Supreme Court declines to hear JUA appeal

Jun 24, 2025, 11:26 AM

The United States Supreme Court, on June 23, 2025, denied the petition of the Pennsylvania Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) to have the Supreme Court review its case against Governor Shapiro and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The JUA, Pennsylvania’s medical malpractice insurer of last resort, sought to have the Court agree to hear the case and then overturn the finding of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the JUA is a public, not private, entity. The Third Circuit opinion stands, meaning the JUA is deemed a public entity, thereby giving the Commonwealth access to the JUA’s $300 million reserve to spend pursuant to the state budget. The JUA’s reserve consists entirely of unspent premiums collected from PA physicians and the growth from the investment of those funds.

PAMED and the AMA filed an amici curiae brief in support of the JUA petition. The brief argued that the Third Circuit court misapplied the test to determine whether the JUA is a public versus private entity, that Pennsylvania is moving into a “hard” insurance market making the availability of the JUA critical to access to healthcare for Pennsylvanians, and that it is important for the Court to take the case to bring consistency across the county on public versus private entity distinction.  

The Supreme Court was not required to review the Third Circuit opinion. In fact, the Supreme Court agrees to hear very few such cases. According to the federal court website, the Supreme Court only agrees to hear approximately 3% of the more than 7,000 cases brought to it. In this case, the Supreme Court took the step of asking the Commonwealth to file a brief in response to the PAMED/AMA brief, the Court does not always make this request. This demonstrates that the JUA case generated a heightened level of interest for at least one justice.

PAMED continues to explore potential legal recourse for physicians who have paid premiums to the JUA. We will share viable options with the membership when, and if, they are discovered. 

Categories :
Load more comments
avatar
Login to be able to comment

Supreme Court declines to hear JUA appeal

Last Updated: Jun 24, 2025

The United States Supreme Court, on June 23, 2025, denied the petition of the Pennsylvania Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) to have the Supreme Court review its case against Governor Shapiro and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The JUA, Pennsylvania’s medical malpractice insurer of last resort, sought to have the Court agree to hear the case and then overturn the finding of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the JUA is a public, not private, entity. The Third Circuit opinion stands, meaning the JUA is deemed a public entity, thereby giving the Commonwealth access to the JUA’s $300 million reserve to spend pursuant to the state budget. The JUA’s reserve consists entirely of unspent premiums collected from PA physicians and the growth from the investment of those funds.

PAMED and the AMA filed an amici curiae brief in support of the JUA petition. The brief argued that the Third Circuit court misapplied the test to determine whether the JUA is a public versus private entity, that Pennsylvania is moving into a “hard” insurance market making the availability of the JUA critical to access to healthcare for Pennsylvanians, and that it is important for the Court to take the case to bring consistency across the county on public versus private entity distinction.  

The Supreme Court was not required to review the Third Circuit opinion. In fact, the Supreme Court agrees to hear very few such cases. According to the federal court website, the Supreme Court only agrees to hear approximately 3% of the more than 7,000 cases brought to it. In this case, the Supreme Court took the step of asking the Commonwealth to file a brief in response to the PAMED/AMA brief, the Court does not always make this request. This demonstrates that the JUA case generated a heightened level of interest for at least one justice.

PAMED continues to explore potential legal recourse for physicians who have paid premiums to the JUA. We will share viable options with the membership when, and if, they are discovered. 

1 comment

Leave a comment
  1. Heather Hart | Jun 29, 2025
    This seems like a selective taxation on physicians to support non-physician activities for the state. Also seems misleading that we are required to pay for malpractice to practice in the state, yet the money that is paid can be used for anything medical or not. Does this mean that a large settlement bankrupts us all and prohibits us drom practicing medicine? Self-defeating activities for a state already short on physicians. 

    Login to be able to comment

    Leave a comment

    ng5136-PA-PAMedSociety-DigitalAd-Brand-300x225
    Norcal Mutual

    Learn More