Garelick v. Sullivan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a law that limited the amount physicians could charge to Medicare beneficiaries under a certain program was not a taking because the physicians opted to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries
• noting that the plaintiffs “retain[ed] the right to provide medical services to non-Medicare patients free of price regulations”
• finding that no taking resulted from Medicare price regulations applicable to anesthesiologists because, while the regulations limited how much the anesthesiologists could charge, provider participation in Medicare is voluntary
• affirming the district court’s decision to refrain from reaching the merits of the case for the plaintiffs’ lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution
• rejecting an argument that non-participation in Medicare “is not an economically viable option,” because “economic hardship is not equivalent to legal compulsion for purposes of takings analysis”
• rejecting anesthesiologists’ takings challenge to a statute that limited how much they could charge Medicare beneficiaries because “they voluntarily [chose] to provide services in the price-regulated Part B program”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).