ACE American Insurance Company, et al. v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC

When Medicare has made a conditional payment for healthcare services on behalf of a Medicare beneficiary, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A) provides a cause of action to recover double damages from certain primary payers who have failed to reimburse Medicare. Respondent is not Medicare, did not make any conditional payment for healthcare services on behalf of a Medicare beneficiary, and does not seek to recover money for reimbursement to Medicare. Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit held that Respondent has standing to bring suit under § 1395y(b)(3)(A), reasoning in part on policy grounds that Respondent is “‘in a better position,’ when incentivized with double damages, ‘to recover on behalf of Medicare than the government itself.’” App. 16a (citation omitted). In reaching its conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit neither cited nor applied this Court’s precedents for determining when an entity such as Respondent has statutory standing and that establish the standing issue as a matter of statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Fed. Election Comm’n v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014). The issue is recurring and important. The question presented is: Should the Court grant certiorari to review and summarily reverse the decision of the Eleventh Circuit holding that Respondent has statutory standing to pursue a cause of action under § 1395y(b)(3)(A), where the court below neither cited nor applied this Court’s precedents for determining statutory standing in Federal Election Commission and Lexmark, and instead based its determination on policy considerations and general concepts of liability allocation?