186 F. Supp. 2d 105 - Healey v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395B (§ 1803 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) failing to provide written notice when home health agencies deny, reduce, or terminate home health services; (2) failing to provide a statement of the rationale for the change in benefits, a notice that the beneficiary may contest the change, and an explanation of how to use the appeal process; (3) neglecting to establish an effective demand bill procedure; and (4) refusing to provide for a pre-deprivation review process during the appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lutwin v. Thompson“situations where care is reduced or terminated in accordance with a physician's order; that is, where the services at issue are not ordered by a physician or where the physician agrees with [the HHA's] assessment that the services are not or are no longer reasonable and necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lutwin v. Thompson“); see also Health Care Financing Administration, Transmittal A-02-017 (Feb. 26, 2002) (Advance Beneficiary Notes Must Be Given to Beneficiaries and Demand Bills Must be Submitted By Home Health Agencies (HHAs) — ACTION) (clarifying HCFA Transmittal A-01-05). 24 The HHABN must be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lutwin v. Thompson
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.