Business Law case study

business law case study to be done on Kozloski V. American Tissue Services Foundation Date: 11/01/2015 Categories Information Points Case Info National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)(P) V. Sebelius (D) 132 S. Ct 2566 Supreme Court of the United States 0 Names of The Courts Website Address of the Court Systems: http://www.find.uscourts.gov/index.cfm http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ http://www.supremecourt.gov/ (10) Trial Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida Intermediate Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Highest Court: Supreme Court of the United States Facts Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 and later President Obama signed the Act into Law. The main purpose and objective of the (PPAC) Act is to, increase the number of coverage for all Americans to have health insurance and this in turn will decrease the cost associated with health care for everyone. This Act mandates that any American without health insurance coverage will need to pay a “penalty” to the IRS. When the Act was signed into law, 26 states, private individuals, and organization (Independent Businesses) brought allegations that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Taxing Clause gave Congress authority to enact the individual mandate. Federal district court and appeals court agree and The Supreme Court granted certiorari. (5) Rule of Law The individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires Americans to be protected by health insurance, however, the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance, and it instead imposes a Tax on those without health insurance. The Constitution fully permits such a Tax and thus the Individual Mandate is considered constitutional. (15) Definitions Severable: Capable of being treated as separate from whole legal right or obligation Commerce Clause: Portion of Article 1, Section 8 that gives authority to Congress the power to regulate commerce with in State(s) and foreign nations. Interstate Commerce: Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. In order for congress to individually mandate this, the existing commercial activity must already be in place. (5) Writ of Certiorari: A petition asking the Supreme Court to hear a case Issue 1) Does Congressional Law requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty unconstitutional? 2) Does Congressional Law requiring States to choose between complying with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or loss of federal funding for Medicaid unconstitutional? (10) Trial Court Argument: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida The Act requiring the expansion of the Medicaid (minimum standards parameter for health insurance policies) program violates the U.S. Constitution. The individual mandate to purchase health insurance exceeds the limited authority of Congress, and therefore is also considered unconstitutional. (5) Trial Court Argument: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce by increasing health care cost for all Americans. The Act requires States to meet the parameters of expanding Medicaid, otherwise funding for states on Medicaid coverage will discontinue. (5) Ruling Of Trial Judge Judge, Roger Vinson, granted that the States/(NFIB) claim that the Act’s expansion of Medicaid is considered unconstitutional by violating the 10th Amendment. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States and individuals. Also, the Individual Mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act and therefor overturned the entire Act. (5) Who Appealed The Federal Government appealed and the States cross appealed as to the Medicaid Expansion (5) Intermediate Appellant’s Court Argument- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit The Act requiring the expansion of the Medicaid (minimum standards parameter for health insurance policies) program violates the U.S. Constitution, but granting congress too much authority over the rights of Individuals and State. (10) Intermediate Appellee’s Court Argument- U.S. Court of Appeals for Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce by increasing health care cost for all Americans. (10) the Eleventh Circuit Ruling of Intermediate Appellate Court Court Name: Affirmed that the Individual Mandate was outside of Congress’s authority, but that the Mandate is severable and kept the remaining Act. Ruled that the Medical Expansion is constitutional and severable from the remaining Act. (5) Who Appealed The Federal Government appealed and the State Highest Appellant Court Argument Court Name: National Federation of Independent Business and States claim that Congress does not have authority to Mandate Individual Health Care by imposing a Penalty to Americans without Health Insurance. States should not be overpowered by discontinuing Medicaid funding if States do not comply with the Medicaid Expansion parameters. (10) Highest Appellee Court Argument Court Name: Congress has the authority to Mandate Individuals Health care under the Commerce Interstate clause and States should be penalized by not participating in the Medicaid Expansion parameters. (10) Ruling of Highest Appellate Court Court Name: 1) The court ruled that Individual Mandate, imposing minimum essential coverage requirement under which certain individuals must purchase and maintain health insurance coverage, exceeded the Commerce Clause 2) The Individual Mandate was a “Tax” on American’s without Health coverage is within Congress’s Tax Authority under the constitution 3) Authority given to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to penalize States that chose not to participate in Act’s expansion of Medicaid program exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause 4) Penalization provision was severable Affirmed (5) Your Opinion (5) If You Were CEO (5) Point Deducted Total Points deducted from above categories For Late Papers, Deduct Due Date: Presented: (-25) If you copy the judge’s words (-15) If you copy copyrighted words (-100) If you do not follow directions No Attachments (-5) Incomplete Chart (-5) (-30) Not All Stapled Together with one staple (-5) Using People’s Name (-5) Using of Plaintiff or Defendant; Appellant, Appellee, etc (-5) Not Rounding off dates and/or Numbers (-5) Other (-5) For Every Grammatical and Spelling Error (-1) If you read or give a memorized presentation (-15) No Oral Report (-25) For Every Minute you go over the 5 Minuet Limit Time Started:_______Time Ended:_____ (-1) Final Grade for Case Study: _____________________________________________/100 business law case study to be done on Kozloski V. American Tissue Services Foundation