OHA rule in Oregon

2025It also rejected plaintiff’s argument that HIPAA enti- tled plaintiff to refuse to follow the mandate, because it was “unsupported by legal authority.” The court went on to reject a theory that plaintiff developed late in the proceedings to support her claim for wrongful discharge: “Plaintiff now argues that because she worked at home, she was not required to be vaccinated as her work from home was exempted from the definition of ‘healthcare set- ting.’ [WHA] rightly objects to raising this theory outside of plaintiff’s Complaint, and also argues, nevertheless, Cite as 345 Or App 168 (2025) 17

2025It also rejected plaintiff’s argument that HIPAA enti- tled plaintiff to refuse to follow the mandate, because it was “unsupported by legal authority.” The court went on to reject a theory that plaintiff developed late in the proceedings to support her claim for wrongful discharge: “Plaintiff now argues that because she worked at home, she was not required to be vaccinated as her work from home was exempted from the definition of ‘healthcare set- ting.’ [WHA] rightly objects to raising this theory outside of plaintiff’s Complaint, and also argues, nevertheless, Cite as 345 Or App 168 (2025) 17

2023In conducting that review, we are limited to considering solely “the face of the rule and the laws pertinent to it.” AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dept. of Corrections, 315 Or 74, 79 , 843 P2d 409 (1992). 486 Sarepta Therapeutics v. Oregon Health Authority With that limited scope of review in mind, we set out the federal and state statutory background for OHA’s rule, which involves Oregon Medicaid coverage for prescrip- tion drugs.

2023In conducting that review, we are limited to considering solely “the face of the rule and the laws pertinent to it.” AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dept. of Corrections, 315 Or 74, 79 , 843 P2d 409 (1992). 486 Sarepta Therapeutics v. Oregon Health Authority With that limited scope of review in mind, we set out the federal and state statutory background for OHA’s rule, which involves Oregon Medicaid coverage for prescrip- tion drugs.

2023“Medicaid ‘is a cooperative endeavor in which the Federal Government provides financial assistance to participating States to aid them in furnishing health care to needy persons.’ ” Nay, 360 Or at 670 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 308 , 100 S Ct 2671 , 65 L Ed 2d 784 (1980)).

2023“Medicaid ‘is a cooperative endeavor in which the Federal Government provides financial assistance to participating States to aid them in furnishing health care to needy persons.’ ” Nay, 360 Or at 670 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 308 , 100 S Ct 2671 , 65 L Ed 2d 784 (1980)).

2023“Medicaid ‘is a cooperative endeavor in which the Federal Government provides financial assistance to participating States to aid them in furnishing health care to needy persons.’ ” Nay, 360 Or at 670 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 308 , 100 S Ct 2671 , 65 L Ed 2d 784 (1980)).

2023“Medicaid ‘is a cooperative endeavor in which the Federal Government provides financial assistance to participating States to aid them in furnishing health care to needy persons.’ ” Nay, 360 Or at 670 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 308 , 100 S Ct 2671 , 65 L Ed 2d 784 (1980)).

2021Under these circumstances, the OHA’s claim that the guidance is not a Cite as 314 Or App 809 (2021) 811 rule but, instead, an executive order, rests largely on the arguments of counsel.

2017By contrast, the cases upon which defendant primarily relies-Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F3d 891 (9th Cir 2001) (holding that 38 USC section 5301 (a)(1) precludes prison officials from placing a hold on an inmate’s trust account that was funded with payments of veterans’ disability benefits) and Gossett v. Czech, 581 F3d 891, 894 (9th Cir 2009) (concluding that, when read in conjunction with pertinent regulations such as 38 CFR section 13.71, 38 USC section 5301 (a)(1) “does not prohibit direct payments of [veterans’] benefits to a state hospital for ongoing veteran patient care” (emphases added))—in

2017In Oregon Health Authority v. Cue, 268 Or App 350 , 342 P3d 98 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 324 (2015), we reversed and remanded the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant, which the court had granted on the basis that OHA’s claim against the estate was untimely under ORS 115.005.

2017In Oregon Health Authority v. Cue, 268 Or App 350 , 342 P3d 98 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 324 (2015), we reversed and remanded the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant, which the court had granted on the basis that OHA’s claim against the estate was untimely under ORS 115.005.