Table 2: Olmstead and Olmstead-related Lawsuits

Olmstead and Olmstead-related Lawsuits

Martin Kitchener, Micky Willmott, Alice Wong and Charlene Harrington
UCSF National Center for Personal Assistance Services

4th revision: October 2006

State

Lawsuit Summary
Titleⁱ
(* Important case)

Date Filed

Case Status
Open/Closed (date closed)

Primary Target Group

Case Type
Olmstead^e
or Related^f

Case Summary & Links to Further Detailsⁱⁱⁱ

AL1¹

Wyatt v.. Sawyer* [CV-70-3195]

Oct. 1970

Closed (Dec 2003)

MR/DD^a Mental Illness

Olmstead

Summary Class Action for institutionalized people with mental illness & MR/DD which set standards for right to treatment, privacy & services in the least restrictive setting. Progress Settlement (2000) (court jurisdiction until 2003)

AL2^{2,3, 23}

Susan J et al v. Riley et al [00-CV-918]

Jul. 2000

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Plaintiffs claim the state failed to furnish them with ICF/MR or waiver services, leaving them on a wait list. Progress Settlement discussion underway that would have the state agree to expand waiver services at the rate of 600 persons per year for a three-year period. Alabama Attorney General Troy King filed a motion for summary judgment for dismissal in February 2006 saying that the Medicaid Act does not give individually enforceable rights. Plaintiffs urged the court to reject this motion in March 2006.

AK1²

Hagen v. Alaska []

1999

Closed (Mar 2002)

Physical Disability

Summary Action to require Medicaid PAS for an individual in a reliable, non-arbitrary way in order to prevent unnecessary institutionalization. State volunteered to increase provider reimbursement rates (the P&A pursued this policy after the plaintiff moved before the court could rule) Progress Case dismissed.

AK2³

Carpenter et al v. AK Dept of Health & Social Services []

Jan. 2001

Closed (Mar 2002)

MR/DD^a

Summary Plaintiffs (children & adults) in this non-class action were indefinitely waitlisted for services. Progress Case dismissed

AR1^{2,3, 16, 24}

Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc et al v. AR Dept of Human Services et al []

Nov. 2001

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Plaintiffs (children & service providers) challenging plans to reduce Medicaid services (ending some day treatment & therapy for children with DD). District & Appeal Courts upheld the complaint, ruling that states are required to identify services in their Medicaid plan. If a physician determines services necessary for Medicaid eligible children, state must pay for them regardless whether they were listed in the state Medicaid Plan. Progress Under appeal. In February 2005, federal district court Judge William R. Wilson issued a ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) state officials. The motion by the Plaintiffs argued that the case should be dismissed since ADHS was covering Child Health Management Services (CHMS) through a new prior authorization and medical necessity process. The Plaintiffs responded by saying the new process was implemented out of budget concerns without consideration of equal access or quality of care. The Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief and money damages against state officials. The district court denied the Defendant's motions based on evidence that showed ADHS and the Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care (AFMC) failed to give proper deference to the treating physician, failed to have medical reviews conducted by qualified personnel and limited the amount and duration of services based on economic concerns. They inferred that the Defendants are violating federal Medicaid and procedural and substantive due process requirements. Currently, the case faces a trial at the district court level.

AR2³

Tessa G v. AR Dept of Human Services et al [03cv493]

Jun. 2003

Closed (Aug 2003)

HCBS^c

Summary Complaint (not class action) concerns state's practice of wait listing individuals for its HCBS waiver program for people with disabilities instead of allowing them to submit an application. Progress Settlement. State offered waiver services to individuals on the list, up to its CMS approved participant cap & conceded it was required to allow people to apply for services under Federal law.

AR3^{3, 25}

Porter & Norman v. Knickreim [03-CV-812]

Oct. 2003

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Complaint challenges the constitutionality of the admission & discharge procedures for people with MR/DD^a in state institutions. Progress Ongoing. Following the close of discovery, on July 27, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on both their Due Process and Equal Protection claims. Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2004. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the defendants to submit a new set of post-admission review procedures within 20 days of the court's decision. The court entered judgment that the amended rules are an adequate remedy to the case. The Arkansas Disability Rights Center appealed the judgment on September 6, 2005. The appeal is still pending. Further details [http://www.arkdisabilityrights.org/law/alerts.html]

AZ^{2,3, 26}

Ball et al v. Biedess et al [00-cv-67]

Jan. 2000

Open

HCBS^c

Olmstead

Summary Class action for Medicaid eligible plaintiffs (seniors, TBI/SCIb & MR/DDa) alleges Medicaid payment rates for PAS are too low to ensure all HCBS are provided so people are at risk of institutionalization. Court ruled the state must make improvements to the program & pay sufficient to "attract enough health care workers to deliver all of the services for which the individual qualifies" Progress Under appeal. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System requested a stay and appealed the court's order for the state to remedy the gaps in services to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 17, 2005 the Ninth Circuit denied the stay request. Oral argument on the appeal could come as early as October 2005. Further details [http://www.acdl.com/ball.html]

CA1⁸

Sobky v. Smoley []

1991⁹

Closed (1994)

HIV/other^d

Summary Class action challenged denial of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) to Medicaid eligible people because the county they live in did not have a MMT program. Progress Appeal Court upheld ruling stating services should be provided; with "reasonable promptness", evenly across the state & with adequate scope & duration of treatment, noting that if beneficiaries wait different lengths of time it constitutes discrimination

CA2^{2, 11}

Coffelt v. Dept of Developmental Services []

1990

Closed (1994)

MR/DD^a

Summary Case challenging the placement of people with MR/DD^a in institutions. Progress Settlement (a net decrease of 2000 in the institutional population over 5 years & improved HCBS). NAPAS/TASC - CA P&A

CA3²

Richard S et al v. Dept of Developmental Services []

1997

Closed (2000)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Case (brought by doctor) claiming that plaintiffs should not be discharged to the community because they were in the most integrated setting appropriate (DD Centers). Progress Settlement (included provision that treating professionals can express an objection to a community placement).

CA4²

Hale 'Buttercup' v. Belshe []

1997

Closed

HCBS^c

Summary Class action challenging failure to comply with PASRR^g, improperly imposing caps on mental health rehabilitation & not providing services in the least restrictive setting. Progress Case voluntarily dismissed as appropriate placements were identified

CA5^2,16

Emily Q. v. Bonta []

1998

n/aii

Children

Summary Case regarding lack of provision of therapeutic behavioral health services to medically needy children receiving EPDST services under Medicaid. Progress Complaint upheld.

CA6²

Black v. Dept of Mental Health []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (20002)

Mental Illness

Olmstead

Summary Case brought by the Administrator of the estate of a person with mental illness, claiming the state violated the ADA by discharging the individual from a private institution to the community. Progress Complaint dismissed. Appeal Court upheld this, ruling that Olmstead clarified that the ADA does not impose a standard of care on states & does not prohibit inappropriate community discharge

CA7³

CA Association of Health Facilities v. State Dept of Health Services [03-736]

n/aⁱⁱ

n/aii

n/aⁱⁱ

Summary This case was related to payments for care & services in the state Medicaid Plan. The judge in Sanchez v. Johnson et al (CA8) drew on this case in making a ruling.

