Rabin v. Wilson-Coker

How courts have described this case

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

• questioning whether “we should assume Congress’s awareness of an administrative interpretation that does not result from notice and comment rulemaking”
• questioning whether “we should assume Congress’s awareness of an administrative interpretation that does not result from notice and comment rulemaking”
• “Because all of the language of Section 1396r–6 except the ‘plan requirements’ language, reflects Congress’s intention to confer a right to TMA upon persons who meet the various eligibility requirements, we find that Section 1396r–6 can support a Section 1983 claim.”
• according Skidmore deference to CMS interpretation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).