Charleston Memorial Hospital v. Conrad
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
693 F.2d 324 (1982)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
The South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) (defendant) administered South Carolina’s Medicaid program. In 1982, DSS requested an allocation of $280 million from the state legislature to cover the state’s total proposed healthcare budget, $84 million of which was to cover the cost of inpatient and outpatient hospital services. The legislature approved only $232.6 million, with $67 million allocated toward hospital services. As a result, DSS notified providers that DSS was reducing inpatient hospital coverage for each Medicaid recipient from 40 to 18 days per year and outpatient hospital visits from unlimited to 18 per year. After determining that some costs were underestimated, DSS made further cuts, reducing coverage for inpatient stays from 18 to 12 days per year per recipient. The South Carolina Hospital Association (SCHA), including Charleston Memorial Hospital (plaintiffs), brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against DSS and the US secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (defendant), arguing that the reductions violated substantive federal law requirements. The district court found that 12 inpatient hospital stays annually would sufficiently meet the needs of 88 percent of Medicaid recipients and that 18 outpatient visits would sufficiently meet the needs of 99 percent of recipients. The district court found in DSS’s favor. SCHA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ervin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.