Greene v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2010
2 district ·
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. § 1320A (§ 1128 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 3521 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on United States v. Halper
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language of the statute itself as well as the legislative history indicate that the dichotomy was not intended to be between financial crimes and crimes in the delivery of services (such as direct patient abuse) but between program related crimes and other relevant crimes which did not defraud the program itself (such as fraud on insurance companies). There is no question that [the plaintiffs] crime resulted in a Medicaid overpayment and was a program-related crime triggering the mandatory exclusion under Section 1320a-7(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Travers v. Sullivan“While Congress did not define “program operating responsibilities,” the legislative history of the Inspector General statute suggests that Congress was referring to day-to-day, “hands-on” responsibilities for the overall administration of the Department’s health and welfare programs. The history makes it clear that Congress fully intended the Inspector General to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in program operations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]ny individual or entity that has been convicted under Federal or State law, in connection with the delivery of a health care item or service or with respect to any act or omission in a program operated by or financed in whole or in part by any Federal, State, or local government agency, of a criminal offense relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct.”
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.