⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears a patient's challenge to the loss of intensive rehabilitation therapy and her discharge from Helen Hayes Hospital. Marungo says the hospital reduced her therapy after Medicare coverage ended in 2020 and disregarded decisions made by her health-care agents. She seeks damages from hospital officials, not simply payment of Medicare benefits. An earlier suit arose from the same hospital stay; the district court relied on its prior rulings when dismissing this later-filed action. The threshold question is jurisdiction, the court's authority to hear a claim. One issue is whether her claims must first go through Medicare's administrative review process. Another is issue preclusion, also called collateral estoppel: whether a question already decided in the first case can be litigated again. She relies on Section nineteen eighty-three, which provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The judges will also examine whether the complaint alleges personal involvement by the officials she sues. Attorney Pham, for Marungo, will argue that medical decision-making rights are separate from Medicare funding. Tina Bhatt, for the officials, will urge the court to treat the claims as Medicare disputes already resolved in the earlier litigation.

Silas Marungo v. Coletti (No. 26-337) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 28, 2026.