O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center
447 U.S. 773 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause does not grant residents of a nursing home a constitutional right to a hearing before a state or federal agency decertifies the home from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The government's decision to decertify a facility is an indirect action that does not directly deprive residents of any constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.
Facts:
- Town Court Nursing Center, Inc. (Town Court) operated a nursing home in Philadelphia certified as a 'skilled nursing facility.'
- This certification made Town Court eligible to receive payments from the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) for Medicare patients and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) for Medicaid patients.
- Town Court entered into 'provider agreements' with HEW and DPW, which were conditioned on its continued compliance with federal standards of care.
- Following a survey by DPW, HEW determined that Town Court no longer met the statutory and regulatory standards for a skilled nursing facility.
- HEW and DPW notified Town Court that their respective provider agreements would not be renewed, effectively decertifying the facility from the government programs.
- This decertification meant government payments for care at Town Court would cease, requiring the transfer of approximately 180 elderly residents to other qualified facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Town Court and six of its Medicaid patients filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against HEW and DPW.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted a preliminary injunction requiring payments to continue and prohibiting patient transfers.
- After HEW denied Town Court's petition for reconsideration, the District Court dissolved the injunction and denied further relief to the plaintiffs.
- The patients, as appellants, appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the patients had a constitutional right to a pre-decertification hearing and reinstated the preliminary injunction.
- The Secretary of DPW (O'Bannon), as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 decertification of a nursing home from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which necessitates the transfer of its residents, deprive those residents of life, liberty, or property without due process of law in violation of the Constitution, thereby entitling them to a pre-decertification hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The decertification of a nursing home does not directly deprive its residents of a constitutionally protected interest, and therefore they are not entitled to a pre-decertification hearing. The government's action is directed at the facility for failing to meet standards of care, not at the residents themselves. Any harm suffered by the residents, such as the need to relocate, is an indirect and incidental result of a lawful enforcement action against a third party. While residents have a property interest in receiving benefits for care in a qualified institution of their choice, they have no enforceable expectation of continued benefits for care in an institution that has been determined to be unqualified. The decertification does not terminate or reduce the residents' financial benefits, but merely requires that those benefits be used at a different, compliant facility.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. Although the residents have a colorable property interest in continued residency, a procedural due process right to a hearing is not constitutionally required in this context. This conclusion is based on a balancing of several factors: 1) the nursing home's own participation in the decertification process provides a de facto representation of the residents' interests; 2) the residents' benefit is contingent on the facility's underlying qualification; 3) the government action applies generally to all residents, rather than in an individualized, adjudicative manner; and 4) the decertification is not based on any fault of the residents. Furthermore, the evidence for 'transfer trauma' is too inconclusive to establish a deprivation of life or liberty that would trigger due process protections.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The statutory and regulatory scheme creates a legitimate entitlement for residents to continue living in the home of their choice absent specific cause for transfer, which constitutes a protected property interest. The government's decision to decertify the home is the direct cause of the residents' forced relocation, depriving them of this protected interest. Therefore, they are entitled to a hearing on the question of whether the home is actually qualified, as the answer to that question determines whether they must suffer the trauma of being moved.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between direct and indirect effects of government action in due process analysis. By holding that only direct deprivations trigger due process protections, the Court limited the scope of procedural rights for beneficiaries of government programs when the action is targeted at a third-party provider. The decision prevents beneficiaries from intervening in enforcement actions between the government and service providers, even when the outcome has severe, foreseeable consequences for the beneficiaries. This 'indirect effects' doctrine has significant implications for a wide range of regulatory contexts where government enforcement against one party has a ripple effect on others.
Unlock the full brief for O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center