In Vencor, Inc. v. National States Insurance Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Medigap insurance provider was only obligated to pay the rates that Medicare would have paid for the same care.

Clarence Rollins purchased a Medigap insurance policy from National States Insurance Company (NSIC) to supplement his Medicare coverage. When Rollins became ill and required care beyond that which Medicare would cover, he received his medical treatment from Vencor Hospital-Phoenix (Vencor). Upon Rollins's death, NSIC paid Vencor $38,760. Vencor claimed that NSIC owed an additional $132,438 because NSIC was not entitled to the lower care rates established by Medicare. NSIC refused to pay Vencor's higher rates. As a result, Vencor sued NSIC for breach of contract.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held, on a motion for summary judgment, that no breach occurred, and that NSIC was obligated to pay only the lower rates established by Mediare. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.

In Singh v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that defendant Blue Cross/Blue Shield's peer review practices satisfied the immunity standard for professional review actions according to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), and the First Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

After Blue Cross/Blue Shield merged with Bay State Health Care, Blue Cross began to offer “Bay State Health Care” to former Bay State subscribers. Blue Cross denied the plaintiff, Dr. Kunwar Singh, participation in the Bay State Healthcare Network due to poor utilization review. Singh sought reconsideration, and Blue Cross agreed to audit his practices before making a final decision.

In an ongoing class action suit against large tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an opinion on October 15, 2002 making statistical proof available to address plaintiffs’ common questions and prove required elements of consumer fraud.

The dilemmas inherent in tobacco litigation as a mass tort action include overcoming the collective action problem (in particular, the relative legal sophistication, experience, resources, and superior bargaining position of tobacco manufacturers as opposed to scattered individual plaintiffs with limited resources), mobilizing appropriate and persuasive legal theories for recovery, and meeting the standards of proof, all in a timely and cost-effective manner. While some tobacco cases have proceeded on products liability theories of defective or negligent design, many recent cases are grounded in consumer fraud laws.

In D.A.B.E., Inc., v. Toledo-Lucas County Board of Health, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Ohio Revised Code does not grant a local board of health the power to proscribe smoking in all public places as defined by the Lucas County Regional Health District Clean Indoor Air Regulation.

On May 24, 2001, the Board of Health of the Lucas County Regional Health District adopted the regulation in question, prohibiting smoking in all public areas in Lucas County, which were defined as “every enclosed, indoor area to which members of the general public are invited or in which members of the general public are normally permitted.” In addition, the regulation prohibited smoking within twenty feet of any entrance or open window of these public areas and in all vehicles of public transportation.

In Ogborn v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 881, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that while major depression can constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), isolated bouts of depression do not. Furthermore, the court held that an employee's firing after taking medical leave for depression does not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), where evidence shows that the employee would have been fired for poor performance even if he had not taken the leave.

Alleging that he was fired in violation of the ADA and the FMLA, Jerry Ogborn sued his former employer, Local 881 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, as well as the union's vice president. Beginning in 1980, Ogborn worked as a business agent for the union, which represents members employed primarily in the retail grocery industry. Ogborn's duties consisted of visiting retail grocery stores employing workers represented by the union, meeting with members about working conditions, and filing and processing members’ grievances.

In Patel v. Midland Memorial Hospital & Medical Center, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant hospital did not violate the plaintiff's due process rights by suspending his clinical privileges without a pre-suspension hearing, where there were reasonable grounds for assuming that patient safety was at risk. Dr. P.V. Patel, a board-certified cardiologist, brought an action against Midland Memorial Hospital and several of its doctors, alleging that the suspension of his clinical privileges violated his right to a pre-suspension hearing; was the result of racial discrimination; and resulted in anticompetitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Midland's motion for summary judgment. The parties filed cross appeals, Dr. Patel on the ground that there were genuine issues of fact for all of his claims, and Midland on the ground that, with the exception of the civil rights claim, it was immune from all of Dr. Patel's claims under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA).

In Del Carmen Guadalupe v. Agosto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a hospital fulfills its statutory duty to screen patiens in is emergency room if it provides for a “screening examination reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions” that may be afflicting symptomatic patients and if it “provides that level of screening uniformly to all those who present substantially similar complaints.” The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the hospital in a claim raised under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

Maria del Carmen Guadalupe brought her husband, Narciso Figueroa, to the Hospital Interamericano De Medicina Avanzada, Inc., (HIMA) on October 3, 1998, with symptoms of urinary retention, edema in the legs, high blood pressure, pain, increased respiratory difficulty, a dry cough, fever, and drowsiness.