Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Davidson v. Thompson
No. CIV 04-32 LFG (D. N.M. Dec. 1, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55901
Description
Vision-Impaired Medicare Beneficiary Entitled to Reimbursement for Closed Circuit Television Electronic Vision Enhancement Device
Abstract
The district court reversed a final administrative decision of
defendant secretary of health and human services denying plaintiff
Medicare Part B coverage for a closed circuit television (CCTV)
electronic vision enhancement device prescribed by her doctor.
Plaintiff Medicare beneficiary had suffered a sudden macular
hemorrhage resulting in macular degeneration—a retinal
disorder destroying all but her peripheral vision. She argued that
the CCTV device was reimbursable under Part B as durable medical
equipment or a prosthetic device, as defined in the Medicare
statute and regulations. Applying the standard set forth in Chipman
v. Shalala, 90 F. 3d 421 (10th Cir. 1996), the court found that
secretary’s denial of plaintiff’s claim was not
supported by the record. The court said that plaintiff’s
doctor prescribed the CCTV specifically due to her serious medical
condition. According to the court, congressional intent as
expressed in the legislative history of the Medicare Act excluded
from coverage routine procedures and devices unconnected with major
medical conditions such as plaintiff’s macular hemorrhage and
degeneration.
