White v. Beal
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
555 F.2d 1146 (1977)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Under the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare’s (DPW) Title XIX Social Security Act (the act) medical-assistance regulations, eyeglasses were covered only for the treatment of eye disease. Disadvantaged individuals needing glasses to correct refractive error but who did not have a diagnosed eye disease (the applicants) (plaintiffs) were found ineligible for coverage under DPW’s regulations. The applicants brought suit against DPW Secretary Frank Beal (defendant), contending that DPW’s plan violated the act by basing eligibility on disability cause instead of medical necessity. The applicants submitted affidavits from two eye doctors stating that, in some cases, an individual with refractive error but no eye disease can be more visually impaired than an individual with an eye disease. The physicians also indicated that glasses are not a helpful treatment for most eye diseases but are useful in correcting refractive errors. The district court found in the applicants’ favor. DPW appealed, arguing that the state appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting eyeglass coverage to individuals with eye disease or pathology whom DPW considered the most in need.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wies, 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.