# Dr. H. Curtis Bowens v. N.C. Department of Human Resources and Dr. Sarah Morrow

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 23, 1983 · 710 F.2d 1015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470813

## Case

- **Full name:** Dr. H. Curtis BOWENS, Appellant, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and Dr. Sarah Morrow, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 23, 1983
- **Citations:** 710 F.2d 1015; 2 Soc. Serv. Rev. 246; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26448
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murnaghan
- **Judges:** Murnaghan, Chapman, Butzner
- **Cited by:** 60 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/9470813

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that regulations which contained procedural and substantive guarantees expressly limiting the reasons for and means by which a provider may be terminated from the North Carolina medicaid program created a property interest in provider’s continued participation in th…
- holding state regulations that did not authorize termination of a provider without cause created a property interest in continued participation in program entitling him to be terminated only for cause

## Opinion text

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I am quite prepared to assume but not to hold (it not being necessary), that the plaintiff had a property interest. A judge has frequent occasion to appreciate restraint by his predecessors, and their refusal to decide what need not have been decided. My concurrence is solely to reduce the possibility of unwieldly precedent should the question of what would constitute a constitutionally protected property right arise in the future in a context requiring resolution. I would fashion no unnecessary handcuffs for those who come after me.
In all events, however, I am satisfied that due process has not been denied and that the result reached by my panel colleagues is quite correct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470813. Public record. Not legal advice.