Mullin v. Doe · ¶61

Nor does Bowen support respondents' position. There, the Court held that two statutory provisions did not bar judicial review of a regulation that provided disparate Medicare Part B payments to allopathic and other physicians. The first provision did not bar review at all. Instead, it authorized judicial review of benefits awarded in hearings conducted by private insurance carriers. 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff(b) (1982 ed.). The Government asked the Court to infer that this grant of a particular type of review implicitly barred review of the challenged regulation. Bowen, 476 U. S., at 673. But based on the language of this provision and its legislative history, the Court rejected that request. Id., at 674–678. The Bowen Court's refusal to find an implicit preclusion of review in the specific language and legislative history of a differently worded provision in a particular statutory scheme…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.