Fitch et al v. State of Maryland et al, No. 1:2018cv02817 - Document 181 (D. Md. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 6/9/2022. (heps, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fitch et al v. State of Maryland et al Doc. 181 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND KENNETH FITCH,et aL, Plaintiffs, Civil No.PJM 18-2817 V. STATE OF MARYLAND,et al Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case concerns the State of Maryland's subsidized prescription drug benefit program provided to certain retired and current State employees and the State's attempt to mandate transition of those retirees and employees to Part D of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395W-101 et seq. ("Part D")). In the first of two complaints, a group of current retirees (the "Fitch Plaintiffs") and in the second complaint, a number of active State employees represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("AFSCME"), have sued various state defendants, claiming contractual and constitutional rights to the state-subsidized program. See Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 123 ("Fitch Compl."); First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 131("AFSCME Compl."). In a previous Opinion,issued December 30,2021,the Court held that the statutes governing the drug benefit program, Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. ("SPP") §§ 2-508 and 2-509.1, confer upon certain State retirees a contractual right to prescription drug benefits—^namely,those who were retired on or before June 30, 2011, with 16 years or at least 5 years ofcreditable service, 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