CA8^{3, 23}

Sanchez et al v. Johnson et al [00cv01593]

May. 2000

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Plaintiffs (including service providers) challenged the disparity between wages for direct support professionals in institutions & in the community¹¹. The Judge decided the trial would only examine whether payments are sufficient to provide quality services. Drawing on other cases (Sabree et al, PN6 & CA Association of Health Facilities, CA7) the court dismissed the case as Medicaid law does not give individually enforceable rights. Progress Ongoing. Plaintiffs petitioned for review (Aug 2005) and the Ninth Circuit rejected their Olmstead and Medicaid Act claims. To download the Ninth Circuit's opinion filed on Aug. 2, 2005, go to: [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A95CF272053DC6E882570510054C594/$file/0415228.pdf?openelement ]

CA9^{2,3, 23}

Davis et al.v. CA Health and Human Services Agency et al []

Jul 2000⁷

Closed (Jul. 2004)

HCBS^c

Olmstead

Summary Class action brought by a coalition of organizations on behalf of residents of Laguna Honda nursing facility. The US Dept of Justice also conducted an investigation & found it to be in breach of Olmstead. Progress Settlement (includes targeted case management for people living in the facility or at risk of admission). The state will also revise their screening program for individuals with psychiatric disabilities with an emphasis on community alternatives versus nursing homes. The plaintiffs reserve the right to re-file the lawsuits if there are insufficient community options.

CA10³

Clayworth et al v. Bonta et al [03-2110]

n/ⁱⁱ

Closed (Dec 20037)

HCBS^c

Summary Case brought by Medicaid recipients & a pharmacist providing Medicaid services to prevent California from instituting a 5% rate reduction in Medicaid payments. Progress Under appeal by state. Appeal consolidated with California Medical Association (CA11)

CA11³

CA Medical Association et al v. Bonta et al [03-2336]

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Dec 20037)

HCBS^c

Summary Case brought by a coalition of Medicaid providers & beneficiaries to prevent state from instituting a 5% rate reduction in Medicaid payments. Progress Under appeal by state. (Appeal consolidated with Clayworth, CA10)

CA12^{2, 23}

Capitol People First et al v. CA Dept of Developmental Services et al. []

Jan. 2002

Open

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Case (in state court) challenges that the state unnecessarily institutionalizes people with MR/DDa & requests changes including that the state offers the full range of Medicaid & state HCBS. Class certification sought to cover all Californians with MR/DD in, or at risk of placement in, institutions. Progress Ongoing. The court denied class certification in December 2005 saying the issues posed the lawsuit are highly individualized with little commonality among plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the decision and the court has not entered a ruling as of April 2006.

CA13^{2,7, 27}

Rodde et al. v. Bonta et al [03-01580]

Mar 2003⁷

Closed

Physical Disability⁷

Summary Case challenging the closure of Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Hospital. It argues that without the service people with disabilities will not learn to live independently & risk institutionalization & are being treated differently to other Medicaid beneficiaries. Appeal Court upheld an injunction on closure (noting that the plaintiffs are likely to win the ADA claim). This does not mean the facility cannot close but alternative services should be found before this happens. Progress Settlement. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the County. The County will keep Rancho open for at least three years from the date the settlement becomes final, unless a buyer appears before this time. During this time period, Rancho will continue providing medical services to people with disabilities and will a buyer for the hospital or establish a nonprofit organization to take it over. If the hospital closes, the County must provide adequate continuation of services for its patients with Medi-Cal. To download the settlement agreement: [http://www.wclp.org/rodde/final%20agreement%20for%20posting%2010-04.DOC]

CO1¹⁷

Duc Van LE v. Ibarra []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (1994)

Mental Illness

Summary Case alleging the state's refusal to make Medicaid HCBS available to people with mental illness was discriminatory under the Rehabilitation Act as these services were available to seniors & people who are blind & physically disabled. Progress Complaint upheld.

CO2^{2,3, 23}

Mandy R et al v. Owens et al* [00cv01609]

Aug. 2000

Open

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Case (class action denied) challenges waitlists & seeks services in small ICF/MR group homes or HCBS waiver services. An association of non-profit community services providers contended that state payments for HCBS are inadequate & waiver services should be expanded, not ICF/MR services. Court dismissed all claims (dismissed ADA claims on grounds that "Olmstead does not stand for the proposition that a state must create, expand or maintain programs for the purpose of preventing disabled individuals from becoming institutionalized") Progress Under appeal. Both plaintiff and defendants submitted their appellant briefs in September 2005. The defendants, Colorado Association of Community Centered Boards (CACCB), argued they could meet the needs of the plaintiffs by substituting HCBS waiver for ICF/MR services. Plaintiffs disagreed with this contention. The state replied it was only responsible for paying for Medicaid services. Both the plaintiffs and the CACCB responded the state's brief in November 2005. Oral arguments were heard May 10, 2006.

CT1³

DeSario v. Thomas* []

1997

Closed (Feb 19987)

Physical Disability⁷

Summary Class action about limits on payments for medical equipment to items on a Social Services list. It prompted HCFA (now CMS) to clarify policies on medical equipment coverage, requiring states to provide individuals "a meaningful opportunity for seeking modifications of or exceptions to a State's pre-approved list."15 Progress Settlement

CT2^{3, 23}

Arc of CT et al v. O\'Meara & Wilson-Coker [01-cv-1871]

Oct. 2001

Closed (May 2005)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action involving waiver recipients who are waitlisted/denied other services. Plaintiffs used CMS guidance as evidence (Olmstead Letter 4).REF The state introduced a 5-year plan to reduce the wait list. Progress Settlement (commits state resources to the plan). In late 2004 the parties arrived at a settlement agreement. The agreement provides the following: the class includes those individuals who applied and were found eligible plus individuals who would have been found eligible if they had the opportunity to apply; over a five-year period starting FY 2005-2009, the state agreed to expand its HCBS waiver programs to accommodate an additional 150 persons each year; the state agreed to create a new Individual and Family Support HCBS waiver; and the state agreed to revise its procedure to ensure potential applicants receive adequate information regarding the services and prompt determination of eligibility of those services.

CT3²

Carroll v. Wilson-Coker []

2001

Open

Physical Disability

Summary The elderly plaintiff had received HCBS & PAS under the state waiver but the provider agency repeatedly failed to provide the required amount of care. As a result the plaintiff experienced falls & some aides were injured. The agency withdrew services on the grounds that they could not provide safe care, leaving the plaintiff at risk of institutionalization. Progress Ongoing

CT4³

Pragano et al v. Wilson-Coker [02-cv-1968]

Nov. 2002

Closed (Dec 2003)

n/aⁱⁱ

Summary Non-class action case (similar to Desario v. Thomas, CT1) claiming that in refusing to pay for medical equipment not covered by Medicare & operating an arbitrary list of approved devices, the State restricted access to equipment for independent living thereby increasing risk of institutionalization. Progress Settlement (a revised list was formed, including rights for appealing decisions).

