Hazelwood Chronic & Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis
543 F.2d 703 · 1976
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395G (§ 1815 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395I (§ 1817 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395O (§ 1836 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Weinberger v. Salfi · Welch v. Henry · Rowell v. United States · Cities Service Co. v. United States
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finality of Secretary’s decision. “The findings and decisions of the Secretary after a hearing shall be binding upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or decision of the Secretary shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United States, the Secretary, or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under this subchapter.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a provider who has used an accelerated method of depreciation with respect to any of its assets terminates participation in the program, or where the health insurance proportion of its allowable costs decreases so that cumulatively substantially more depreciation was paid than would have been paid using the straight-line method of depreciation, the excess of reimbursable cost, determined by using accelerated depreciation methods and paid under the program over the reimbursable cost which would have been determined and paid under the program by using the straight-line method of depreciation will be recovered as an offset to current reimbursement due or, if the provider has terminated participation in the program, as an overpayment. In this determination of excess payment, recognition will be given to the effects the adjustment to straight-line depreciation would have on the return on equity capital and on the allowance in lieu of specific recognition of other costs in the respective years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“At the time § 405(h) was originally enacted in 1935, [the] sentence [precluding review] referred to all of the general grants of jurisdiction then available to a district court. It has not been amended since, and thus does not include the more recent jurisdictional provisions of the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . Congress has not amended § 405(h) in the same manner as 28 U.S.C. § 211 (a), which now provides for certain decisions of the Veterans’ Administrator that ‘no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise, (underlined language added in 1970).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.