David v. Heckler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that even a 33 percent reversal rate established a “substantial” risk that plaintiffs would be erroneously deprived of Medicare Part B benefits and that “numerous erroneous determinations [denying benefits] are not appealed”
• “The instant case is distinguishable [from Ringer ] since plaintiffs seek prospective relief against a continuing illegal practice rather than specific benefits.”
• “The evidence at trial clearly established that the review notices could not be understood by the great majority of beneficiaries who received them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).