S.D. Ex Rel. Dickson v. Hood

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the EPSDT treatment provisions of the Medicaid Act contains the 'rights-creating language critical to showing the requisite congressional intent to confer a new right’ ”
• noting that Gonzaga “clarified” case law, and ruling that plaintiffs could enforce private right of action for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(43)
• explaining that, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are charged with reviewing and approving state Medicaid plans to ensure that the plans conform to the Act, the agency implicitly interprets the Act when granting approvals
• Louisiana’s denial of any funding for medically necessary incontinence supplies to EPSDT-eligible children violated Medicaid Act
• CMS's \review and determination definitively indicate whether it interprets a state plan or amendment to be in conformity with the [federal] statute.\
• “[E]very Circuit which has examined the scope of the EPSDT program has recognized that states must cover every type of health care or service necessary for EPSDT corrective or ameliorative purposes that is allowable under 1396d(a).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).