Hospice of New Mexico, LLC v. Sebelius

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[t]he word ‘proportion,’ within the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(i)(2)(C), refers to the mathematical relation of a part to the whole; in other words, it specifies a ratio or a fraction”
• concluding that “HHS’ application of the allegedly invalid regulation is an integral part of the injury suffered by Plaintiff, and if the Court were to find that the regulation is invalid, this would at least partially redress Plaintiff’s injury”
• explaining that “cross-motions for summary judgment do not automatically empower the court to dispense with the determination whether questions of material fact exist. They require no less careful scrutiny than an individual motion.”
• enjoining the application of the challenged regulation against the plaintiff and remanding the matter to the agency for a calculation of any amounts to be refunded to the plaintiff
• enjoining the application of the challenged regulation against the plaintiff and remanding the matter to the agency for a calculation of any amounts to be refunded to the plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).