Legal Opinion · Dissent

Metropolitan Hospital v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 27, 2013No. 11-2465, 11-2466Published

1DissentMcKEAGUE, Circuit Judge

The majority undertakes a well-reasoned effort to uphold the Secretary’s interpretation of the term “entitled to” as neither contrary to Congress’s clear intent nor an impermissible construction of the term. We do not, however, write on a blank slate. We have already wrestled with the very statutory provision at issue and arrived at definitive conclusions as to its meaning. In my opinion, stare decisis demands greater respect for our ruling in Jewish Hospital v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 19 F.3d 270, 272 (6th Cir.1994).

A. Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis, “to stand by things…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. Welch v. Texas Department of Highways & Public TransportationSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API