The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Poverty Law, Statutory

Alexander v. U.S. Dept. Of HUD

No details yet.

Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services

No details yet.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn

Heidi Ahlborn was injured and permanently disabled in a car accident. She received Medicare payments totaling $215,645 through the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) to pay for her medical treatment. In order to be eligible for the Medicare payments, Arkansas law required Ahlborn to give the ADHS the "right to any settlement, judgment, or award" she might receive because of the accident, up to the amount Medicare had paid for her treatment.

Several years after the accident, Ahlborn received $550,000 in a settlement with the parties liable for her injuries. The sum covered her medical treatment as well as pain and suffering, lost earnings, and her lost earning potential in the future. Only $35,581 of the settlement was earmarked for her medical treatment, however. When the ADHS demanded that she repay the full $215,645, therefore, Ahlborn refused, and the issue went to a federal district court in Arkansas. The judge sided with the ADHS, ruling that it was not unreasonable for Arkansas to require Ahlborn to agree to repay them fully from any settlement she might receive in order to be eligible, even if the portion specifically allocated for medical treatment was less than the amount demanded by Medicaid.

An 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, however, finding that seizing money from her settlement that had not been earmarked for medical treatment would violate federal Medicaid regulations, which forbid state governments from seizing the property of Medicaid recipients in order to recover money spent on treatment. The panel therefore ordered that Ahlborn repay just $35,581 to the ADHS.

Atkins v. Rivera

No details yet.

Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.

Under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits under the Act to a company, which shall then be responsible for funding the beneficiary's benefits. After October 1, 1993, the Commissioner assigned 600 hundred beneficiaries to various coal companies. The companies challenged the assignments, claiming that the statutory date sets a time limit on the Commissioner's power to assign such that a beneficiary not assigned on October 1, 1993 must be left unassigned for life. Under the companies' argument, the challenged assignments are void and the corresponding benefits must be financed by other pension plans and funds. The companies obtained summary judgments, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Batterton v. Francis

No details yet.

Beltran v. Myers

No details yet.

Bowen v. Yuckert

No details yet.

Burns v. Alcala

No details yet.

Califano v. Yamasaki

No details yet.

California Human Resources Dept. v. Java

No details yet.

Carleson v. Remillard

No details yet.

Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development v. Alpine Ridge Group

No details yet.

Connecticut Dept. Of Income Maint. v. Heckler

No details yet.

Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases...providing that...any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Paragraph 9(m) of the leases of the tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) obligates them to "assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in?any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises." After the relations of four tenants were linked to drug activity, OHA instituted state-court eviction proceedings against respondents, alleging violations of lease paragraph 9(m) by a member of each tenant's household or a guest. The tenants filed an action, arguing that the Act does not require lease terms authorizing the eviction of the "innocent" tenants. The District Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction against OHA was affirmed by an en banc Court of Appeals.

Fischer v. United States

Jeffrey Fischer, while president and part owner of Quality Medical Consultants, Inc. (QMC), arranged for QMC to receive a $1.2 million loan from West Volusia Hospital Authority (WVHA), a municipal agency that operates two hospitals, which participate in and receive funding from the federal Medicare program. To get the loan, Fischer pledged QMC's accounts receivables and offered a $1 million letter of credit. After a 1994 audit of WHVA raised questions about the QMC loan, Fischer was indicted for federal bribery, including defrauding an organization which "receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program." A jury convicted him and the District Court sentenced him to imprisonment, imposed a term of supervised release, and ordered the payment of restitution. On appeal, Fischer argued that the Government failed to prove WHVA, as the organization affected by his wrongdoing, received "benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program," as required by the federal bribery statute. In rejecting that argument and affirming the convictions, the Court of Appeals held that funds received by an organization constitute "benefits" within the statute's meaning if the source of the funds is a federal program, like Medicare, which provides aid or assistance to participating organizations.

Gardebring v. Jenkins

No details yet.

Hagans v. Lavine

No details yet.

Heckler v. Campbell

No details yet.

Heckler v. Community Health Services

No details yet.

Heckler v. Day

Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) establishes a four-step review process of disputed disability benefit claims. First, a state agency determines if a claimant has a disability and when the condition began or ended. Second, state agencies' disability determinations can be reviewed upon the claimant's request. Third, if upon review the claimant suffers an adverse finding he or she may demand an evidentiary hearing by an administrative law judge. Fourth, if a claimant is dissatisfied with the administrative law judge's decision, they may appeal to the Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Claiming delays in excess of 90 days, during steps two and three, Leon Day sued on behalf of several similarly aggrieved Vermont claimants alleging a violation of the "reasonable time" hearing limitation. On appeal from the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling upholding a district court's imposition of disability hearing deadlines, the Supreme Court granted HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler certiorari.

Heckler v. Ringer

No details yet.

Heckler v. Turner

No details yet.

Herweg v. Ray

No details yet.

King v. Smith

No details yet.

Lascaris v. Shirley

No details yet.

Lewis v. Martin

No details yet.

Lukhard v. Reed

No details yet.

Miller v. Youakim

No details yet.

New York Dept. Of Social Services v. Dublino

No details yet.

Ohio Bureau Of Employment Services v. Hodory

No details yet.

Philbrook v. Glodgett

No details yet.

Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board

No details yet.

Quern v. Mandley

No details yet.

Richardson v. Wright

No details yet.

Roe v. Norton

No details yet.

Rosado v. Wyman

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Gray Panthers

No details yet.

Shea v. Vialpando

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Everhart

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Stroop

No details yet.

Sullivan v. Zebley

No details yet.

Van Lare v. Hurley

No details yet.

Youakim v. Miller

No details yet.