King v. Ahrens’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.3d 265 · 1994
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Eberhardt v. City of Los Angeles (1995), Harry v. Marchant (2002)
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1395D (§ 1812 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · In re Disbarment of Sabiston · Pickens v. Lockheed Corp. · United States v. DeLuna
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) Any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital’s violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the participating hospital, obtain those damages available for personal injury under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable • relief as is appropriate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Other courts that have considered this Act have found that, even though it provides civil monetary penalties against both the hospital and the physician, it provides a cause of action only against the hospital and not against an individual physician. See Delaney v. Cade, 986 F.2d 387, 393-94 (10th Cir.1993) (holding plain language of Act provides cause of action only against participating hospitals); Baber v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 977 F.2d 872 , 877-78 (4th Cir.1992) (Act provides no basis for patient to recover personal injury damages from physician); Gatewood v. [Washington Healthcare Corp.], 933 F.2d [1037,] 1040 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1991) (no private cause of action against physicians under the Act) (dicta); Helton v. Phelps County Regional Medical Ctr., 817 F.Supp. 789 , 790 (E.D.Mo.1993) (no cause of action for recovery of damages from physician); Ballachino v. Anders, 811 F.Supp. 121, 123 (W.D.N.Y.1993) (same); Holcomb v. Monahan, 807 F.Supp. 1526, 1531 (M.D.Ala.1992) (same); Jones v. Wake County Hosp. Sys., Inc., 786 F.Supp. 538, 545 (E.D.N.C.1991) (same); but cf. Sorrells v. Babcock, 733 F.Supp. 1189, 1193-94 (N.D.Ill.1990) (district court has subject matter jurisdiction over private action against emergency room physician which alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1395dd). Additionally, there is no basis on which to imply a private cause of action against a physician. A cause of action may be implied in a statute if Congress intended to create a private remedy but did ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) relevant to a material issue, (2) established by a preponderance of the evidence, (3) more probative than prejudicial, and (4) similar in kind and close in time to the events at issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.