Lewis v. Clarke, Docket 15-1500

Immunity: Sovereign immunity: Insurances (health): Real party in interest: Medicare:

Clarke notes that courts have extended sovereign im­munity to private healthcare insurance companies under certain circumstances. See, e.g., Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F. 3d 67, 71–72 (CA2 1998); Pine View Gardens, Inc. v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 485 F. 2d 1073, 1074–1075 (CADC 1973); Brief for Respondent 19, n. 4. But, these cases rest on the proposition that the fiscal intermediaries are essentially state instrumentali­ties, as the governing regulations make clear. See 42 CFR §421.5(b) (2016) (providing that the Medicare Administra­tor “is the real party of interest in any litigation involving the administration of the program”). It is well established in our precedent that a suit against an arm or instrumen­tality of the State is treated as one against the State itself. See Regents of Univ. of Cal., 519 U. S., at 429. We have not before treated a lawsuit against an individual employee as one against a state instrumentality, and Clarke offers no persuasive reason to do so now.

(U.S.S.C., April 25, 2017, Lewis v. Clarke, Docket 15-1500, J. Sotomayor).

Immunité selon le Onzième Amendement au bénéfice de l'assurance-maladie sociale Medicare, considérée comme un intermédiaire fiscal, donc comme une instrumentalité de l'administration, de laquelle l'immunité prend sa source. L'immunité peut aussi s'appliquer en faveur des acteurs Medicare du secteur privé.