Clayworth v. Bonta
James CLAYWORTH, R.Ph, dba Clayworth Healthcare Pharmacy Wayne Roberts Madeleine Madden v. Diana M. BONTA, Director of the Department of Health Services, state of California, and Department of Health Services, a department of the state of California, California Medical Association American Academy of Pediatrics-California District American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-District IX California Chapter American College of Emergency Physicians California Dental Association Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance California Foundation for Independent Living Centers California Pharmacists Association Aids Healthcare Foundation Professional Pharmacy Alliance of California Brain Injury Policy Institute Long Term Care Management Council Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California v. Diana M. Bonta, Director of the Department of Health Services, State of California
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
MEMORANDUM ***
James Clayworth, dba Clayworth Healthcare Pharmacy, and two Medicaid recipients, brought suit against Diana Bonta, in her official' capacity as Director of the California Department of Health Services, and the California Department of Health Services. 1 Separately, a consortium of 14 Medi-Cal service providers and the Disabled Rights Union, a non-profit association of disabled persons, also brought suit against Bonta. From adverse judgments in district court, Bonta brought these appeals, which we have consolidated.
The legal issue here has been resolved by Sanchez v. Johnson, 416 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.2005), filed this date, in which we held *679 that neither Medicaid recipients nor providers have a private right to challenge California’s compliance with Medicaid provision § 30(A) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. The case against the California Department of Health Services was eventually dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity and no cross-appeal has been filed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(reasoning that “[t]he link between the adequacy of reimbursement rates paid to providers and the adequacy of care provided to Medicaid recipients is quite obvious”)
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company
- Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly
- Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins
- Arizona Ass'n of Providers for Persons with Disabilities v. State
- Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins
- Keffeler v. Partnership Healthplan
Most recent
- Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company
- Chris Traylor, as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission And the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Diana D., as Next Friend of KD, a Child Karen G., as Next Friend of TG and ZM, Children Guadalupe P., as Next Friend of LP, a Child Sally L., as Next Friend of CH, a Child Dena D., as Next Friend of BD, a Child OCI Acquisition, LLC
- Keffeler v. Partnership Healthplan
- G. v. Hawaii, Dept. of Human Services
- Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly
- Independent Living v. Shewry
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.