Difference between revisions of "Whitney v Heckler"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (cat) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: Spelling, grammar, and general fixes) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[Category:Circuit Cases]] | [[Category:Circuit Cases]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Eleventh Circuit]] |
[[Category:Medicine]] | [[Category:Medicine]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:18, June 24, 2016
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.