Mary F. Phillips v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services

Fifth Circuit

Mary F. Phillips v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services

848 F.2d 66, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8523, 1988 WL 60610

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1988

Docket87-1401

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 848 F.2d 66 (Mary F. Phillips v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mary F. Phillips v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, 848 F.2d 66, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8523, 1988 WL 60610 (5th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion March 14, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 839 F.2d 1075)

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner, defendant-appellee Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, requests rehearing because he claims that the panel’s decision that the Secretary acted in bad faith in the case of Mary Phillips is based upon a factual error. See Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1087 (5th Cir.1988). As he acknowledges in his petition, however, any error that may have occurred was caused by the Secretary’s own failure to present the argument now made in support of the petition, either on appeal or to the district court. It is simply too late at this juncture to present a new factual argument. For this reason the petition for rehearing is hereby

DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion March 14, 1988, 5th Cir.1988, 839 F.2d 1075)

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner, defendant-appellee Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, requests rehearing because he claims that the panel’s decision that the Secretary acted in bad faith in the case of Mary Phillips is based upon a factual error. See Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1087 (5th Cir.1988). As he acknowledges in his petition, however, any error that may have occurred was caused by the Secretary’s own failure to present the argument now made in support of the petition, either on appeal or to the district court. It is simply too late at this juncture to present a new factual argument. For this reason the petition for rehearing is hereby

DENIED.

36 soc.sec.rep.ser. 584, unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 16549a Herbert Meyer v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, James E. Glover, Ss Ple-Au-Vefc v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Battle v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Brenda S. Findley v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services

958 F.2d 1029 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)

Meyer v. Sullivan

958 F.2d 1029 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 F.2d 66, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8523, 1988 WL 60610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-f-phillips-v-otis-r-bowen-md-secretary-of-health-and-human-ca5-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack