Opinion ID: 2338924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Medicare Act preempts inquiry into whether the arbitration provision is unconscionable

Text: Pacificare argues that Nevada state law governing enforceability of contracts is preempted by the Medicare Act, and that the district court therefore erred in applying Nevada's unconscionability doctrine to invalidate the parties' 2007 arbitration agreement. We agree. Preemption, which provides that federal law supersedes state law, arises from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and may be either express or implied. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Whether state law is preempted by a federal statute or regulation is a question of law, subject to our de novo review. Nanopierce Tech. v. Depository Trust, 123 Nev. 362, 370, 168 P.3d 73, 79 (2007). When a federal act contains an express preemption provision, this court's primary task is to identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) (quotation omitted). That task must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). The preemption provision in the Medicare Act that is at issue in this appeal provides: The standards established under [Part C] shall supersede any State law or regulation (other than State licensing laws or State laws relating to plan solvency) with respect to MA plans which are offered by MA organizations under this part. 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-26(b)(3). In identifying the domain that is expressly preempted by this language, two terms warrant further consideration: standards and any State law or regulation. Id. Because these terms are competently addressed in the recent Ninth Circuit decision Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.2010), we incorporate its analysis into our own.