Legal Opinion
Hare v. State, Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 29, 2003No. C9-03-33PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WRIGHT, Judge.
After respondent Paula Hare was denied coverage for gender reassignment surgery by UCare Minnesota (UCare), her health plan, she appealed to the health plan’s contracting agency, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), which affirmed UCare’s decision. Hare sought judicial review in district court, and the district court reversed DHS’s order. DHS now appeals, arguing that the district court erred when it ruled that (1) Minn. Stat. § 256B.0625, subd. 3a (2002), the provision addressing coverage for gender reassignment, is unconstitutionally vague and (2) DHS…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Amaral v. Saint Cloud HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- American Tower, L.P. v. City of GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community SchoolsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- In Re the Denial of Eller Media Company's Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of Mounds ViewSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kosilek v. SpencerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2012
- In re Gray and RiceUtah Supreme Court · 2021