Court Opinion

ID: 9692333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:51:46.889504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.110200
License: Public Domain

SHERAN, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result in this case because there is an unchallenged finding that the operation here involved was “medically necessary.” The extent to which the use of public funds for transsexual surgery can be limited by the State of Minnesota and the character of the evidence required to establish medical necessity are matters not before us in this case. There are important questions which should not be considered foreclosed by this opinion. See, Beal v. Doe, - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 2366, 53 *822L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); Rush v. Parham, filed August 2, 1977, U.S.D.C., Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Civil Action C76-1445A.