Layzer v. Leavitt
| 1:2007cv11339 |
| December 18, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Unassigned |
| Social Security: HIA |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER: The statutory language that Congress used to define what is meant by "covered part D drug," along with the canons ofstatutory interpretation described above, make clear that the Act does not impose a Compendia Requirement . The Secretary's motion is accordingly DENIED, and the Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. Because the reasons stated for denying coverage of Plaintiffs' medications rested on an unsound interpretation of the law, the denial is reversed and the Secretary is directed to provide the appropriate coverage, consistent with this Opinion. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the matter and remove it from my docket. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 3/7/2011) (jpo)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Layzer v. Leavitt | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
