Geisinger Community Medical Center v. Secretary United States Department of Health & Human Services
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1DissentCowen, Circuit Judge
The majority offers a well-reasoned reading of Section 401. In fact, the majority may even offer the most persuasive interpretation of this statutory provision. However, it is not this Court’s job to adopt what it believes to be the best reading of the statute. Instead, we must “use the familiar two-step analysis set forth in Chevron.” (Majority Opinion at 12.) Under this doctrine, we must first decide whether or not “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Thomas Jefferson University v. ShalalaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Santomenno Ex Rel. John Hancock Trust v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co. (U.S.A)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.