Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Reed v. Blinzinger

Reed v. Blinzinger, 816 F.2d 296 (7th Cir. 1987)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1987-04-02
Topic: bankruptcy

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).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Reed v. Blinzinger. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 10 opinions

REED v. BLINZINGER,816 F.2d 296(7th Cir. 1987)

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.

Nos. 86-1780, 86-1816.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 7, 1986.

Decided April 2, 1987.

As Corrected April 9, 1987.

Page 297

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

Before BAUER, Chief Judge, CUMMINGS, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Chief Judge.

[1] 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 inVance 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,see42 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.¹

In so doing, we take no position as to the constitutionality of42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(38) (1984) regarding AFDC eligibility, as that issue was not raised before this court.SeeBaldwin 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). ↩