Stringfellow Mem'l Hosp. v. Azar’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395W (§ 1844 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services · Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. · Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Televisioncorporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcastersinc., Intervenors · Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“-in other words, unexhausted days only. Id. at 861R (quoting 42 C.F.R. § 412.106 (b)(2)(i) before its amendment). That is, the Secretary's stated proposed rule was actually the manner in which dual-eligible exhausted days were currently being handled and the exact opposite of the policy the Secretary had put forth as the then-existing policy. Vinson & Elkins urged CMS to correct its misstatement, arguing that if the agency chose to stand by those statements,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]n that proposed rule, we indicated that a dual-beneficiary is included in the Medicare fraction even after the patient's Medicare Part A hospital coverage is exhausted.... This statement was not accurate. Our policy has been that only covered patient days are included in the Medicare fraction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“adopt[ed] a policy to include the days associated with dual-eligible beneficiaries in the Medicare fraction, whether or not the beneficiary has exhausted Medicare Part A hospital coverage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.