CT5^{11, 28}

Messier v. Southbury Training School []

1994

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Southbury is an institution for people MR/DD. This was filed by People First of CT, The Arc of CT & the Western CT Association for Human Rights Progress Ongoing. Both sides agreed to enter into mediation in December 1999.

DC²

Evans & US v. Williams []

1999

Closed (2001)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action asking the court to implement the HCBS waiver program & put class members in a less restrictive setting, & alleging the district was in contempt because it failed to provide timely payment to group home service providers. Progress Settlement (includes the creation of a non-profit corporation to provide lay advocacy, legal services & support to ensure greater protections for all people with MR/DDa).

DE1²

Doe v. Sylvester []

2000

Closed (200111)

Mental Illness

Olmstead

Summary The plaintiff was a deaf inpatient at a state hospital who required interpreter services. The court ruled that the lack of interpreting services violated the ADA because the person couldn't engage with therapy & the state had not made reasonable accommodations to a public housing unit so the individual resided in an institution despite being suitable for community placement. Progress Case dismissed after individual's situation changed

DE2^2,3

Arc of Delaware et al v. Meconi et al* [02-cv-255]

Apr. 2002

Closed (Aug 2004)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleged the State does not have a "comprehensive effectively working plan" for placing qualified persons in less restrictive settings & did not move its wait list at a reasonable pace. Progress Settlement (includes expansion of waiver services, a new family support waiver & infrastructure improvements).

FL1³

John/Jane Doe v. Bush et al (originally Doe v. Chiles et al)* [965144]

1992

Closed (Mar 1998)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action about wait listing for ICF/MR services. Progress Complaint upheld. Court ruled that "reasonable promptness" requires a state to furnish ICF/MR services promptly once an application has been approved & therefore wait lists violate Medicaid law. Appeal court upheld this ruling

FL2^3,23

Brown et al v. Bush et al. [98cv673]

Jan 1998²

Open

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleging unnecessary institutionalization of people with MR/DDa. Progress Settlement (includes closure of 2 of the 4 state DD centers by 2010 & funds for a new waiver for people moving to the community) but groups interested in preserving institutions lodged appeal against this. The objectors filed an appeal at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court rejected the claim; the objectors appealed again. The state opposes the appeal of the objectors and oral arguments are scheduled for June 2006.

FL3³

Wolf Prado-Steiman v. Bush. et al [98cv06496]

1998

Closed (Aug 2001)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Case challenging state policies in operating its HCBS waiver. It was amended to challenge the wait listing of individuals. Progress Settlement. (The waiver for people with MR/DD expanded but new issues arose including a 'post-Prado' wait list of people not covered by the settlement. A motion of breach of settlement was filed but rejected, Mar 2004).

FL4^{3, 23}

Dubois et al v. Rhonda Meadows et al [03-CV-107]

Apr. 2003

Open

TBI/SCI^b

Olmstead

Summary Class action where plaintiffs had sought but not received community services through Brain or Spinal Cord Injury waiver & state does not have a comprehensive effectively working plan for community integration. Progress Trial scheduled in November 2006 & settlement proposed

FL5¹⁸

Cummings v. Dept of Community Health []

3-Dec

Open

Mental Illness

Summary Case brought on behalf of 5 residents of a nursing home in the grounds of a state psychiatric facility scheduled for closure. Plaintiffs argue that they have not been assessed for or given the option of, community-based alternatives & are instead being transferred to nursing homes. Progress State filed to dismiss the case.

GA1³

Olmstead v. L.C. & E.W.* [98-536]

1995

Closed (Jul 1999)

MR/DD & mental illness

Olmstead

Summary Case about 2 women with MR/DD both diagnosed with mental illness & voluntarily admitted to a state hospital for psychiatric treatment. Treating professionals concluded that the plaintiffs could receive community care but they remained institutionalized. Progress Complaint upheld

GA2³

Birdsong et al v. Perdue et al [03-cv-288]

Jan. 2003

Closed (June 2006)

Physical Disability

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleges since Olmstead, the State made no significant effort to operate long-term care in a way that ensures people have the option of HCBS & are not unduly segregated. Progress Settlement. 1,000 more persons will be served in HCBS setting in the 2007 fiscal year.

GU²

J.C. v. Gutierrez []

2001

Closed (Jun 2004)

MR/DD & mental illness

Olmstead

Summary Plaintiffs have mental illness & MR/DDa & have not been provided with necessary therapeutic services to facilitate community placement. Progress Court order (state to develop a plan for the community placement of people inappropriately placed in the Adult Inpatient Unit).

HI1^{3, 23}

Makin et al v. State of HI* [98cv997]

Dec. 1998

Closed (Nov 19995)

HCBS^c

Olmstead

Summary Class action for people at home waitlisted for HCBS due to lack of funding.⁶ Court dismissed the defense that plaintiffs are not qualified to use Olmstead because they aren't institutionalized although it ruled any waiting time is permissible once the waiver program reaches the mandated population limit⁶. Progress Settlement (includes extension of the number of people served on waiver over 3 years). In August 2005, the parties entered into an additional settlement agreement with the state agreeing to revise its policies and procedures regarding applications for waiver services. The state will also evaluate the eligibility of an applicant for waiver services at the receipt of the application rather than placing the individual on a wait list.

HI2^{3, 29}

Disability Rights Center v. State of HI et al [03-00524]

Sep. 2003

Closed (Aug 2005)

HCBS^c

Summary The Disability Rights Center evaluated implementation of the Makin (HI1) settlement & brought this class action alleging there are still 300 people on the wait list because the state has furnished services to people who sought HCBS after the settlement (rather than class members) & class members are not receiving the full range of HCBS required. Progress Settlement. The state is now required to eligibility for home- and community-based services within 90 days of the date of application for people presently on the waitlist and new applicants. The state is also required to make improvements on their intake procedures, eligibility criteria and other services for consumers. To download the settlement agreement, go to: [http://www.hawaiidisabilityrights.org/forms/S.M.SETTLEMENT8-12-05(final-redact).DOC]

No cases found

IL1⁸

McMillan v. McCrimon

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (1992)

HCBS^c

Summary Court found that the plaintiffs (people with mental & physical disabilities) had a right to apply for HCBS even where the state limits on funding on these services would lead to a waiting list. Court also reinforced the right to services with reasonable promptness & that limited state resources is not a defense.

