Legal Digest -Supreme Court rules for nursing home patient’s family
Law News
Today's Legal News Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court rules for nursing home patient’s family
Legal Business | 2023/06/28 11:28
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the family of a nursing home resident with dementia that had sued over his care, declining to use the case to broadly limit the right to sue government workers.

The man’s family went to court alleging that he was given drugs to keep him easier to manage in violation of his rights. The justices had been asked to use his case to limit the ability of people to use a federal law to sue for civil rights violations. That outcome could have left tens of millions of people participating in federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, without an avenue to go to court to enforce their rights.

The Supreme Court has previously said that a section of federal law — “Section 1983” — broadly gives people the right to sue state and local governments when their employees violate rights created by any federal statute.

The court by a 7-2 vote reiterated that Thursday, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that Section 1983 “can presumptively be used to enforce unambiguously conferred federal individual rights.” Both liberal and conservative justices joined her majority opinion while conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The court had been asked to say that when Congress creates a federal spending program — giving states money to provide services such as Medicare and Medicaid — they shouldn’t face lawsuits from individuals under Section 1983. The court rejected that invitation.

The specific case the justices heard involves the interaction of Section 1983 and the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act, a 1987 law that outlines requirements for nursing homes that accept federal Medicare and Medicaid funds. The court was being asked to answer whether a person can use Section 1983 to go to court with claims their rights under the nursing home act are violated. The answer is yes, the court said.


[PREV] [1] ..[78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86].. [2540] [NEXT]
All
Legal News Digest
Law Firm News
Legal Career News
Headline Legal News
Lawyer Blog Updates
Legal Business
Law News
Court Press News
Legal Interview
Legal World News
Press Release
Legal Opinions
Law Firm Marketing
Legal & Political
Law School News
Retrial of Harvey Weinstein unlikely..
Starbucks appears likely to win Supr..
Supreme Court will weigh banning hom..
Court makes it easier to sue for job..
Judge in Trump case orders media not..
Top Europe rights court condemns Swi..
Elon Musk will be investigated over ..
Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthon..
The Man Charged in an Illinois Attac..
UN court orders Israel to open more ..
Former Georgia insurance commissione..
Alabama woman who faked kidnapping p..
A Supreme Court ruling in a social m..
Court upholds mandatory prison terms..
Trump wants N.Y. hush money trial to..
Supreme Court restores Trump to ball..
Supreme Court restores Trump to ball..
Supreme Court casts doubt on GOP-led..
Donald Trump appeals $454 million ju..
Dani Alves found guilty of rape, sen..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Oregon DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
 
 
© Legal News Digest. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. | Criminal Defense Attorney Web Design by Law Promo