# Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana State Department of Health

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · October 23, 2012 · 699 F.3d 962

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412377

## Case

- **Full name:** PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF INDIANA, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF the INDIANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** October 23, 2012
- **Citations:** 699 F.3d 962; 85 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 637; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22006; 2012 WL 5205533
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cudahy
- **Judges:** Cudahy, Kanne, Sykes
- **Cited by:** 281 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412377

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Medicaid state plan requirement permitting all eligible recipients to receive medical assistance from the provider of their choice established “a personal right to which all Medicaid patients are entitled” but, implicitly, need not accept (emphasis added)
- noting that the Medicaid Act outlines “specific grounds upon which states may bar providers from participating in Medicaid,” but not addressing whether a Medicaid patient could sue under § 1983 to challenge a State’s particular qualification determination, nor what level of de…
- observing that 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(p)(l) and its cross-referenced sections of the Medicaid Act represent a non-exhaustive list of specific mandatory or permissive grounds for states to exclude providers, including “fraud, drug crimes, and failure to disclose necessary informatio…
- explaining that States are authorized to make sub-grants using federal disease intervention funds

## Opinion text

CUDAHY,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Part IIA of the majority opinion in full. I also join Part UBI and IIB2 but do not join Part IIB3 or the reversal of the judgment requiring modification of the preliminary injunction insofar as it prohibits state restrictions on § 247c(e) block-grant funding. I believe the issue of unconstitutional conditions should be remanded to the district court for development of the record with respect to any possible imposition of a burden on access *989 to abortions. In arguing the matter below, Planned Parenthood was required to defend both its Medicaid and block-grant funding. Unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood focused on Medicaid and aimed its brief primarily at the appropriate interpretation of § 1396a(a)(23). The § 247c(c) block-grant funding received comparatively little attention from both parties as well as numerous amici in this case. I believe it is premature for this court to address this issue on the present record. Plaintiffs may not have fully addressed this issue below, but the fundamental constitutional nature of this issue should preclude its disposition on less than an adequate record.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412377. Public record. Not legal advice.