Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Smith v. Chattanooga Medical Investors, Inc.
No. E2000-01352-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. June 27, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53898
Description
Medicaid-Eligible Patient Denied Readmission to Nursing Facility Is Third-Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Provider and State
Abstract
Because defendant-appellee’s nursing facility breached its
Medicaid contract with the state by failing to readmit
plaintiff-appellant, damages may be awarded to plaintiff-appellant
as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. Plaintiff-appellant,
a paraplegic, had received Medicaid benefits until he became
eligible for Medicare, limited to one hundred days. After admission
to defendant-appellee’s facility as a Medicare patient,
plaintiff-appellant needed urgent medical care and was transferred
to a hospital. When defendant-appellee refused to readmit him upon
discharge, plaintiff-appellant brought an action for breach of
contract, which the trial court dismissed. Reviewing de
novo, the court of appeals rejected defendant-appellee’s
argument that it had no duty to readmit because plaintiff-appellant
was not “medically entitled” to Medicaid-reimbursed
care since the preadmission evaluation the state regulation
required had expired. The court found plaintiff-appellant to be
“Medicaid eligible” under state regulations and a
third-party beneficiary of the provider agreement between the state
and defendant-appellee’s facility. The court held that the
contract required defendant-appellee to comply with all state and
federal rules and regulations governing the readmission of a
patient after the patient’s transfer to a hospital for urgent
medical care.
