Roob v. Fisher

Indiana Court of Appeals

Roob v. Fisher

866 N.E.2d 781, 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 1023, 2007 WL 1462388

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 21, 2007

Docket49A02-0602-CV-103

StatusPublished

This text of 866 N.E.2d 781 (Roob v. Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roob v. Fisher, 866 N.E.2d 781, 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 1023, 2007 WL 1462388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

BAKER, Chief Judge.

In our original published opinion, we concluded that neither Medicaid Providers nor Recipients have a private right of action pursuant to Section 1983. Roob v. Fisher, 856 N.E.2d 723 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). The Appellees have filed a petition for rehearing in which they point out that the State conceded the issue of Recipient standing at the trial court level. Moreover, the State did not explicitly challenge the Recipients’ standing in its opening appellate brief. We concluded in our original opinion that the State’s limited mention of the Recipients in its opening brief was sufficient to keep the issue alive. Id. at 732-33. In light of the State’s concession below, however, we now find that it has waived the issue of the Recipients’ standing. Thus, we grant rehearing for the limited purpose of vacating that portion of our original opinion that holds that the Recipients do not have standing in this matter. In all other respects, we deny the petition for rehearing.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with respect to the Recipients, reversed with respect to the Providers, and remanded for proceedings consistent with our original opinion as modified by this opinion on rehearing.

VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REHEARING

BAKER, Chief Judge.

In our original published opinion, we concluded that neither Medicaid Providers nor Recipients have a private right of action pursuant to Section 1983. Roob v. Fisher, 856 N.E.2d 723 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). The Appellees have filed a petition for rehearing in which they point out that the State conceded the issue of Recipient standing at the trial court level. Moreover, the State did not explicitly challenge the Recipients’ standing in its opening appellate brief. We concluded in our original opinion that the State’s limited mention of the Recipients in its opening brief was sufficient to keep the issue alive. Id. at 732-33. In light of the State’s concession below, however, we now find that it has waived the issue of the Recipients’ standing. Thus, we grant rehearing for the limited purpose of vacating that portion of our original opinion that holds that the Recipients do not have standing in this matter. In all other respects, we deny the petition for rehearing.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with respect to the Recipients, reversed with respect to the Providers, and remanded for proceedings consistent with our original opinion as modified by this opinion on rehearing.

VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 N.E.2d 781, 2007 Ind. App. LEXIS 1023, 2007 WL 1462388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roob-v-fisher-indctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack