Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, a class of children eligible for Texas's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of federal Medicaid law. Plaintiffs subsequently entered into a consent decree with various Texas state officials (defendants) calculated to improve implementation of the Program. In 2007, the parties agreed to a "Corrective Action Order." In 2013, defendants moved to terminate a portion of the Order and associated consent decree paragraphs under Rule 60(b)(5). The district court granted the motion and plaintiffs appealed. Determining that plaintiffs have not forfeited their appeal, the court concluded that the district court properly terminated the portion of bullet points 8-10 concerning the completion of the four assessments at issue. The court relied on certain district court decisions to interpret the proper interpretation of "shortage" - which compares the provider-to-class-member ratio with the average client load of the relevant class of provider - and concluded that the district court erred in terminating the portion of bullet points 8-10 that orders defendants to develop plans to address “shortage[s]” identified by the assessments. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order in part and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the portion of the district court’s order terminating bullet points 6-7 and consent decree paragraph 93, and the court vacated the portion of the district court's order terminating the challenged sentence of bullet point 5. View "Frew v. Janek" on Justia Law

SEARK, operator of two hospice-care facilities, voluntarily entered into a provider agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to receive Medicare reimbursement pursuant to the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395c, 1395f(a)(7), 1395cc. The Act annually caps Medicare reimbursement. SEARK filed suit after the Secretary sent it seven demands for repayment, arguing that the cap violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court concluded that SEARK’s voluntary participation in the Medicare program precludes a takings claim. The court concluded that SEARK has not met its burden to prove the demands for repayment based on the statutory cap are a taking where the reimbursement cap allocates the government's capacity to subsidize healthcare; SEARK presented no evidence to suggest the cap makes it impossible to profitably engage in their business; and SEARK voluntarily chose to participate in the Medicare hospice program. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Southeast Arkansas Hospice v. Burwell" on Justia Law

In 2012, one in five female veterans and one in 100 male veterans reported that they experienced sexual abuse in the military, and an estimated 26,000 service members “experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact.” The trauma stemming from sexual abuse in the military (military sexual trauma (MST)) can result in severe chronic medical conditions, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, and anxiety. Generally, veterans with service-connected disabilities are entitled to disability benefits, 38 U.S.C. 1110, 1131. In response to what they viewed as the VA’s inadequate response to MST-based disability claims, veterans’ groups submitted a petition for rulemaking which requested that the VA promulgate a new regulation regarding the adjudication of certain MST-based disability claims. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs denied the petition. The Federal Circuit upheld the denial, noting its limited and deferential review and stating that the Secretary adequately explained its reasons for denying the petition. The court rejected a claim that in denying the petition, the Secretary violated the equal protection clause by intentionally discriminating against women without providing an exceedingly persuasive justification or discriminating against survivors of MST-based PTSD without providing a legitimate reason. View "Serv. Women's Action Network v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Sledge Jeansonne Louisiana Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act, could be applied retroactively to defendant’s criminal misconduct which occurred prior to the effective dates of these statutes. Defendant Lynn Foret, a medical doctor who specialized in orthopedic surgery, pled guilty in federal court to one count of health care fraud, for criminal acts that occurred between 2003 and 2009. The trial court granted Dr. Foret’s declinatory exceptions, dismissing with prejudice, the State's action for penalties under the Sledge Jeansonne Act and dismissed with prejudice causes of action under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s rulings, finding that the conduct regulated by the substantive statute was the underlying fraud, rather than the subsequent guilty plea. Therefore, even though the State's cause of action could not have accrued until Dr. Foret pled guilty, application of the Acts nonetheless attached new consequences to his criminal misconduct, which occurred before the Acts became effective. One judge on the appellate panel dissented, reasoning the plain language of the Sledge Jeansonne Act demonstrated it was the guilty plea that gave the State Attorney General the authority to act, not the criminal activity, and because the guilty plea was entered after the effective date of the statute, its application herein would be prospective, not retroactive. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sledge Jeansonne Act was not an impermissible retroactive application of the law. After review, the Supreme Court held that both the Sledge Jeansonne Act and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act operated prospectively only, applying to causes of action arising after the effective date of each Act. The Court affirmed the court ofappeal ruling finding that the statutes at issue could not be retroactively applied to this defendant’s past criminal conduct. View "Louisiana v. Foret" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of dual status National Guard technicians who had their benefits determined prior to the court's issuance of Petersen v. Astrue and would like to have their benefits readjusted to take advantage of the decision to avoid application of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's decision to reject the application of mandamus jurisdiction where the district court held that there is no clear, nondiscretionary duty on behalf of the SSA to apply the Peterson decision to plaintiffs. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a colorable constitutional claim on equal protection grounds that would justify the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(g)’s jurisdictional limitations. Plaintiffs’ due process claim also does not support application of an exception to 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchael v. Colvin" on Justia Law

