Monthly Archives September 2013

In CMH Homes, Inc. v. Goodner, 2013 WL 4749906 (8th Cir, Sept. 5, 2013), the Eighth Circuit confronted the unresolved question of how district court calculate amount in controversy where a party seeks compelled arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act: should it follow Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc. v. McGinnis, 526 F.3d 1170 (8th Cir. 2008), and evaluate the amount at stake in the arbitration, or does the U. S. Supreme Court's directive from Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) to look through the arbitration petition to the underlying controversy control? Writing for the panel, Judge Colloton agreed with the district court's decision to follow Vaden, even though Vaden involved federal question jurisdiction rather than diversity jurisdiction.  In doing so, the Court concluded that nothing in either the text of Section 4 of the FAA or the rationale of Vaden suggests that a court…

In Morgan v. Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, 403 S.W. 3d 115 (June 28, 2013), the Missouri Court of Appeals addressed this issue of first impression and reversed the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings, holding that St. Luke’s was not entitled as a matter of law under Section 430.230 to assert a lien on the patient’s claim against a third party tortfeasor where the patient’s insurer had already paid the patient’s bill pursuant to its discounted payment agreement with the hospital.  In this case, the plaintiff had been the victim of a motor vehicle accident, had been treated at St. Luke’s, and her insurer had then paid her discounted bill according to a discounted payment agreement between St. Luke’s and the insurer. St. Luke’s then returned the discounted payment to the insurer, and then filed a lien for 100% of its billed charges on Ms. Morgan’s claim against…

Close