Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog

MEDICAID EXPANSION IN MISSOURI: EQUAL PROTECTION FROM & OF THE VOTERS.

In Doyle v. Tidball, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. SC 99185, 2021 WL 3119116 (Mo. July 22, 2012), the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously held that the effect of the plain language of the voters' State Constitutional Amendment requires equal protection if the Missouri Legislature appropriates any money for Medicaid (as it must under other requirements of law).

          The Missouri State Constitution Medicaid Expansion Amendment extends the eligibility of Medicaid in Missouri.  It does not affect the appropriation of funds, the Court ruled.

          However, the funds that have been appropriated (so far) by the Missouri Legislature are intended to be applied equally -- even if the funds appropriated are inadequate to the task.

          The Court ruled that "the plain language of the purposes stated [in the appropriations bills is] to fund MO HealthNet without distinguishing between benefits provided to individuals who are eligible as part of the pre-expansion population and those eligible only under article IV, section 36(c) [the Missouri State Constitution Medicaid Expansion Amendment]."  Doyle v. Tidball, 2021 WL 3119116, at *6.

          That's how Medicaid Expansion was upheld in Missouri:  The Missouri Supreme Court rejected any notion that the Missouri Legislature attempt to impose inequality in health care in a pandemic.

          That's the rest of the -- real -- story here.  Much has been written about the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in the popular press, but I have not seen this published anywhere else as yet.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHERE BREACH OF CONTRACT MEETS IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH.

In Colwell v. MCNA Ins. Co., 960 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa 2021) (emphasis in original), the unlabeled synopsis at the outset of the published decision, printed even above the identification of the Justice who wrote the opinion for the Court, states:

The defendants appeal the district court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff finding breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. AFFIRMED.

         The Iowa Supreme Court's opinion refers only to the breach of contract conduct, so far as I can find from reading the opinion.  When the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial court's bench-trial judgment for the plaintiff on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, necessarily they also unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff on the plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

          Judgment was entered by the trial court on both claims, it appears.  Therefore, an appeal from that judgment was an appeal from judgment for the plaintiff on both claims, and so the Supreme Court's affirmance of the trial court's judgment was an affirmance of judgment for the plaintiff on both claims.

          Apparently in some cases at least, breach of the implied covenant and breach of contract can result in a judgment on both claims, such that appealing the judgment decides the appellate fate of not one but both of the claims.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.