Bohlen v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
483 F.2d 918 · 1973
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1395A (§ 1802 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395J (§ 1831 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395K (§ 1832 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395Y (§ 1862 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ridgely v. Secretary Of Health, Education & Welfare · Cardno v. Finch · 345 F. Supp. 124 - Bohlen v. Richardson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Any individual dissatisfied with any determination under subsection (a) of this section as to entitlement under part A or part B, or as to amount of benefits under part A where the matter in controversy is $100 or more, shall be entitled to a hearing thereon by the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section 405(b) of this title, and, in the case of a determination as to entitlement or as to amount of benefits where the amount in controversy is $1,000 or more, to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision after such hearing as is provided in section 405(g) of this title.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(b)(1) Any individual dissatisfied with any determination under subsection (a) as to- “(A) whether he meets the conditions of section 226 of this Act or section 103 of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, or “(B) whether he is eligible to enroll and has enrolled pursuant to the provisions of Part B of this title, or section 1818, or section 1819, or “(C) the amount of benefits under Part A (including a determination where such amount is determined to be zero) shall be entitled to a hearing thereon by the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section 205(b) and to judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision after such hearing as is provided in section 205(g). “(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, a hearing shall not be available to an individual by reason of such subparagraph (C) if the amount in controversy is less than $100; nor shall judicial review be available to an individual by reason of such subparagraph (C) if the amount in controversy is less than $1,000.” (42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b))”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rubin v. Weinberger““[T]he purpose of the amendment is to make sure existing law, [referring to the pre-1972 section] which gives the right of a person to go to court on the question of eligibility to receive welfare [Medicare included], is not interpreted to mean he can take the question of the federal claim to court This is to reconfirm the original intention of the law that the courts can determine only eligibility. The situations in which Medicare decisions are appealable to the courts were intended in the original law to be greatly restricted in order to avoid overloading the courts with minor matters. The law refers to ‘entitlement’ as being an issue subject to court review and the word was intended to mean eligibility to any benefits of Medicare but not to decisions on the claim for payment for a given service.” 118 Cong.Rec. S17048, 49 (daily ed. Oct. 5,1972).”
1 later decision 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.