REED v. BLINZINGER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 86-1780, 86-1816.

Attorney(S)

James R. Goeser, U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services, Chicago, Ill., John Daniel Tinder, U.S. Atty., for defendants-appellants. Dennis Frick, East Central Legal Services Program, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Judges

William Joseph Bauer

Acts

The Public Health And Welfare — Social Security — Grants To States For Medical Assistance Programs — State Plans For Medical Assistance
The Public Health And Welfare — Social Security — Grants To States For Aid And Services To Needy Families With Children And For Child-Welfare Services — Block Grants To States For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families — Eligible States; State Plan

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BRENDA REED, FOR HERSELF AND HER MINOR CHILDREN MICHAEL REED AND TONY REED; LINDA EVANS, FOR HERSELF AND HER MINOR CHILD THEDELL ATWONE POLK, AND FOR ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. DONALD L. BLINZINGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INDIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, AND OTIS R. BOWEN, M.D., SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

BAUER, Chief Judge.

We hereby adopt the thorough and well reasoned district court opinion written by Judge Steckler below, Reed v. Blinzinger, 639 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.Ind. 1986), and also concur in the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Vance v. Hegstrom, 793 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1986). We believe that both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly determined that the express exclusion of sibling income in determining Medicaid eligibility, see 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17)(D), is not contradicted by any clear expression of legislative intent, notwithstanding the Secretary of Health and Human Services' misinterpretation of Section 2640 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(38) (1984). We, therefore, adopt the district court's opinion in full.

In so doing, we take no position as to the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(38) (1984) regarding AFDC eligibility, as that issue was not raised before this court. See Baldwin v. Ledbetter, 647 F. Supp. 623 (D.Ga. 1986) (holding that as applied to AFDC eligibility, Section 2640 violates the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).

Comments