Stanton v. Bond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “b. “A state plan for medical assistance must provide for ... arranging for (directly or through referral to appropriate agencies, organizations, or individuals) corrective treatment the need for which is disclosed by such child health screening services ....” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(43)(C) (emphasis added). c. Currently, a health care provider can make a request for TBS on behalf of his or her patient after the provider determines that a beneficiary needs TBS. d.TBS may only be provided when medically necessary and an authorized practitioner of the healing arts must make that determination. See Cal.Code Regs. tit. 22, § 51242(d)(2). A request/referral form which allows Plaintiffs to submit direct requests for TBS would eliminate that requirement. 5. Conclusion a. Plaintiffs’ request is denied. b. Plaintiffs cite no federal case law, statutes or regulations to demonstrate that permitting Medi-Cal eligible individuals to make such a request is required by federal law. c. Plaintiffs concede that there is no direct request form for any other mental health service. d. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the fact that TBS is new and has thus far been poorly implemented is not a valid reason to alter Medi-Cal mental health service procedures. Plaintiffs are correct that Medi-Cal beneficiaries are unaware of TBS. However, this problem will be eliminated by the extensive notice requirements imposed on Defendant by this permanent injunction. e. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request does not adequately tak”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 208 F. Supp. 2d 1078 - EMILY Q. v. Bonta · 109 F. Supp. 2d 579 - Frew v. Gilbert

2. “[Effective July 1, 1969, such early and periodic screening and diagnosis of individuals who are eligible under the plan and are under the age of 21 to ascertain their physical or mental defects, and such health care, treatment, and other measures to correct or ameliorate defects, and chronic conditions discovered thereby, as may be provided in regulations of the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(4)(B).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brooks v. Smith · 433 F. Supp. 204 - Wisconsin Welfare Rights Organization v. Newgent

3. “(iv) That early and periodic screening and diagnosis to ascertain physical and mental defects, and treatment of conditions discovered within the limits of the State plan on the amount, duration, and scope of care and services, will be available to all eligible individuals under 21 years of age; and that in addition, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and other kinds of treatment for visual and hearing defects, and at least such dental care as if necessary for relief of pain and infection and for restoration of teeth and maintenance of dental health, will be available, whether or not otherwise included under the State plan, subject, however, to such utilization controls as may be imposed by the State agency. If such screening, diagnosis, and such additional treatment are not available by the effective date of these regulations to all eligible individuals under 21 years of age, the State plan must provide that screening, diagnosis, and such additional treatment will be available to all eligible children under 6 years of age, and must specify the progressive stages by which screening, diagnosis, and such additional treatment will be available to all eligible individuals under 21 no later than July 1, 1973. 45 C.F.R. § 249.10 (a)(3)(iv).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brooks v. Smith · 433 F. Supp. 204 - Wisconsin Welfare Rights Organization v. Newgent