The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reviewing a class action lawsuit against ARcare, Inc. in *Greg Hale v. ARcare, Inc* (8th Cir. 2026), a case that could have significant implications for federally funded community health centers and their legal protections.
ARcare operates as a nonprofit community health center with facilities across Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi. The organization receives federal funding under the Public Health Service Act to provide primary care and related services to communities designated as "medically underserved" by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to 42 U.S.C. § 254b.
The class action lawsuit features seven named plaintiffs seeking to represent themselves and others similarly situated against the healthcare provider. The plaintiffs include Greg Hale, Melissa Johnson, Alicia Gilmore, Michael Whitkanack, Jessica White, and married couple Jacquita and Jeffery Engles. The Engles family is also representing their minor children Marshall Engles and Ana Molina in the litigation.
The case has attracted attention from federal authorities, with the United States filing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellees, supporting the plaintiffs' position. This intervention suggests the case may involve issues of federal regulatory significance or legal interpretations that could affect other federally funded health centers nationwide.
Central to the case appears to be questions surrounding the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, which Congress enacted to grant legal protections to health centers receiving federal funding under the Public Health Service Act. The FSHCAA provides what the statute describes as "absolute immunity" to qualifying health centers "for damage for personal injury, including death" under specific circumstances.
The appeal stems from a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern Division. The case was submitted to the appellate court on April 16, 2025, and the court filed its opinion on Feb. 13, 2026. The three-judge panel reviewing the case consists of Circuit Judges Loken, Gruender, and Grasz, with Circuit Judge Loken authoring the court's opinion.
The timing and structure of this litigation suggest it involves complex questions about the scope of federal immunity protections for community health centers. The FSHCAA's immunity provisions were designed to encourage healthcare providers to serve in medically underserved areas by protecting them from certain types of legal liability. However, the precise boundaries of this protection and when it applies has been the subject of ongoing legal interpretation.
The involvement of multiple family units, including minor children, in the plaintiff class suggests the underlying claims may involve healthcare services provided to families or potentially issues affecting pediatric care. The fact that both parents in the Engles family are named as representatives for their minor children indicates the claims may involve serious health-related allegations.
Community health centers like ARcare play a crucial role in the American healthcare system, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas. These federally qualified health centers serve approximately 30 million patients annually across more than 1,400 health center organizations operating nearly 15,000 service delivery sites nationwide. They are required to provide care regardless of patients' ability to pay and offer services on a sliding fee scale based on income.
The Department of Justice's decision to file as amicus supporting the plaintiffs is noteworthy, as federal agencies typically defend the interests of federally funded programs. This positioning suggests the case may involve interpretation of federal statutes in ways that the government believes are important to clarify, even if it means potentially limiting protections for federally funded health centers.
For healthcare providers operating under federal funding, the outcome of this appeal could establish important precedent regarding the scope of immunity protections under the FSHCAA. The decision may clarify when and under what circumstances these protections apply, potentially affecting how community health centers approach risk management and patient care protocols.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension between providing legal protections to encourage healthcare providers to serve underserved populations while ensuring patients retain appropriate legal remedies when they suffer harm. This balance has been a recurring theme in healthcare law as policymakers attempt to address provider shortages in medically underserved areas.
As the Eighth Circuit considers this appeal, healthcare law practitioners and community health centers throughout the circuit and beyond will be watching closely for guidance on federal immunity protections. The court's decision could influence similar litigation and provide clarity on the interpretation of federal statutes governing community health center operations.