Difference between revisions of "Whitney v Heckler"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Links) |
m (cat) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[Category:Circuit Cases]] | [[Category:Circuit Cases]] | ||
| + | [[category:Eleventh Circuit]] | ||
[[Category:Medicine]] | [[Category:Medicine]] | ||
Revision as of 19:23, April 12, 2008
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.