Legal Opinion
Hall v. Sebelius
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 16, 2011No. Civil Action 08-1715 (RMC)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are retired Federal employees who have reached age 65 and have applied for, and are receiving, Social Security Retirement benefits. As a result, they are “entitled” to Medicare Part A, coverage. They do not, however, want Medicare coverage. And the only avenue provided to Plaintiffs to un-entitle themselves is to cease receiving Social Security Retirement benefits — and to repay all such benefits already received. Plaintiffs declaim that such a requirement is contrary to the Social Security Act, of which Medicare is a part. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. SebeliusDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- California Clinical Laboratory Association v. Secretary of Department of Health and Human ServicesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Brian Hall v. Kathleen SebeliusCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2012
- Brian Hall v. Kathleen SebeliusCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2012
- Brian Hall v. Kathleen SebeliusCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.