Third Circuit holds that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge individual mandate provision of health care reform because they have no current injury.

Jodie L. Hill — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:12:55 +0000

In March 2010, New Jersey physician Mario Criscito, one of his anonymous patients, and New Jersey Physicians Inc., a nonprofit health care organization, filed suit against the U.S. government, arguing that the individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed their complaint for lack of standing.

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, noting that the three plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege any injury in fact:

These allegations are factually barren with respect to standing. The first apparently suggests that Roe pays for his own health care. The second reveals only that, before Roe pays, he chooses his doctor and his method of payment. It provides no specifics as to whom Roe chooses or how Roe pays.

The court affirmed the lower court ruling, holding that, because the mandate will not be enforced until 2014, the plaintiffs could not show they were currently experiencing any financial harm or pressure.

For the full story, click here.

Downtown Lawyer » Uncategorized

Third Circuit holds that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge individual mandate provision of health care reform because they have no current injury.