Russell v. Sebelius

686 F. Supp. 2d 386 (2010)

From our private database of 47,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Russell v. Sebelius

United States District Court for the District of Vermont
686 F. Supp. 2d 386 (2010)

Facts

After a hernia-repair surgery, 67-year-old Elizabeth Russell (plaintiff) developed a large wound that would not heal. Russell also tired easily and suffered nausea and pain. Between June 2004 and December 2004, Russell received daily nurse visits in her home to monitor and manage her nonhealing wound. When Russell filed Medicare claims seeking reimbursement for the nurse visits, the claims were denied on the basis that Russell did not qualify for home-health services. Russell sought review by an administrative-law judge (ALJ). Russell and her sister, Joyce Hojohn, submitted affidavits stating that Hojohn visited Russell multiple times per day to take care of Russell’s home and dog. The affidavits also stated that aside from medical appointments, Russell left her home only to accompany Hojohn on 50-foot dog walks and occasional grocery trips. For the short grocery trips, Hojohn did all the driving, lifting, and carrying, and Russell nevertheless returned home exhausted and in need of rest. Nurses’ assessments were also submitted into evidence. Some deemed Russell capable of leaving her home independently, but others described Russell as homebound. The ALJ concluded that despite Russell’s wound, she could leave her home for extended periods for nonmedical activities like shopping. The ALJ also found that Russell’s ability to travel without any assistive device showed that leaving home did not require considerable and taxing effort. The ALJ therefore determined that Russell did not qualify for home-health services and was not entitled to reimbursement. After the Medicare Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s decision, Russell sued Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (defendant), seeking judicial review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Murtha, J.)

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 905,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied 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
  • 47,100 briefs - keyed to 995 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
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership