Fournier v. Sebelius
District Court, D. Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ROSLYN 0. SILVER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal the final decisions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Defendant” or “Secretary”) denying Plaintiffs’ claims for Medicare coverage for dental services. For the reasons below, the Court affirms the Secretary’s decisions regarding Berg and DiCecco, and dismisses Fournier’s claim as moot.1
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Ronald Fournier (“Fournier”), Delores Berg (“Berg”), and Thomas DiCecco (“DiCecco”) (“Plaintiffs”) lost salivary functioning due to medical conditions and treatment. The loss of salivary function damaged Plaintiffs’ teeth.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ronald Fournier v. Kathleen SebeliusCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Born v. SebeliusDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2013