Logourl black
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...

Blum v. Yaretsky

United States Supreme Court
457 U.S. 991 (1982)


Facts

Yaretsky and Cuevas (plaintiffs) were patients in the American Nursing Home, a high-level care facility located in New York City. Both men received Medicaid benefits from the State of New York to pay for their care. As part of the conditions for their receipt of Medicaid benefits, the State of New York established a “utilization review committee” (URC) to determine whether nursing home patients met the income requirements for Medicaid and whether they sought necessary medical treatment. Based on standard procedure, if the URC determined that patients required less or more care, it recommended to state Medicaid officials that patients be discharged or transferred to facilities offering different levels of care and Medicaid benefits adjusted accordingly. In Yaretsky and Cuevas’ case, the URC determined that they needed less care and recommended that they be transferred to a lower-level facility. After administrative hearings, New York City officials determined that their Medicaid benefits would cease if they did not accept the recommended transfer. Yaretsky and Cuevas then commenced this suit on behalf of themselves and a class of Medicaid recipients in New York City nursing homes. They named Blum, Commissioner of the New York Department of Social Services, and Commissioners of the Department of Health as defendants. Yaretsky and Cuevas alleged that Blum and Commissioners had not afforded them adequate notice of the URC decisions or their right to an administrative hearing to challenge those decisions. The district court granted Yaretsky and Cuevas injunctive relief, and the court of appeals, finding that state action occurred, affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 120,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.