45 C.F.R. § 233.80
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1971–2010 · leading case: Sullivan v. Day, 661 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
Sullivan v. Day, 661 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “80 (1972), and Indiana’s apparent incorporation of certain portions of the "recommended” definition of "permanent” disability located in 45 C.F.R. § 233.80 (1972) and § 248.80 (1972), into the Medicaid Manual as promulgated in 470 IAC 9-2-2 (1979).”
Boisvert v. Zeiller, 334 F. Supp. 403 (D.N.H. 1971). “] 45 C.F.R. § 233.80 (a) (1). Instead of attempting to find justification for its “source” limitations — that is, limitations of eligibility which derive from a distinction between sources or types of disability — within the terms of this definition, the defendants attempt an…”
Indiana Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. DeVoux, 314 N.E.2d 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974). “45 C.F.R. § 233.80 (c)(2); Hayes v. Gardner (4th Cir.”
Graves v. Fisher, 361 F. Supp. 1356 (D. Me. 1972). “In the words of the applicable HEW regulation, “the ability to keep house or to care for others would be the appropriate test for (and only for) individuals, such as housewives, who were engaged in this occupation prior to the disability and do not have a history of gainful…”
Rice v. Heckler, 640 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “” 45 C.F.R. § 233.80 (a)(2). The language in the Manual Bulletin and the State’s own current use of "Disability Analysts” appears to indicate that New York does not regard this provision as requiring an individual with a college degree in sociology as opposed to a person with…”
Tyrrell v. Comm., NHDHHS, 2010 DNH 093 (D.N.H. 2010). “" Under the reasoning in Boisvert, such a state plan would violate federal law because 45 C.F.R. § 233.80 (a)(1), requiring a definition of those terms, was "phrased in obligatory rather than in permissive terms.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.