Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians

Supreme Court of United States
476 U.S. 667 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

There is a strong presumption that Congress intends for judicial review of administrative action, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent. A statutory provision precluding judicial review of individual benefit amount determinations does not bar review of challenges to the validity of the underlying regulations used to calculate those amounts.

Facts:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services promulgated regulation 42 CFR § 405.504(b).
This regulation established a payment system under Medicare Part B that authorized different reimbursement amounts for similar physician services.
The payment differential was based on whether a family physician was board-certified.
An association of family physicians, Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, and several individual doctors were subject to this regulation.
As a result of the regulation, family physicians who were not board-certified received lower Medicare reimbursements than their board-certified counterparts for providing the same medical services.

Procedural Posture:

Michigan Academy of Family Physicians and several individual doctors sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a federal trial court.
The plaintiffs challenged the validity of a Medicare regulation governing reimbursement rates.
The District Court held that the regulation was invalid on statutory grounds.
The Secretary appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the regulation was invalid.
The Secretary petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing only that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to review the regulation.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the jurisdictional question.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Medicare Act preclude judicial review of the validity of regulations governing the determination of benefit amounts under Part B of the Medicare program?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

No. The Medicare Act does not preclude judicial review of challenges to the validity of regulations promulgated under Part B. The Court began by reaffirming the strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action, a presumption that can be overcome only by 'clear and convincing evidence' of contrary legislative intent. The government argued that 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff, by providing review for Part A claims but not Part B claims, impliedly precluded review. However, the Court distinguished this case from its precedent in United States v. Erika, Inc., which held that Congress intended to foreclose review of routine 'amount determinations' for individual Part B claims. The present case involves a challenge not to a specific amount determination, but to the method and validity of the regulation used to calculate those amounts. The legislative history confirms that Congress's intent was to prevent the courts from being overloaded with numerous, 'trivial' monetary claims, not to insulate the Secretary's regulations from all judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, incorporating § 405(h) of the Social Security Act does not create a total bar to review, as reading it to do so would preclude review of substantial statutory and constitutional challenges, an extreme position that would raise serious constitutional questions.

Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the strong presumption of judicial reviewability of agency action, a fundamental principle of administrative law. It establishes a critical distinction between unreviewable individual benefit determinations and reviewable challenges to the underlying methodology or regulation. This prevents administrative agencies from operating in a law-free zone, ensuring that even within complex and reticulated statutory schemes like Medicare, parties can challenge the legality and constitutionality of the rules themselves. The case serves as a crucial check on agency power, clarifying that when Congress seeks to limit judicial review to reduce administrative burdens, such limitations will be narrowly construed to apply only to the specific actions identified, not to broad challenges against the agency's authority.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians (1986)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"