a "substantial” constitutional challenge unrelated to any claim for benefits under Part B: [Respondents seem to concede that to the extent that their claims are characterized as claims for Part B benefits, there is no judicial review for those claims under [Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 72 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) and United States v. Erika, 456 U.S. 201, 102 S.Ct. 1650, 72 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) ] ... . Respondents do argue, however, that to the extent that their claims can be characterized as collateral constitutional challenges, ... those constitutional challenges are properly before us. In light of our characterization of resp emy of Family Physicians, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 58, 88 L.Ed.2d 47 (1985); American Medical Ass’n v. Heckler, 606 F.Supp. 1422, 1432-33 (S.D.Ind.1985) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Heckler, 601 F.Supp. 1471, 1487-88
holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding that heckler v ringer does not prevent court from hearing equal protection challenge to fee freeze provision of  2306 holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection