42 U.S.C. § 13
REPEAL.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Florida Agency for Health Care Administration v. Bayou Shores SNF, LLC (In Re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC)
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration v. Bayou Shores SNF, LLC (In Re Bayou Shores SNF, LLC) (2016)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 13 95i—3(h)(2)(a); see also Cathedral Rock of N.”
In Re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation (2012)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 13 95y(b)(2)(B)(ii). 16 . These reasons include, inter alia, that the demonstrated responsibility provision's "text places a condition only on when primary plans must reimburse Medicare; it does not mention when plans must pay private parties,” that “the structure…”
Bio-Medical Applications of Tennessee, Inc. v. Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund (2011)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 13 95y(b)( 1 )(C)(i). . Paragraph 2(A) of the Act describes Medicare’s role using the following language *279 (which, although not immediately clear, can be readily understood in context): "Payment under this subchapter may not be made [by Medicare], except as…”
Banner Health v. Sebelius (2012)
“3d at 205 (citing, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 13 95ww(b)(3)(B)(i), (d)(2), (d)(3)(A)(iv)(II); 42 C.”
Banner Health v. Sebelius (2013)
“3d at 205 (citing, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 13 95ww(b)(3)(B)(i), (d)(2), (d)(3)(A)(iv)(II); 42 C.”
Matthews v. South Dakota Department of Social Services (2012)
“However, as both the statutes and the SMM indicate, a special needs trust ( 42 U.S.C. § 13 96p(d)(4)(A)) is different from a pooled trust (42 U.”
Bradley v. Sebelius (2010)
“§ 1395y(b)(2)(A), and the estate was the "entity that receives payment from a primary plan” under 42 U.S.C. § 13 95y (b) (2) (B) (ii).]. The Secretary clearly anticipated that a court should determine the issue of allocation between payees.”
Infinity Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Azar (2018)
“at 905 ; see also 42 U.S.C. § 13 95ddd(f)(2)(C) (providing that one who prevails on appeal after recoupment has begun will receive the recouped funds with interest).”
Tarin v. Commissioner of Division of Medical Assistance (1997)
“In commenting on Emerson , the court in Peura noted that 42 U.S.C. § 13“6a(a)(17) concerns both applicants for and recipients of Medicaid and its restrictions apply to both eligibility determinations and post-eligibility determinations regarding the extent of assistance,” Peura,…”
In Re Dow Corning Corp. (2000)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 13 95y(b)(2)(B)(ii) (compare, e.”
Clinton Memorial Hospital v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (1993)
“The current version of the statute explicitly refers to the "absence of other like hospitals", see 42 U.S.C. § 13 95ww(d)(5)(D)(iii) (Supp. Ill 1991) (emphasis added), but the Secretary has focused on "like” hospitals all along, see supra at 856 n.”
United States v. James Stricker (2013)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 13 95y(b)(2)(A)(ii). 5 . The MSPA provides the government a sub-rogation right to obtain reimbursement of its conditional payments.”
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.