Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch
Case Number:
22-1927
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Companies
- American Medical Association Inc.
- American Psychiatric Association
- Center for Medicare Advocacy Inc.
- National Health Law Program
- The Endocrine Society
Government Agencies
Sectors & Industries:
-
April 29, 2024
Trans Patients In NC, W.Va. Prevail In 4th Circ. Health Fight
The Fourth Circuit on Monday affirmed two lower court decisions ordering North Carolina and West Virginia to end discriminatory exclusions for coverage of gender-affirming medical care for transgender people in both states, finding the lower courts properly struck down the policies as "textbook sex discrimination."
-
September 21, 2023
No Bias In Denying Trans Health Coverage, States Tell 4th Circ.
North Carolina and West Virginia defended their health care funding bans on treatments for gender dysphoria Thursday, arguing before the full Fourth Circuit that the prohibitions don't discriminate against transgender people because the laws prohibit everyone on government plans from receiving certain treatments.
-
September 20, 2023
States' Rights, Trans Protections To Collide At 4th Circ.
The full Fourth Circuit will hear arguments Thursday from state-run health plans in North Carolina and West Virginia challenging lower court decisions finding that their coverage exclusions for gender dysphoria treatments amount to unlawful discrimination, weighing in on two cases that experts say could impact employee benefit plans nationwide. Here's what to watch as the states and health plan participants square off before the Fourth Circuit.
-
September 15, 2023
4th Circ. Preview: Transgender Health Care On Docket
The Fourth Circuit's case lineup for the rest of September will see the court delving into transgender health care bans in North Carolina and West Virginia, debating the constitutionality of Maryland's digital advertisement tax and wrestling with an arbitration clause in an accounting firm merger contract.
-
September 01, 2023
September Brings 5 Appellate Benefits Arguments To Watch
In September, federal appeals courts have set oral arguments on several important employee benefits disputes from workers claiming violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and a D.C. Circuit panel will be asked to determine whether Rite Aid violated labor law when changing union retirees' health benefits.
-
July 14, 2023
6 Gender-Affirming Health Care Appeals Attys Should Watch
A crop of discrimination lawsuits challenging state-level gender-affirming care bans and health plan exclusions has quickly bounced up to federal circuit courts, raising the likelihood the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue with major potential impacts for patients and their health plans, attorneys say.
-
May 26, 2023
Red States Urge 4th Circ. To Undo Wins For Trans Health Care
Missouri and 20 other Republican-led states urged the Fourth Circuit to undo a pair of district court decisions requiring state health plans in North Carolina and West Virginia to cover gender-affirming care, arguing states should be allowed to make decisions about the relatively new area of medicine.
-
April 14, 2023
4th Circ.'s 'Rare' Move In Trans Bias Cases Shows High Stakes
The Fourth Circuit's recent decision to take the initiative to rehear two challenges to benefits plan coverage exclusions for gender-affirming care was an uncommon move that reflects the high stakes of the two cases, attorneys say.
-
April 12, 2023
Full 4th Circ. Will Review W.Va. Medicaid Trans Bias Suit
The Fourth Circuit said Wednesday that it would conduct a full court review of a case in which transgender participants in West Virginia's Medicaid program had an exclusion of gender-affirming surgical procedures declared unlawfully discriminatory.
-
March 07, 2023
4th Circ. Panel Skeptical Of W.Va. Trans Patients' Bias Win
A Fourth Circuit panel appeared Tuesday to lean toward undoing a victory for a class of transgender participants in West Virginia's Medicaid program who alleged the state's surgical coverage exclusion for gender dysphoria was unconstitutionally discriminatory, with two conservative judges registering disagreement with the trial court's take on the law.