Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1263diff_868c.pdf
Page Number: 13

8 

GALLARDO v. MARSTILLER 

Opinion of the Court 

provision falls within the “exception to the anti-lien provi-
sion.”  Ahlborn, 547 U. S., at 284.2 

B 
Gallardo nevertheless argues that §1396k(a)(1)(A) has a
different  meaning,  largely  by  discounting  the  text  of 
§1396k(a)(1)(A)  and  then  relying  on  other  differently
worded provisions or on policy arguments, none of which we 
find convincing.

Insofar as she confronts §1396k(a)(1)(A) itself, Gallardo
largely focuses on its prefatory clause, which provides that 
the “purpose” of the assignment provision is to “assis[t] in 
the collection of medical support payments and other pay-
ments for medical care owed to recipients of medical assis-
tance under the State plan.”  §1396k(a).  Gallardo construes 
this  language  to  limit  the  assignment  provision  to  pay-
ments that are already “owed” for “past medical care pro-
vided under the [state] plan.”  Brief for Petitioner 30. 

Gallardo’s  argument  misreads  the  statutory  text.    The 
prefatory clause does not refer to payments “owed” “under
the State plan,” but rather to “payments owed to recipients 
of medical assistance under the State plan.”  §1396k(a) (em-
phasis added).  In other words, the prefatory language Gal-
lardo invokes defines to whom the third-party payments are 
“owed”—“recipients of medical assistance under the State 

—————— 

2 According  to  the  dissent,  our  conclusion  conflicts  with  the  “back-
ground principl[e] of insurance law” that an insurer’s third-party recov-
ery is limited “ ‘to the same elements as those for which [the insurer] has 
made  payment.’ ”  Post,  at  9  (opinion  of  SOTOMAYOR,  J.)  (quoting  16  S. 
Plitt, D. Maldonado, J. Rogers, & J. Plitt, Couch on Insurance §226:36
(3d ed. 2021)).  But even assuming this principle is relevant as the dis-
sent  supposes,  the  dissent  concedes  that  it  gives  way  if  a  “contractual
ter[m]”—an  assignment  provision,  for  example—permits  a  broader  re-
covery.  Post, at 9; see also, e.g., 16 Couch on Insurance §222:63 (citing 
examples).    Here,  §1396k(a)(1)(A)  mandates  an  assignment  provision 
that does just that.