Hultzman v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
495 F.2d 1276 · 1974
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably Cowan v. Myers (1986), Kraemer v. Heckler (1984)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 13951 (§ 40281 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 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. § 1395H (§ 1816 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)
Relies on Social Security Board v. Nierotko · 319 F. Supp. 689 - Sowell 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, no payment may be made under part A or part B for any expenses incurred for items or services— (1) which are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member; (9) where such expenses are for custodial care;”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Secretary apparently construes section 1395y(a)(l) to mean that services which are admittedly reasonable and necessary for the treatment and diagnosis of a patient’s ailments are nonetheless excluded from coverage if the Secretary determines that it was not reasonable and necessary to render those services in a hospital (as opposed to a lesser care facility). This construction of section 1395y(a)(1), however, cannot be sustained in the face of the clear and plain language of that section. Section 1395y(a) (1) excludes from coverage only those services which are not reasonable and necessary to the treatment or diagnosis of a patient’s ailments. It does not speak at all to the question of whether it is medically necessary to provide such services on an inpatient or outpatient basis or in a hospital rather than extended care facility.” at 1282 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“willing and able to assist the providers to which payments are made through it under this part in the application of safeguards against unnecessary utilization of services furnished by them to individuals entitled to hospital insurance benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lerum v. Heckler
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.