbursed the provider for its COVID-19 tests and the provider's posted cash price. </p><p>"The use of mandatory language requiring reimbursement at the cash price does not demonstrate Congress’s intent to create such a right. " <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/public/desktop/document/SaloojasIncvAetnaHealthofCaliforniaIncDocketNo22160349thCirJul182">Saloojas, Inc. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., Docket No. 22-16034 (9th Cir. Jul 18, 2022), Court Docket</a></p><p>The case was an appeal of a motion to dismiss filed by Aetna. The 9th Circuit reviewed the statute to determine if Congress intended to create a private right and a private remedy, noting that the "central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action." <em>Id. </em>The 9th Circuit found that because the language of the statute focused on the regulated party (in this case the payors) and that the providers were simply the object of the regulatory party's obligation that the CARES Act didn't have language sufficient to create a private right of action for providers to sue payors. The 9th Circuit noted that it was the first circuit to rule on this issue but that all the district courts faced with the issue concluded that no private right of action exists under the CARES Act.</p><input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102infr'/><div class="passle-featured-image passle-featured-image-position-bottom"><img src="https://images.passle.net/fit-in/400x400/filters:crop(38,0,2181,1230)/Passle/5f6edd8e8cb62a0bec3e5fd2/SearchServiceImages/2023-09-08-14-47-18-025-64fb33f69b0b3cdbf9dc7299.jpg" alt="Featured Image" /></div>

9th Circuit Holds that CARES Act does not provide a private right of action to enforce violations of § 3202

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.

Federal Court Blocks Oregon EPR Law — Implications Beyond Oregon

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.

Federal Court Blocks Oregon EPR Law — Implications Beyond Oregon

Slide Menu

Slide Search