Klofta v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2014
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 1395C (§ 1811 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395D (§ 1812 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395Y (§ 1862 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ridgely v. Secretary Of Health, Education & Welfare · 345 F. Supp. 983 - Ridgely v. Secretary of Department of Health, Education & Welfare · 319 F. Supp. 689 - Sowell v. Richardson · 375 F. Supp. 929 - Schoultz v. Weinberger · 379 F. Supp. 120 - Samuels v. Weinberger
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Indeed, it appears to this Court that the purpose of the custodial care disqualification in Section 1395y(a)(9) was not to disentitle old, chronically ill and basically helpless, bewildered and confused people ... from the broad remedy which Congress intended to provide for our senior citizens. Rather, the provision was intended to stop cold-blooded and thoughtless relatives from relegating an oldster who could care for him or herself to the care of an [Extended Care Facility] merely so that the oldster would have a place to eat, sleep, or watch television. But when a person is sick, especially a helpless old person, and when those who love that person are not skilled enough to take care of that person, Congress has provided a remedy in the Medicare Act, and that remedy should not be eclipsed by an application of the law and findings of fact which are blinded by bureaucratic economics to the purpose of the Congress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Custodial care] is care that could be administered by a layman, without any possible harm to the one in custody. * * This view of ‘custodial care’ is also in agreement with the definition of ‘custodial’ as found in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1967 ed.), i. e., ‘relating to or marked by guardianship or maintaining safely.’ Thus, mere ‘custodial care’ refers quite simply to guardianship for convenience that has no significant relation to medical care of any type. Samuels v. Weinberger, 379 F.Supp. 120, 123 (S.D.Ohio 1973).” 418 F.Supp. 1143 .”
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.