IL2¹¹

Bogard v. Duffy

1988

Closed (Oct 19987)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action resulted in the state being ordered to reduce numbers of people with MR/DD^a in nursing homes & develop community-based services. The class does not include any person admitted to a nursing home after 1994. Progress Consent decree (1993) Further details [http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/972926.html]

IL3⁷

Bradley Tinder v. IL Dept of Public Aid

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Mar 2003)

Physical Disability, MR/DD^a

Summary Plaintiff with cerebral palsy living in nursing home wanted to move to a community-based home but his application to join the Community Integrated Living Arrangement (CILA) program was denied because he is not developmentally disabled. Court upheld the Dept of Human Services' decision. Progress Appeal Court overruled this, stating that under state law cerebral palsy is included in the definition of developmental disability even if no mental impairment is present & therefore denial of community services was unjustified

IL4^2,3

Bruggeman et al. v. Blagojevich et al (formerly Boudreau v. Ryan). * [00-cv-5392]

Sep. 2000

Closed (Jul 2004)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Case concerned lack of access to Medicaid HCBS or ICF/MR services. The court ruled a state is not required to arrange services close to a family & services may be available elsewhere. The ADA argument was dismissed as the case was filed against public officials & the ADA is about the policies of a public entity. The Appeal Court upheld these decisions but remanded the complaint back to consider the ADA claims in light of Olmstead guidance that states should have an effectively working plan. Progress Settlement

IL5^{22, 30}

Radaszewski v. Maram []

2000

Open

HIV/other^d

Olmstead

Summary Plaintiff requires 24 hour medical care due to brain cancer and stroke suffered as a child. Care was provided by state Medicaid program but when he reached 21, eligibility ceased and he was unable to get the amount of care required through the adult HCBS waiver and therefore was at risk of institutionalization. Progress Ongoing. Originally, the complaint by the plaintiff was dismissed by the districut court without a trial. On September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff and sent the case back to district court for trial. The Court of Appeals rejected the state's notion that the plaintiff's high cost of care made him ineligible for home-care services and that it would be unreasonably force the state to change its programs and services. The plaintiff is allowed to proceed with the complaint. To download the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit opinion: [http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/X30932N5.pdf]

IL6^{3, 23}

Jackson et al. v. Maram [04-0174]

4-Jan

Open

Physical disability

Summary Class action filed by an Independent Living Center on behalf of 3 nursing home residents who contend that they are unnecessarily confined to institutions because they have been denied Medicaid-funded motorized wheelchairs despite having been assessed as needing them. Progress Ongoing. The state moved to dismiss the case based on class certification. However, the court granted the motion for class certification in August 2004. Currently court proceedings are suspended so that both parties may pursue settlement.

IL7³

Drzewicki v. Maram et al [04-CV-7164]

4-Nov

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Non-class action brought by an individual, challenging state policies in limiting HCBS waiver-funded residential services to people who need emergency services or who are in other priority groups. Plaintiff receives some HCBS waiver services but seeks Community Integrated Living Arrangements that are also provided through the waiver program. Progress Settlement proposed

IL8³

Bertrand et al v. Maram et al [05-0544]

5-Jan

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary class action complaint raising same issues as a non-class action in IL (Drzewicki, IL6) that the state is denying some waiver services to waiver participants who require them. Progress Ongoing. Both parties have filed motions for Summary judgment in the case. The state also filed a motion opposing class certification.

IL9^{3, 31}

Ligas et al v. Maram et al []

5-Jul

Open

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary class action alleges state policies mean people are unnecessarily institutionalized in priovately operated ICF/DD facilities. Progress Ongoing. On March 7, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman granted class action status for the plaintiffs in this case. To download the judge&3039;s opinion regarding the plaintiff&3039;s motion for class certification: [http://www.equipforequality.org/resourcecenter/ligas_opinionclasscertification.doc]

IN1^2,3

Inch et al v. Humphrey & Griffin (also known as Flores v. Hamilton12) []

Jul. 2000

Closed (Sep 2004)

Physical disability¹²

Olmstead

Summary Class action (in county court) alleged 2000 individuals were either on waiting lists or suffering "nstitutional isolation" as enrollment in the state elderly & disabled waiver programs had been closed for 2 years & new applications were not accepted. Progress Settlement (waiver to be expanded to serve 3,000 more people & assessment and quality assurance mechanisms to be developed)

IN2³

Name of case not known³(p.27) []

Dec. 2000

Closed (Sep 2004)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action (filed in county court) on behalf of individuals in nursing facilities due to lack of HCB waiver services. Progress Settlement (includes expansion of the waiver program to provide services to 450 nursing facility residents with developmental disabilities over 8 years)

IN3^{3, 16}

Collins et al v. Hamilton et al [02-3935]

2001

Closed (Nov 2003)

Mental Illness

Summary Class action regarding failure of state to provide children & young people long-term treatment in psychiatric residential facilities. District Court & Appeal Court found any Medicaid service that is medically necessary must be provided. Progress Complaint upheld (Court permanently enjoined the state from denying such services)

KS^{3, 23}

Interhab, Inc et al v. Schalansky et al [02c001335]

Oct. 2002

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary: Interhab (an association of providers) & 5 other community service providers claim that state is under funding HCBS. 2 individuals with MR/DD were added as plaintiffs. Progress Ongoing. The court rejected the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and motions by the plaintiff for a temporary restraining order, various injunctions and the appointment of a special master. Trial on the various motions is scheduled for July 2006.

KY1³

Doe v. KY Cabinet for Human Services [92-351]

1982⁷

Closed (Jun 19937)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action alleged the state did not properly administer PASRR for people with MR/DD in nursing facilities. Under PASRR states must take steps to provide specialized services for these people &/or arrange for community placement if appropriate. Progress Settlement reached & case dropped

KY2²

Jeremy & Darvin, J et al v. Morse et al. []

May. 1996

Closed

Children

Summary Class action alleging the state was not providing information or services to children under 21 as required under the Medicaid EPDST program. Progress Settlement (service provision to be based on medical need, not cost)

KY3^{2,3, 23}

Michelle P et al v. Morgan et al [02-CV-00023]

Feb. 2002

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action regarding a long waiting list for Medicaid services despite increases in state funding. Class is "all present & future Kentuckians with MR &/or related conditions who live with caretakers who are eligible for, & have requested but are not receiving medical assistance, community residential &/or support services." Progress Ongoing. The parties arrived at a settlement in January 2006 that included the addition of $45 million in state funds during the 2006-08 biennium to expand community services with funding to increase through 2010. Total funding would increase from $303 million in 2006 to $485 million in 2010. The court approved the settlement in March 2006.

KY4^{2,3, 23}

Kerr et al v. Holsinger et al [03-68]

Oct. 2003

Closed (Aug 2004)

HCBS^c

Summary Class action (seniors & people with disabilities) who lost eligibility for services after the state narrowed long-term care eligibility by raising the threshold of functional impairment to qualify for support. Progress Ongoing, The court preliminarily approved a settlement in June 2004 that requires the state to revise eligibility regulations for nursing facility and waiver services. The proposed settlement also requires the state to re-evaluate applicants who were denied services under the previous rules. The court approved the settlement in August 2004.

LA1^2,16

Chisholm et al v. Hood []

1997⁷

Closed (Oct 2000)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action concerning Medicaid-eligible children on the MR/DD waiver wait list who were not receiving EPDST services. Progress Settlement

LA2^{3, 23}

Barthelemey vs. LA Dept of Health & Hospitals [00cv01083]

Apr. 2000

Closed (Aug 2001)

HCBS^c

Summary Class action challenging waitlists for community services. Progress Settlement (includes an increase in state spending & a reduction in the waiting time to less than 90 days). In 2003 the state legislature instructed the postponement of adding personal care to the plan due to budget concerns, proposing to add 2000 HCBS waiver slots instead. The Court did not allow this & CMS approved the state plan in Jan 2004. Due to an influx of applications, the state had delays in processing these applications. The plaintiffs petitioned the court for an extension of the settlement agreement from December 2005 to December 2006 to enforce the provision that persons eligible for services receive them within 90 days. The court approved the extension of the agreement in May 2006 despite opposition of the petition by the state.

LA3^2,3

Malen v. Hood []

Dec. 2000

Closed

Children

Summary Class action following proposals for a waiver for children with severe disabilities that offered a capped set of benefits narrower than those in the existing waiver. It objected to the method of program implementation, where children would have to give up their place on the existing wait list if they enroll on the new list. Progress Settlement (waiver proposal amended & CMS approved different waiver conditions).

MA1^{2,3, 21,23}

Rolland et al v. Romney et al [021697]

Oct. 1998

Closed (Jan 20039)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleging plaintiffs were denied community-based placements or 'specialized services' when they opted to stay in a nursing facility. Progress Settlement (includes nursing home residents with MR/DD are offered community residential services & community placements are provided for class members). The state appealed this ruling to the 1st Circuit Court and it was rejected in January 2003.

MA2^{2, 3}

Hermanson et al. v. Commonwealth of MA et al [00-cv-30156]

2001

Closed (Feb 2003)

Physical Disability²

Olmstead

Summary Class action challenging state policy of applying more restrictive financial eligibility criteria to seniors than working age adults with disabilities on the Medicaid PAS program so seniors are at risk of institutionalization. Progress Settlement (State agreed to more liberal financial eligibility criteria for seniors)

MA3³

Boulet et al. vs. Celluci et al. []

Mar. 1999

Closed (Jul. 20005)

HCBS^c

Summary Class action about wait lists for residential services. Court upheld the complaint, directing the state to provide residential services to class members (people waitlisted for services, including those receiving waiver services) within 90 days or propose a plan, noting that inadequate funding does not excuse failure to provide services with reasonable promptness.⁶ Progress Settlement (state to commit $355.8 million in total to expand services between 2002 & 2006)

MA4^{2, 23}

Rosie D. v. Swift []

2001

Open

Mental Illness

Summary Class action alleging children with mental illness have been hospitalized or are at risk of institutionalization because of lack of home based mental health services but does not include an ADA integration claim. Progress Ongoing. Both parties were ordered by the court to develop various remedies over a six-month period.

MA5⁷

Mendez v. Brown [03-30160-KPN]

n/aⁱⁱ

Open

Physical Disability

Summary 2 clinically obese Medicaid beneficiaries appeal against the state's denial of breast reduction surgery. Court refused to rule that obesity is not considered a disability. Progress Ongoing On March 26, 2004, the Federal District Court for Massachusetts denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on the basis that obesity is not a disability within the definition under the ADA and the Section 504. To download the opinion from the U.S. District Court, go to: [http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/neiman/pdf/mendez%203%2004.pdf ]

MA6²

Garcia v. Warring [01-9078]

2-Aug

Closed

Mental illness

Olmstead

Summary Case brought by the state P&A on behalf of a woman diagnosed with psychosis & dementia who only speaks Portuguese. All PAS providers claimed they could not serve her as she only responds to her daughter. Progress Court upheld complaint, ruling that as she qualified for PAS it would not be a fundamental alteration for the woman's family to be paid to provide services

MD³

Williams et al v. Wasserman et al * [CCB-94-880]

1994

Closed (Sep 20015)

TBI/SCI^b2

Olmstead

Summary Class action requiring HCBS for "non-retarded developmentally disabled people"⁶ (TBI or MR/DD). Progress Complaint dismissed. Court ruled it would be a fundamental alteration as the state had decreased numbers in institutions, increased community services & further expansion would affect ability to serve others

ME1^2,3

Risinger et al v. Concannon et al [00-116-B-C]

Jun. 2000

Closed (May 2002)

Children

Summary Class action alleged the state had not provided medically necessary EPSDT services to children with MR/DD or assured childrenÕs non-waiver Medicaid services. Progress Settlement (no child to wait more than 6 months to receive approved treatment & services)

ME2³

Rancourt et al v. ME Dept of Human Services et al [01cv00159]

Aug. 2001

Closed (Jul 2003)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action alleging state failure to provide services with reasonable promptness. Court ruled that Reasonable promptness for receipt of HCBS is when services begin within 18 months. It does not require the state to expand the program more than the approved number of slots Progress Settlement (state to devise a plan & provide day habilitation & case management within 90 days & within 225 days to newly qualifying individuals)

MI1^2,3

Olesky et al v. Haveman et al []

Sep. 1999

Closed

MR/DD^a & mental illness

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleged plaintiffs with mental, neurological & psychiatric disabilities¹¹ in nursing facilities denied community placements or "specialized services" if they stayed in nursing facilities. Progress Settlement. State to "assure the appropriate & timely community placement of individuals determined to not require nursing facility care"²

MI2^2,3

Eager et al vs. Granholm et al [5-02-00044-DWM]

Mar. 2002

Closed (Feb 2004)

HCBS^c

Olmstead

Summary Case (covering seniors & people with disabilities) challenging a freeze (below capacity) on enrollment to the HCBS waiver. Progress Settlement (includes increasing waiver slots & funding, consumer information & creation of a Medicaid LTC Task Force)

MN1^2,3

Ferrick v. O'Keefe []

2001

Open

HCBS^c

Summary Class action alleging the state has not ensured eligible individuals have access to home-based nursing equal to that of similarly situated people receiving similar non-Medicaid services.

MN2^{3, 23}

Assoc. for Residential Resources in MN et al v. Goodno et al [03-cv-2438]

Mar. 2003

Closed (Dec 2004)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action where plaintiffs (including advocacy organizations & providers) seek to stop the state 'rebasing' funds allocated to counties for HCBS waiver services. The case is presided over by the same judge as Masterman et al. (MN3). Progress Settlement. Under terms of the settlement, the state agreed to increase funding over the next two years and issue new guidelines regarding individual budgets. The state also agreed to explore new ways to fund their waiver program.

MN3³

Masterman et al v. Goodno [03cv2939]

Apr. 2003

Closed (Jun 20047)

MR/DD⁷

Summary Class action where plaintiffs (including advocacy organizations) seek to stop the state 'rebasing' funds allocated to counties for HCBS waiver services. Presided over by same judge as Association for Residential Resources in MN (MN1). Progress Settlement (state to increase county allocations & establish a new funding method for waiver)

No cases found

MS1²

Blackmon v. MS Dept of Mental Health []

1997

Closed

Mental Illness

Summary Case argued that failure to prescribe newer anti-psychotic medication violated the ADA as it prevented people being discharged to the community. Court did not discuss ADA claim Progress Case voluntarily dismissed.

MS2³

Billy A & MS Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities v. Lewis-Payton et al [02cv00475]

May. 2002

Closed (Mar 2005)

HCBS^c

Olmstead

Summary Case alleged that state policies lead to unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in nursing homes by not making HCBS available. Progress Settlement (includes assessment mechanisms for nursing home residents to screen for community transition, provision of support to transition people to the community, increase payments to personal care attendants)

MT1^{2,3, 23}

Travis D vs. Eastmont Human Services Center []

Aug. 1996⁷

Closed (Feb 2004)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleged the state failed to provide HCBS to residents of the 2 state MR/DD institutions (one of these has since closed) & individuals in the community at risk of institutionalization. Progress Settlement. The parties arrived at an agreement in February 2004. The state will move 45 residents from the Montana Developmental Center into the community over the next four years. The state also agreed to repeal a law that allows court commitment of individuals who have "near total care" requirements. For more details: Montana Advocacy Program [http://www.mtadv.org ]

MT2³

Sandy L et al v. Martz et al []

Sep. 2002

Closed (Feb 2004)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action (in state court) on behalf of 8 individuals receiving HCBS & an association of community developmental disability provider agencies, seeking an injunction to bar the state from maintaining the disparity in wages & benefits between state institutional & community-based workers. Progress Settlement. As part of the settlement agreement, the state will redesign and modify the nature and scope of services to persons with developmental disabilities in ICF/MR or home- and community-based settings. The state will also redesign and modify services funded by the Montana State Medicaid Plan for persons with developmental disabilities. To download the settlement agreement from the U.S. District Court for Montana, go to: [http://www.mtadv.org/PDF/Settlement%20Agreement%201-30-04FINAL_1.pdf#search=%22Sandy%20L%20et%20al%20v.%20Martz%20et%20al%22]

NC1¹¹

Thomas S. v. Flaherty * []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (1990)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action concerning people institutionalized in state psychiatric facilities. Appeal Court held that institutionalized persons with disabilities are entitled to services that are consistent with professional opinion & where it is assessed as appropriate people are entitled to receive community-based services.

NC2³

McCree v. Odom (previously Antrican v. Odom) *

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (May 20029)

Children

Summary Class action on behalf of Medicaid-eligible children unable to obtain dental services due to a lack of Medicaid-participating dentists. The ruling in this case was one of the first that held that states cannot claim 'sovereign immunity' & that complainants have individually enforceable rights under Medicaid law. Progress Complaint upheld.

No cases found

NE³

Bill M et al v. Dept of Health & Human Services et al [03-cv-03189]

May. 2003

Open

MR/DD^a

Summary Case (class certification denied) challenging wait list for waiver & state methods for authorizing services which may mean inadequate services are provided to recipients. Plaintiffs want a state plan to move the wait list at a reasonable pace, provide services up to the number of available slots, expansion of the waiver & revamp its service authorization mechanism. ADA claim dismissed. Progress Ongoing. The state of Nebraska made a motion to dismiss the case based on sovereign immunity was denied. In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the ruling from the district court and the case is remanded to the district court with direction to dismiss the plaintiff's Title II claim against the state of Nebraska. To download the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's order, go to: [http://www.nebraskaadvocacyservices.org/includes/downloads/0608152222_001.pdf ]

NH1^{2,3, 23}

Bryson et al vs. Shumway & Fox [99-cv-558]

Dec. 1999

Open

TBI/SCI^b

Olmstead

Summary Class action about wait list for Acquired Brain Disorder model HCBS waiver. Court ordered at least 200 slots be filled & with reasonable promptness. Appeal Court overruled, ruling states can limit numbers in a model waiver although services should be furnished with reasonable promptness up to the waiver limit. Case remanded to District Court for consideration of ADA claims. Progress Ongoing. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment with the court rejecting both motions in March 2004. Furthermore, the court found that neither party had enough evidence for it to rule on the ADA/Olmstead claims. A three-day trial took place in October 2005 and a decision has not been handed down yet.

NH2²

Gagnon v. Shumway []

2000

Closed

Mental Illness

Olmstead

Summary Case alleged that to revoke an individual's conditional discharge from a state hospital & involuntarily commit them without holding a hearing violates the ADA. Progress Settlement (State agreed to appoint attorney for anyone whose conditional discharge is revoked).

NH3^2,3

Cuming et al vs. Shaheen et al. []

Jan. 2002

Closed (2003)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Complaint brought in county court, charging the state failure to develop an adequate system of community support. Progress Case dismissed. Voluntary nonsuit without prejudice (plaintiffs did not present enough evidence but this is not a judgment on the merits of the case so plaintiffs could re-file at a later date).

NJ1²

NJ P&A Inc v. Waldman et al []

1998

Closed

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Case claiming the state moved 9 people with MR/DD & history of violence from group homes to locked state facilities without notice or hearings. Progress Settlement (plaintiffs moved to appropriate community placements).

NJ2^{3, 23, 32}

NJ P&A v. Davey [05-1784]

Apr. 2005

Open

Mental illness

Olmstead

Summary Class action alleges state has not developed comprehensive effectively working plan to transition unnecessarily institutionalized individuals from state facilities to HCBS. Progress Ongoing. The state filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit saying the state is immune from being sued under the ADA. The court dismissed the motion in September 2005. To download a copy of the complaint, [http://www.njpanda.org/pdf/amended%20complaint.pdf] To download a copy of the court's motion denying the motion to dismiss, go to: [http://www.bazelon.org/pdf/NJP&A-MotToDismissDenied.pdf]

NJ3^{3, 32}

NJ P&A v. Davey

5-Sep

Open

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Complaint alleges people with DD are unnecessarily institutionalized in publicly operated state developmental centers. Progress Ongoing. The state filed an answer to the complaint denying most of the allegations and raising several defenses. To download the state's answer to the complaint, go to: http://www.njpanda.org/pdf/Answer.pdf To download a copy of the plaintiff's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, go to: [http://www.njpanda.org/pdf/amended%20complaint.pdf ]

NM1^{2, 11,21}

Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hospital & Training School []

1990

Closed (1992)

MR/DD^a

Summary State P&A filed this class action claiming unsafe conditions & lack of discharge plans for residents to state DD facilities. Progress Consent decree required closure of all state institutions & the last resident moved out in 1998. Significantly, the Court acknowledged that treatment decisions are often affected by a state's budgetary restraints. ²¹

NM2^2,3

Lewis et al. v. NM Dept of Health et al. * [99-00021]

Jan. 1999

Closed (Sep 2005)

HCBS^c

Olmstead

Summary Class action for people in ICF/MR or institutions & people in the community seeking waiver services. Court ruled the state had not furnished services with reasonable promptness but did not require the state to expand its program to include the people on the waitlist because reasonable promptness only extends as far as there are available funds & slots. Progress Complaint upheld. (Court ordered state to allocate slots as soon as they are available, determine a person's eligibility within 90 days & provide waiver services within 90 days of finding eligibility). Plaintiffs filed for contempt but Court denied this ruling the state was only obligated to provide waiver services to the extent it had funds.

NV1²

Parry v. Crowford [96-778]

1998

Closed (1999)

MR/DD^a

Summary Action on behalf of an individual with autism to prevent the state from denying Medicaid supported living services & counseling because plaintiff did not qualify for placement in an ICF/MR. Progress Complaint upheld

NV2²

Allen et al v. Crawford et al [CV-S-01590-KJD]

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Aug 2002)

HCBS^c

Summary Class action alleging the state fails to provide adequate notice & services with reasonable promptness. Progress Settlement.

NY1^{11, 21}

Rodriguez v. City of NY

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Oct 1999)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary & Progress Appeal Court overruled the District Court, holding the state did not have a duty to provide new PAS (safety monitoring) as well as other PAS already provided to plaintiffs with Alzheimer's & cognitive disabilities at risk of institutionalization. Appeal Court held that the plaintiffs had not been discriminated against as the same services were provided to mentally & physically disabled people & safety monitoring is not provided to any group.

NY2^{11, 14}

Sanon v. Wing []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Feb 2000)

HCBS^c

Summary Medicaid beneficiaries challenged termination of home health services & referral for nursing facility placement after the state determined home health was no longer cost-effective because it exceeded 90% of the average cost of a nursing facility. Progress Court prevented state from terminating the services as state failed to show that continuing to provide services would fundamentally alter its program. Court also found that Olmstead covers people with physical &/or sensory disabilities as much as mental or emotional disabilities14.

NY3²

Bernard v. Novello []

2000

Closed

n/aⁱⁱ

Summary Case challenged inadequate personal care & home health aide services. Progress Settlement

NY4⁵

Henrietta v. Bloomberg [009238]

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Apr 20017)

HIV/other^d

Summary Court of Appeals ruled it was not a fundamental alteration to order NY to reform its state agency charged with assisting people with HIV to gain access to necessary services. Progress Complaint upheld

NY5³

Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Pataki et al. [03cv03209]

Jul. 2003

Open

Mental Illness

Olmstead

Summary Class action (partly prompted by NY Times reports) about service quality & unnecessary institutionalization. It demands the expansion of supported housing & better conditions in adult homes. Progress Ongoing. To download a copy of the plaintiffÕs complaint, go to: [http://www.bazelon.org/issues/disabilityrights/incourt/nycomplaint/finalcomplaint.pdf#search=%22Disability%20Advocates%2C%20Inc.%20New%20York%22]

NY6^3,23

William G et al v. Pataki et al [03-cv-08331]

Oct. 2003

Open

Mental illness

Olmstead

Summary Class action on behalf of people with mental illness & chemical addiction living in NY city jails alleging they have been discriminated against because other individuals who have chemical addiction but no/minor mental illness are released to community treatment programs more quickly. Progress Ongoing. The state's attempt to dismiss the complaint was denied by the court. Later on the state filed a denial of all the plaintiff's claims in August 2005.

OH1^{2,3, 23}

Martin et al v. Taft et al [89cv0362]

1989

Open

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Complaint that state fails to provide integrated residential services to all eligible people with developmental disabilities and waiver wait list was not moving at a reasonable pace. Settlement was reached, but not accepted due to public outcry from people arguing that it would undermine entitlement to ICF/MR services Progress Ongoing. Due to the numerous objections to the state's plan to eliminate ICF/MR services in favor of a broader Medicaid waiver, a Special Master was appointed to broker a new settlement agreement. No progress was made and the court denied the objectors' request to order the state not to eliminate ICF/MR services. The court's decision means that this litigation will go to trial which is scheduled for October 2006.

OH2³

Nickolaus Thompson & OH Provider Resource Association et al v. Hayes et al []

Jun. 2003

Closed (Sep 2003)

MR/DD^a

Summary Case (brought by private providers of services for people with developmental disabilities) alleging the state is not ensuring that Medicaid services are administered uniformly across counties. Progress Court ordered providers to either make new, mutual contracts or continue to operate under existing contracts until agreement was reached. CMS was asked to give technical assistance to facilitate the change in contracting rules

OK^{2,3, 23}

Fisher et al v. Oklahoma Health Care Authority et al [02-cv-762]

2-Oct

Closed (Nov 2003)

Physical Disability⁷

Summary Class action (including seniors, people with disabilities & advocacy organizations) challenging the state decision to limit the (previously unlimited) number of prescribed medications that HCBS waiver participants could receive, arguing that this would force plaintiffs into institutions⁵ The district court ruled in the state's favor, but the Appeal Court reversed this. Progress Settlement. State policies were revised to allow waiver participants to have up to seven generic prescriptions and all Medicaid beneficiaries six per month. Individuals who need additional prescriptions will have the option to request them via a prior authorization process.

OR1^2,3

Staley et al v. Kulongoski et al [00cv00078]

Jan. 2000

Closed (Dec 2000)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary This (non-class action) lawsuit alleged the state was not providing services in the most integrated setting to eligible individuals with developmental disabilities with 'reasonable promptness'. Progress Settlement. Due to changes in state revenues, Court approved (Jan 2004) a modified settlement agreement proposing a slower rate of expansion & change (to 2011). The state Olmstead plan was the basis for the settlement¹²

OR2^{3, 23}

Miranda B et al v. Kulongoski et al * [CV-00-01753]

Dec. 2000

Closed (Mar 2004)

Mental Illness

Olmstead

Summary Class action for 10 people in a state psychiatric hospital despite being assessed as suitable for community placement. The judge rejected the defense that recent state legislation requiring the production of an Olmstead plan protected the state from the lawsuit. Progress Settlement The state will create 75 community placements and establish a special $1.5 million fund to facilitate the community integration of eligible individuals by June 2005.

OR3³

Watson et al v. Weeks et al [03-227]

Feb. 2003

Open

HCBS^c

Summary Case challenging lost eligibility for waiver services after the state narrowed eligibility for long-term care services by raising the threshold for assessed functional impairment necessary to qualify for services. Services have resumed for some levels of need. Progress Case dismissed but under appeal

PA1^{19, 21}

Easley v. Snider * [940839]

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Sep 1994)

HCBS^c

Summary Case regarding 2 individuals, one with TBI^b, one with multiple sclerosis & mental illness. Both were denied access to the state attendant care program as they cannot hire/supervise attendants or manage legal/financial affairs. Progress Appeal Court found their inclusion would be a fundamental alteration & is not "state discrimination …it is a case where an additional handicap …renders participation in the program ineffectual" Further details [http://www.cms.hhs.gov/states/letters/smd72998.asp]

PA2¹¹

Nelson v. Snider []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (1994)

MR/DD^a

Summary This successful case is lauded11 (along with Richard C. v. Houstoun, PA9) as a key influence in the development of deinstitutionalization efforts in Pennsylvania.

PA3³

Helen L v. Dedario* []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (Feb 19957)

Mental Illness

Summary The plaintiff was confined to a nursing facility even though it was determined that she could live in the community with PAS^{5, 10}. Progress Appeal Court ruled the state's failure to provide services in the most integrated setting violated the ADA & the provision of waiver services would not fundamentally alter the nature of the program.

PA4^{2, 13}

Greist v. Norristown State Hospital []

1996

Closed (1997)

Mental Illness⁷

Summary Case regarding individual found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity & committed to state hospital. Plaintiff sued the hospital for extending his commitment & not treating his dyslexia in a more integrated setting. Progress Court ruled the plaintiff was not a qualified person under the ADA since he had been assessed as dangerous & to treat him in the community would be a fundamental alteration of the state program.

PA5³

Charles Q v. Houston* []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (199710)

MR/DD^a & Mental Illness

Summary In this class action, the court ruled favorably for patients in a state psychiatric hospital who had a dual diagnosis & were seeking treatment in the community.¹⁰

PA6²

Kathleen S v. Dept of Public Welfare * [97-cv-6610]

199810

Closed

Mental Illness^3,11

Olmstead

Summary Case regarding people living in the state hospital despite being assessed as eligible for community placement. Court rejected the defense (before Olmstead) that it would be a 'fundamental alteration' & found the state had failed to provide community services⁵ Progress Complaint upheld & settlement (post-Olmstead)

PA7³

Elizabeth M et al v. Houston []

1999

n/aii

HCBS^c

n/aii

Summary Class action regarding waitlists (filed by the Disability Law Center).

PA8³

Gross v. Houston []

1999

Closed

HCBS^c

n/aii

Summary Case regarding waitlists (filed by the Disability Law Center). Progress Lawsuit withdrawn after the Governor announced a plan to reduce the waiting list.

PA9^{2, 21}

Richard C. v. Houstoun [89-20883]

1989

Closed (Jul 2000)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary A group of families of people with DD entered this case in 1998 to stop their relatives from being moved out of a facility that was to be closed (the individuals were unable to consent to this themselves). This transition was part of a settlement of an earlier case (brought in 1989) Progress Appeal Court upheld the ruling that Olmstead did not mean that people have the right to stay in institutions if they refuse HCBS

PA10^{3, 23}

PA P&A v. Dept of Public Welfare et al [CV-00-1582]

Sep. 2000

Open

Mental illness⁷

Olmstead

Summary Case regarding residents of a state nursing facility for seniors. The court held that it would be 'fundamental alteration' to require the plaintiffs to be moved into the community & also provide services for others. Appeal Court judged (as it had in Frederick L, PA12) that the state's 'fundamental alteration' argument was not robust enough & remanded it back to District Court. Progress Ongoing. Both parties reached a settlement in December 2005 and asked the court to suspend its proceedings. According to the Disability Law Project, the Department of Public Welfare will evaluate residents of the nursing facility to see if they are appropriate for discharge to the community as part of the settlement.

PA11^2,3

Delong et al vs. Houston []

Oct. 2000⁵

Closed (Oct 20025)

MR/DD^6a

Summary Class action about a limit on the number of individuals served through the Person/Family-directed Supports waiver. Progress Settlement (the state will request funding to serve the number of individuals authorized in the waiver program). The Court is developing a tool to measure reasonable promptness

PA12^{3, 23}

Frederick L et al v. Dept of Public Welfare et al. * [00-CV-4510]

2001²

Open

Mental illness⁸

Olmstead

Summary Class action regarding plaintiffs institutionalized in state Hospital despite recommendation for community placement. Court ruled (drawing on Williams v. Wasserman, MD) that the financial implications of accelerating community placement would be a fundamental alteration. Appeal Court remanded case as the state needed to demonstrate it has an effectively working plan to establish a fundamental alteration defense. Progress Ongoing. The state submitted a four-year plan regarding the community placement of Norristown State Hospital in April 2006. The plaintiffs approved of the plan and recommended that the court incorporate it into an order so that the state will be required to comply. Oral arguments regarding the plan developed by the state are scheduled for June 2006.

PA13³

Network for Quality MR Services in PA v. Dept of Public Welfare []

Mar. 2002

Closed (Jul 2003)

MR/DD^a

Summary Case brought by a coalition of agencies providing services to individuals in ICF/MR &/or the HCBS waiver program for people with MR/DD, which asks the court to order that direct care staff costs are reimbursed & updated. Progress Case dismissed (Court found the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative options under state law).

PA14^2,3

Sabree et al v. Richman * [02-CV-03426]

May. 2002

Closed (Sep 2005)

MR/DD^a

Summary Plaintiffs are waitlisted for ICF/MR services & filed this (non-class action) case in response to a proposed reduction of funds for reducing the community services wait list. Progress Settlement

RI1⁸

King v. Sullivan []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (1991)

MR/DD^a

Summary Case alleged the state failed to fund sufficient small resident places for people in need of ICF/MR services. No ADA claim was raised, case was brought & decided pre-Olmstead Progress Complaint dismissed

RI2⁸

King v. Fallon []

n/aⁱⁱ

Closed (1992)

MR/DD^a

Summary Case alleged that the state was acting unlawfully by failing to fund sufficient private & small public ICF/MR facilities for adults with mental & physical disabilities. The court found the state was not violating 'reasonable promptness' because it was providing placements in large ICF/MRs. Progress Complaint dismissed

No cases found

TN1⁷

People First of TN v. Arlington Developmental Center []

Dec. 1991⁹

Closed

MR/DD^a,7

Summary Class action alleges unnecessary institutionalization of people in residential facilities. The allegations regarded the same facilities cited in USA v. State of TN & the cases were considered together⁹

TN2³

USA v. State of TN []

Jan. 1992⁹

Closed (19949)

MR/DD^a,7

Summary Brought by the US Dept of Justice this made allegations about facilities cited in People First of TN v. Clover Bottom et al (TN3) & was considered with that case⁹. Progress Settlement

TN3⁷

People First of TN v. Clover Bottom []

Dec. 1995

Closed (1996)

MR/DD^a

Summary Class action brought against one of the state's residential facilities. Progress Court ordered settlement negotiations & expanded the case to include the two other developmental centers in TN

TN4^{3, 23}

Newberry et al v. Goetz et al []

Dec-98

Closed (2003)

HCBS^c

Summary Class action alleged state unlawfully denied home health to waiver participants in order to hold down costs and caused them to be unnecessarily institutionalized Progress Settlement The state agreed to remove any planned restrictions on home health services to waiver participants and to develop HCBS waiver alternatives to nursing facilities.

TN5^{3, 23}

Brown et al v. TN Dept of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities [00cv00665]

Jul. 2000

Closed (Jun 2004)

MR/DD^a

Olmstead

Summary Class action about lack of reasonable promptness in furnishing ICF/MR or waiver services to eligible individuals. Progress Settlement The state agreed to form a new Self-Determination

Table of Contents

Olmstead and Olmstead-related Lawsuits

Martin Kitchener, Micky Willmott, Alice Wong and Charlene Harrington UCSF National Center for Personal Assistance Services

4th revision: October 2006

Martin Kitchener, Micky Willmott, Alice Wong and Charlene Harrington
UCSF National Center for Personal Assistance Services