BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
149 (Kehoe)
Hearing Date: 5/26/2009 Amended: As Introduced
As proposed to be
amended by RN 15255
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: None
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 149, an urgency measure, would appropriate
$110,464.40 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice
to pay a settlement in Maternal and Child Health Access v.
Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB). Any funds
appropriated in excess of the amount required for the payment of
this claim shall revert to the General Fund.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Appropriation $110 General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to the committee's rules, the Suspense
File rule does not apply to the provisions of this bill as
judgments and settlement are considered valid obligations of the
state. Additionally, judgments and settlements may have time
sensitivity.
Maternal and Child Health Access v. MRMIB
San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CPF-08-508296
$110,464.40 stipulated settlement
This case challenged the constitutionality of the Access for
Infants and Mothers (AIM) program's six-month durational
residency requirement. Under Insurance Code 12698 (a), access
to the AIM program is restricted to pregnant women who have been
residents of California for at least six months. A coalition of
civil rights groups sued MRMIB alleging that its implementation
of the durational residency requirement violated the United
States Constitution, based upon a long line of Supreme Court
precedent invalidating similar requirements in the health and
welfare context. Article III, Section 3.5 of the California
Constitution required MRMIB to implement the duration residency
requirement, and to defend it in litigation. The court found
Insurance Code 12698 (b) unconstitutional, granted an injunction
prohibiting its continued enforcement, and awarded the
plaintiffs' attorneys fees. The plaintiffs initially demanded
$163,000 in attorneys fees, but after extensive negotiations
this figure was reduced to $110,000 (plus $464.40 in costs).