Difference between revisions of "Whitney v Heckler"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Whitney v. Heckler'', a group of physicians challenged the constitutionality of the Deficit Reduction Act, which imposed a temporary freeze on the fees that non-participating phys...) |
(Links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Whitney v. Heckler'', a group of physicians challenged the constitutionality of the [[Deficit Reduction Act]], which imposed a temporary freeze on the fees that non-participating physicians could charge Medicare patients. The [[Eleventh Circuit]] held that this freeze did not violate [[substantive due process]] based on its findings that: | + | In '''''Whitney v. Heckler''''', a group of physicians challenged the constitutionality of the [[Deficit Reduction Act]], which imposed a temporary freeze on the fees that non-participating [[physicians]] could charge [[Medicare]] patients. The [[Eleventh Circuit]] held that this freeze did not violate [[substantive due process]] based on its findings that: |
*it bore a reasonable relation to a valid legislative purpose | *it bore a reasonable relation to a valid legislative purpose | ||
*it was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory | *it was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory | ||
*it was not a [[bill of attainder]] because it did not inflict punishment on the [[plaintiff]] physicians. | *it was not a [[bill of attainder]] because it did not inflict punishment on the [[plaintiff]] physicians. | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:Circuit Cases]] | [[Category:Circuit Cases]] | ||
[[Category:Medicine]] | [[Category:Medicine]] | ||
Revision as of 06:50, September 7, 2007
In Whitney v. Heckler, a group of physicians challenged the constitutionality of the Deficit Reduction Act, which imposed a temporary freeze on the fees that non-participating physicians could charge Medicare patients. The Eleventh Circuit held that this freeze did not violate substantive due process based on its findings that:
- it bore a reasonable relation to a valid legislative purpose
- it was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory
- it was not a bill of attainder because it did not inflict punishment on the plaintiff physicians.