Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

18 soc.sec.rep.ser. 65, Medicare&medicaid Gu 36,369 Raymon and Joann Lynch v. William Dawson, Defendants-Third Party and Otis Bowen, M.D., Third Party

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 23, 1987No. 85-2928Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge

I agree that, under our precedent, the plaintiff class has standing. I dissent, however, because I do not agree with the majority’s holding that the Pickle Amendment, Pub.L. 94-566, Title V, § 503, 42 U.S.C.A. 1396a (note), applies to persons rendered ineligible for medicare by Title II COLA increases deemed to them from parents or from spouses who have never received SSI benefits under title XVI.

Our aim in interpreting a federal statute “is to ascertain the intent of Congress and to give effect to legislative will.” United States v. Taylor, 802 F.2d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, —…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Rubin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

7 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