Photo of Chad R. Fuller

Chad R. Fuller

Subscribe to Chad R. Fuller's Posts

Chad is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice with a primary focus in financial services litigation. He is an accomplished trial attorney who has served as lead counsel in state and federal courts across the country in which he represents clients in consumer class actions and general business litigation. Chad has particular speciality with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and has also broadened his practice into more traditional areas of health care litigation.

Follow:Read more about Chad R. FullerChad R.'s Linkedin Profile

On October 15, the California Hospital Association (CHA) filed a petition against the California Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) and related entities. The petition challenges the imposition of stringent cost targets on hospitals across California, arguing that these targets are arbitrary, capricious, and not based on comprehensive data analysis. CHA contends that the cost targets violate both state and federal laws, including the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, by being confiscatory and lacking a clear methodology for compliance. Furthermore, the petition asserts that OHCA’s actions were prematurely implemented without adequate stakeholder engagement, potentially leading to significant operational disruptions and threatening the quality and accessibility of health care services.

On September 17, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144) into law, a move in response to recent changes in immunization recommendations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill, which took effect immediately, mandates that health plans cover a wide range of preventive care services, including immunizations, without cost-sharing or utilization management. This legislation is particularly noteworthy for its implications on vaccine coverage requirements.

There has been a flurry of recent activity in a case originally filed by six air ambulance companies claiming $20 million in unpaid emergency services invoices. On June 11, Aetna filed a counterclaim against REACH Air Medical Services LLC, CALSTAR Air Medical Services LLC, Guardian Flight LLC, Med-Trans Corporation, Air Evac EMS Inc., and AirMed International LLC based on alleged manipulation of the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (NSA). On July 2, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaim.

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision does not confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, which affirmed the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to sue state officials for excluding Planned Parenthood from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.

Background…

In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.

On June 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant opinion in the case involving Guardian Flight, LLC and Med-Trans Corporation, two air ambulance providers, against the defendant insurance company. This case centered around the enforcement of Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) awards under the No Surprises Act (NSA), a law enacted in 2022 to protect patients from unexpected medical bills from out-of-network providers during emergencies.

Last month, we discussed the motion filed by the National Consumers League and four small business owners to intervene in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited. v. FCC. This motion aimed to challenge the Eleventh Circuit panel’s decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule. Last week, the District of Columbia, along with 27 states, filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing en banc.

In Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, ‎— F.4th —-, 2025 WL 289152 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)‎, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit came to the rescue of the lead generation industry, striking down new regulations that were set to go into effect on January 27. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), ‎47 U.S.C. § 227‎, sellers and telemarketers are prohibited from making certain telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice messages without “prior express consent.” On December 18, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order adopting rules aimed at closing what it termed the “lead generator loophole” (2023 order). The FCC objected to lead generators using a single webform to obtain prior express written consent for a list of marketing partners. The FCC also objected to webforms that obtained broad consent for marketing calls about a wide-range of products and services. ‎ The 2023 order adopted a new definition of “prior express written consent” that would have prohibited consumers from giving consent to receive marketing calls from more than one company at a time or about products and services that were not “logically and topically associated with” those promoted on the website. The Eleventh Circuit held that the FCC exceeded its authority under the TCPA because the consent restrictions conflicted with the ordinary meaning of “prior express consent.” This decision is consistent with the recent shift in the willingness of federal courts to review administrative decisions after the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024)‎.

In a previous post, we discussed the oral arguments held on December 18, 2024, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenged the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which aimed to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole” and requiring “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule was set to take effect on January 27, 2025. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.