California Education Code 56346(f) requires school districts to initiate a due process hearing if the school district determines that a portion of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to which a parent does not consent is necessary to provide a child with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400–1450. The ALJ concluded that the district offered an appropriate placement but Mother's refusal to consent prevented the district from implementing and providing a FAPE. I.R. appealed, but the district court affirmed. The court concluded that the district court erred in concluding that the district could not initiate a due process hearing to address Mother's refusal to the IEP's recommended placement. In this case, the district waited a year and a half before initiating a hearing, which the court determined was too long a period of time. Therefore, to the extent that I.R. lost an educational opportunity and was deprived of educational benefits for an unreasonably prolonged period, the district can be held responsible for denying her a FAPE for that unreasonably prolonged period. The court reversed and remanded. View "I.R. v. L.A. U.S.D." on Justia Law

Legislation, effective in 2004 requires that injured workers’ requests for medical treatment be evaluated through a process called utilization review (UR). Under the UR process, a request for treatment cannot be denied by a claims adjustor and must be approved unless a clinician determines that the treatment is medically unnecessary. Workers can challenge decisions denying requested treatment, but employers cannot challenge decisions approving it. The 2004 legislation called for administrative adoption of uniform standards for physicians to use in evaluating treatment. In 2013, additional reforms went into effect, establishing a new procedure, independent medical review (IMR), to resolve workers’ challenges to UR decisions. Stevens challenged the constitutionality of the IMR process, arguing that it violated the state Constitution’s separation of powers clause, its requirements that workers’ compensation decisions be subject to review and the system “accomplish substantial justice,” and principles of due process. The court of appeal rejected those claims, but remanded Stevens’s request for a home health aid. The Legislature has plenary powers over the workers’ compensation system under article XIV, section 4 of the state Constitution. California’s scheme for evaluating workers’ treatment requests is fundamentally fair and affords workers sufficient opportunities to present evidence and be heard. View "Stevens v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd," on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Medicaid recipients who unsuccessfully sought coverage for prescription drugs, filed suit contending that the District and its officials unlawfully failed to afford them notice of their entitlement to a hearing before denying their prescription drug claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Title XIX’s notice regulations are triggered whenever there has been a denial of a claim for prescription drug coverage at the point-of-sale. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the due process claims because the prescription drug coverage sought by plaintiffs qualifies as a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment; plaintiffs adequately alleged that Xerox, a private company, determined their eligibility for benefits while acting as an agent of the District; and the court remanded the case to permit the district court to conduct an inquiry in the first instance into what process is due. The court also remanded to the district court to reconsider its jurisdiction over the D.C. -law claims in light of the court's partial reversal. View "NB v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against DSS to enforce the Food Stamp Act's, 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(3) and (9), time limits for awarding food stamp benefits. The district court certified a class consisting of all past, current, and future Connecticut food stamp applicants whose applications are not processed in a timely manner and the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring DSS to process food stamp applications within the statutory deadlines. The court concluded that plaintiff can maintain a private lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enforce the statutory time limits in section 2020(e)(3) and (9). The court also concluded that federal regulations do not excuse DSS from processing food stamp applications within the statutory time limits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Briggs v. Bremby" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of privately-owned Chicago building, received housing vouchers from the Chicago Housing Authority to enable them to rent apartments. They claimed that the Authority is complicit in and responsible for a deprivation of their constitutionally protected privacy by the building owners. The owners require their tenants to be tested annually for illegal drugs; passing the test is a condition of a tenant’s being allowed to renew his or her lease for another year. The requirement applies to all tenants, not just those who might be suspected of using illegal drugs. The district court denied a preliminary injunction on the ground that the drug-testing policy was private rather than state action. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. None of the plaintiffs had requested transfer from the drug-testing building in which he or she currently resides to a building that does not require drug testing. A CHA representative testified that his agency would have approved such a request. That the CHA may encourage or even request testing does not constitute state action. View "Stubenfield v. Chicago Hous. Auth." on Justia Law