Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
7 - Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2022
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
Summary
Linton v. Commissioner of Health & Environment was a 1965 case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the plaintiffs alleged disparate-impact racial discrimination. The Tennessee Medicaid program covered the skilled nursing facility care but allowed facilities to certify a limited number of beds for Medicaid patients (for whom the facilities typically received lower rates). The plaintiffs argued that the limited bed policy violated the federal Medicaid statute and had a disparate impact on black Medicaid recipients in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In the original opinion, the court side-stepped the discrimination issue, relying instead on the finding that the state had violated the Medicaid statute. Professor Gwendolyn Majette’s feminist concurrence corrects the Sixth Circuit’s failure to address the Title VI issue and provides a fuller, more comprehensive analysis that addresses the intersection of gender, race, class, and age. Professor Ruqaiijah Yearby’s commentary explores whether the opinion in Linton could have done more to ensure that the unique harms experienced by patients because of their race would be fully addressed in the remedial plan.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten , pp. 159 - 178Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022