Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:18:16.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appeals Court Rejects Federal Jurisdiction over Chiropractors Challenge to Medicare Coverage – Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc. v. Leavitt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Carmen E. Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“Appeals Court”) held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the American Chiropractor's Association's (“ACA”) federal question claims brought under the Medicare Act, despite affirming the ACA's prudential standing to pursue its claims. The Appeals Court reversed the lower court's decision allowing a doctor of medicine or osteopathy to perform manual manipulations of the spine on Medicare beneficiaries to correct a subluxation.

The Medicare program “subsidizes medical insurance for elderly and disabled persons.” An enrollee selects a physician or obtains medical services through a managed-care provider, such as a health maintenance organization (“HMO”).

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , Summer 2006 , pp. 472 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

431 F.3d 812 (D.C. Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Id., at 812.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 814 (citing 42 USC §§ 1395c, 1395j (2005)).Google Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 814 (citing 42 USC §§ 1395k (2005)).Google Scholar
42 USC §§ 1395x(r).Google Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 814.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 815.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 814.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 815.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 816.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
28 USC § 1331 (2005).Google Scholar
42 USCA, §§ 405(h), 1395ii (2005).Google Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 816.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., citing Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 10–13, 17–20(2000).Google Scholar
Id., citing Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 22–23 (2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 817.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., citing Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 24 (2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
42 USC §§ 1395x(r)(5)(2005).Google Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 817.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
42 CFR § 417.416(b)(3)(2005); Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 817.Google Scholar
Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc, 431 F.3d at 817.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar