Logourl black

O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center

United States Supreme Court
447 U.S. 773 (1980)


Facts

Town Court Nursing Center, Inc. (Town Court) operates a nursing home in Philadelphia, PA. It was certified in April 1976 as eligible to be reimbursed for care for persons eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. In May 1977, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) notified Town Court that it was terminating its Medicare provider agreement. Town Court would no longer be an eligible facility for Medicare recipients, and residents who received Medicare would have to move to a Medicare-eligible facility. The notification stated how Town Court might request reconsideration of the decision and directed it to notify Medicare beneficiaries that benefits were being terminated. Several days later, HEW similarly terminated Town Court’s Medicaid provider agreement. Town Court filed for reconsideration. While the request was pending, Town Court and six of its Medicaid residents (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Town Court and its residents were entitled to an evidentiary hearing before Town Court’s Medicare and Medicaid eligibility was terminated. The district court denied plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held Town Court did not have a right to a pre-termination hearing, but that its residents did. It held that the patients had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued residence at Town Court that gave them a right to a pre-termination hearing. The Secretary of HEW filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.

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 (Stevens, 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.

Concurrence (Blackmun, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. 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.

Here's why 91,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 12,498 briefs - keyed to 168 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now