Hca Health Services of Virginia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Hca Health Services of Virginia’s Empirical Analysis
957 F.2d 120 · 1992
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Singletary v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. (1993), Custer v. Sweeney (1996)
14 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper · Perez v. Ledesma · Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas · Transouth Financial Corp. v. Johnson
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. One or more insurers may offer or administer a health benefit program under which the insurer or insurers may offer preferred provider policies or contracts that limit the numbers and types of providers of health care services eligible for payment as preferred providers. B. Any insurer shall establish terms and conditions that shall be met by a hospital, physician or type of provider listed in § 38.2-3408 in order to qualify for payment as a preferred provider under the policies or contracts. These terms and conditions shall not discriminate unreasonably against or among such health care providers. No hospital, physician or type of provider listed in § 38.2-3408 willing to meet the terms and conditions offered to it or him shall be excluded. Neither differences in prices among hospitals or other institutional providers produced by a process of individual negotiations with providers based on market conditions or price differences among providers in different geographical areas, shall be deemed unreasonable discrimination. The Commission shall have no jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies growing out of this subsection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“courts of appeal have the discretionary authority not to dismiss the case in appropriate circumstances”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An injury in fact is required for a party to be aggrieved for purposes of being able to appeal....”
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.