Palmer v. St. Joseph Healthcare

7 Citing cases

  1. Alliance Health of Santa Teresa, Inc. v. National Presto Industries, Inc.

    137 N.M. 537 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that ERISA expressly preempts state law claims that sufficiently relate to ERISA plans

    " Largo v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Ry., 2002-NMCA-021, ¶ 5, 131 N.M. 621, 41 P.3d 347. "We interpret the intention of Congress and the meaning of its statutes de novo." Palmer v. St. Joseph Healthcare P.S.O., Inc., 2003-NMCA-118, ¶ 17, 134 N.M. 405, 77 P.3d 560, cert. granted, 134 N.M. 374, 77 P.3d 278 (2003), dismissed, 2004-NMCERT-010, 136 N.M. 542, 101 P.3d 808. Furthermore, in reviewing a motion to dismiss, "all well-pleaded factual allegations" are accepted as true, and all doubts are resolved "in favor of the sufficiency of the complaint." Padwa, 1999-NMCA-067, ¶ 8, 127 N.M. 416, 981 P.2d 1234. The only question is "whether the plaintiff might prevail under any state of facts provable under the claim.

  2. United Rentals Northwest, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co.

    NO. CIV 08-0443 RB/DJS (D.N.M. Mar. 9, 2009)

    The term "relating to" has been construed in other contexts, and is generally held to have a broad meaning unless a narrow construction is what the legislature intended. Palmer v. St. Joseph Health Care P.S.O. Inc., 134 N.M. 405, 413, 77 P.3d 560, 568 (N.M.Ct.App. 2003) (discussing the terms "relating to" and "relates to" as found in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, ERISA preemption, and the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965). A lease agreement covering equipment used at a construction site clearly is an agreement "relating to construction," as defined in N.M. Stat. § 56-7-1(D).

  3. United Rentals Northwest, Inc. v. Yearout Mechanical

    Civ. No. 08-00050 RLP/CD (D.N.M. Sep. 9, 2008)

    The term "relating to" has been construed in other contexts, and in generally held to have a broad meaning unless a narrow construction is what the legislature intended. Palmer v. St. Joseph Health Care P.S.O. Inc., 134 N.M. 405, 413, 77 P.3d 560, 568 (Ct.App. 2003) (discussing the terms "relating to" and "relates to" found in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, ERISA preemption and the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965). A lease agreement covering equipment used at a construction site is an agreement "relating to construction" as defined in § 56-7-1.

  4. Olsen v. Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc.

    380 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D.N.M. 2004)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that case was improperly removed even though plaintiff alleged that a Medicare provider breached contract and denied coverage solely on the basis of its financial interest

    The Medicare Act does not completely preempt all state law claims. See Hofler v. AETNA U.S. Healthcare of Cal., Inc., 296 F.3d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding Medicare Act does not preempt state law claims against healthcare providers);Ardary v. AETNA Health Plans of Cal., Inc., 98 F.3d 496, 501 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding administrative procedures under Medicare Act do not preempt state law claims when claims do not "arise under" the Act);Nott v. AETNA U.S. Healthcare. Inc., 2004 WL 103176 (E.D. Pa. Jan, 23, 2004) (holding the Medicare Act does not preempt state law claims because (i) there is no civil enforcement scheme under Medicare to replace the state law system and (ii) the Act does not clearly express Congressional intent to preempt all state law claims); Palmer v. St. Joseph Healthcare P.S.O., Inc., 77 P.3d 560, 134 N.M. 405 (Ct.App. 2003) (holding Medicare Act does not preempt claims against health care providers under New Mexico. law). Olsen suggests that 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-26 preempts his state law claims and that he must proceed in a federal forum.

  5. Schmidt v. Tavenner's Towing & Recovery, LLC

    2019 NMCA 50 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, pre[ ]emption will not lie unless it is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." CSX Transp, Inc. v. Easterwood , 507 U.S. 658, 663-64, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. , 505 U.S. 504, 516-17, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (stating that "[c]onsideration of issues arising under the Supremacy Clause starts with the assumption that the historic police powers of the [s]tates are not to be superseded by Federal Act unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress" and that "Congress’ enactment of a provision defining the preemptive reach of a statute implies that matters beyond that reach are not preempted" (alterations, omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); see also Palmer v. St. Joseph Healthcare P.S.O., Inc. , 2003-NMCA-118, ¶¶ 38-39, 134 N.M. 405, 77 P.3d 560 (stating the general preemption principles applied by appellate courts in New Mexico, including the "strong presumption against preemption" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {8} Tavenner’s argues that the FAAAA expressly preempts Plaintiffs’ state common-law claims.

  6. Lohman v. Daimler

    142 N.M. 437 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 126 times
    Finding damages potentially recoverable under the UPA for losses caused by defective seatbelts, including diminution of vehicle value, deprivation of benefit of the bargain, and cost of repair

    {11} Acknowledging Buckman, the New Mexico Supreme Court has observed that the states do not police fraud against federal agencies. See Palmer v. St. Joseph Healthcare P.S.O., Inc., 2003-NMCA-118, ¶ 56, 134 N.M. 405, 77 P.3d 560 ("[P]olicing fraud against federal agencies is hardly a field which the States have traditionally occupied." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

  7. Kirby v. Tad Resources International, Inc.

    136 N.M. 148 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that res judicata did not bar the plaintiff's claim against her employee benefits plan, even though payments would be administered by an insurance company that had been dismissed from an earlier suit on res judicata grounds, because there existed an attempt to distinguish between the insurer in its capacity as a corporate entity versus its capacity as a fiduciary or representative responsible for administering the plan

    {14} We review summary judgment de novo when the material facts are undisputed. Palmer v. St. Joseph Healthcare P.S.O., Inc., 2003-NMCA-118, ¶ 17, 134 N.M. 405, 77 P.3d 560. "We interpret the intention of Congress and the meaning of its statutes de novo."