Talk:Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. v. Calad

My purpose is to link CIGNA v. Calad, which was an individual Supreme Court Decision, where CIGNA Healthcare, Inc. challenged Texas Supreme Court rulings in favor of Mrs. Calad, who was insured under her husband's employer's self-funded medical insurance plan in the State of Texas.

The facts that had been established and were in the record were that Mrs. Calad had a hysterectomy in the Hospital, and CIGNA had preapproved 1 day for a hospital stay, which apparently was the "Default" time allocated for hysterectomies. Mrs. Calad was discharged home the day following the surgery, despite the fact her personal surgeon, also a CIGNA-approved physician (with his own contractual relationship with CIGNA), felt Mrs. Ruby needed more time in the hospital. Mrs. Calad was discharged, and later she experienced complications for which she had to be emergently readmitted to the hospital. She sued CIGNA in District Court and won, partly on the basis that Texas had just enacted a law allowing 3rd-party review of Managed Care decisions after the fact to determine whether the Managed Care decision had been negligent, and this determination had found in Ms Calad's favor and she was awarded damages in District Court in the State of Texas. CIGNA appealed to Texas Supreme Court, who ruled in favor of Ms Calad. CIGNA appealed the Texas Supreme Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

This was a Landmark Supreme Court Case. Two cases were heard together because of their similarities, both in occurring in the State of Texas. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila was a case where Mr. Davila's physician gave him a prescription for pain in light of the fact he could not take other oral medications due to stomach problems. The pharmacy would not fill the prescription because it was not on Aetna's "formulary" and offered something else. Mr. Davila's doctor appealed the decision to Aetna, who turned down the appeal. Mr. Davila took the substitute offered by the pharmacy and had severe gastric problems. He had to have part of his stomach removed and now could not take any medications by mouth. The Texas District Court ruled for Mr. Davila and awarded damages, again in light of the new Texas law of after-the-fact review of managed care decisions. Aetna appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, who ruled in Mr. Davila's favor. Aetna appealed the Texas Supreme Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

The CIGNA and Aetna cases were heard together. Making arguments included lawyers for CIGNA and Aetna, a lawyer arguing on behalf of the State of Texas, and some "Friend of the Court" arguments. The ruling was that the Supreme Court struck down the 2 Texas Supreme Court decisions. The case was well-celebrated by the Healthcare Industry and Business industry of major private employers, who were both favored in this decision. MarySteinborn (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed that this article be merged into Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila. Please see the discussion on that article's talk page. LegalSkeptic (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)