Health Care and DD Services
Center Files Class
Action Lawsuit Against Arizona Medicaid Program:
On September 30, 2009, the
Center filed a class action lawsuit against the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid Program, aiming to overturn
a state Medicaid regulation and policy that bars coverage of incontinence
briefs to prevent skin breakdown and infection for adults ages 21 and
over. These can only receive
coverage if they have existing skin breakdown and infection, but not to
prevent such occurrences. AHCCCS covers preventative incontinence briefs
for children between ages three and 21.
The nine plaintiffs in the case are AHCCCS members aged 21 and over
who are incontinent as a result of their disabilities. For a copy of the Alvarez v. Rodgers
lawsuit and press release, click on the links below.
Arizona Association
of Providers for Persons with Disabilities (AAPPD) v. State of Arizona:
In Arizona Association of
Providers for Persons with Disabilities (AAPPD) v. State of Arizona,
the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned a preliminary injunction issued by
the Maricopa County Superior Court.
This injunction stopped cuts to state-only DDD services and halted a
10% rate reduction for DDD home and community based service providers. These cuts to rates and services were
made by the Department of Economic Security in an attempt to close its
budget shortfall caused by Arizona’s budget deficit.
The Court of Appeals held
that, while Plaintiffs had shown that they may be harmed by the cuts, they
failed to raise serious legal questions that would justify the injunction. The Court found that it is unlikely AAPPD
will be able to show that the state violated any state or federal law by
imposing the service cuts and rate reductions. The Arizona Center for Disability Law
filed a declaration and amicus brief in support of this lawsuit.
Ball v.Rodgers
Update:
On April 25, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge
Earl H. Carroll issued an Order finding for the Plaintiffs on all issues in
Ball v. Rodgers. The Court ruled
that the Arizona Medicaid program discriminated against a class of Medicaid
beneficiaries on the basis of their disability. Judge Carroll ruled that the Arizona
Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona’s state Medicaid
agency, violated the Medicaid Act’s Free Choice provisions, the Americans
with Disabilities (ADA) anti-discrimination provisions, and §504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibits disability discrimination by
programs receiving Federal funds.
See the press release relating to the Order and a copy of the Order
below.
Ball v. Rodgers Press Release April 27,
2009
Copy of Judge Carroll’s Order
An
appeal filed in July 2007 in Ball v. Rodgers with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed the right of low
income elderly and people with disabilities to sue to enforce their rights
to receive reliable home and community based services in their home, rather
than be forced to go to nursing homes in order to get the care they
need.
Sharpe v. Rodgers:
On February 3, 2009, the Arizona Court of Appeals
ruled that, under the plain meaning of the state Medicaid statute, the
Arizona Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is required to provide dentures to
someone whose dentist has certified that the AHCCCS member does not have
any teeth, and the dentures are needed to chew. The decision effectively struck down
AHCCCS’ policies and regulations that prohibited coverage of dentures for
someone without teeth who is unable to chew.
Click below to download a copy of the Sharpe
Summary, Complaint for Judicial Review, Appeals Court Decision, and three
articles that appeared in Arizona newspapers.
Sharpe Summary
Sharpe Complaint
for Judicial Review
Appeals
Court Decision
Ekloff v. Rodgers:
On
June 22, 2005, the Arizona Center for Disability Law (Center) filed a class
action lawsuit against the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
(AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid system in federal court. Plaintiffs in this
case are children with disabilities who are recipients of state Medicaid
services and need incontinence briefs because of their disabilities. Currently,
AHCCCS will not cover incontinence briefs for children with disabilities
unless the child has experienced skin breakdown, sores or infections. Our
research indicates that Medicaid programs in at least three quarters of the
states cover incontinent supplies when needed to prevent adverse medical
conditions. In March 2006, the U.S.
District Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Click
below to download a copy of the Class Notice, the Consent Decree and
Proposed Settlement Agreement:
Class Notice
Proposed Settlement
Agreement
Consent Decree
Mental Health Rights and
Services
(Click
on article title for more information)
Vista Care
Investigative Report Released:
The
Center has been investigating and monitoring allegations of abuse and
neglect at Vista Care, a residential treatment facility for adolescents in
Hereford, Arizona since 2003. At that
time, the Center received a call from a parent of a child receiving
in-patient care at Vista Care alleging that her son was physically abused
by Vista Care. The Center exercised our federal investigative authority to
conduct an on-site review and push state regulators to take appropriate
action to correct serious deficiencies.
A corrective action plan was put in place and additional oversight
of the facility was undertaken by the state and by the regional behavioral
health provider, Community Partnership for Southern Arizona (CPSA). The Center continues to conduct site
visits to various facilities throughout the state to ensure the safe and
ethical treatment of persons with disabilities in those facilities.
Arnold v. Sarn:
In a groundbreaking decision in 1989, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in
Arnold v. Sarn that “Arizona has failed to meet its moral and legal
obligations to our state’s chronically mentally ill population.” Unanimously, the Court held that
individuals with serious mental illness have a legal right to mental health
treatment in the community and that the State of Arizona and Maricopa
County had failed to provide that treatment. Since that time, the Center as counsel for
the plaintiffs, along with its co-counsel, has been working to make the
promise of the Arnold case a reality in Arizona. Although some improvements to the system
and its funding have been made, the Center is continuing to work toward
ensuring that the defendants fully implement the court’s orders. This would ultimately result in
individuals with serious mental illness receiving the appropriate services
that will support their recovery.
TOP
Employment
(Click
on article title for more information)
EEOC & Garcia, et al. v. Aztec Inn Properties, dba
Clarion Hotel-Randolph Park:
Consent Decree outlining the terms of a supervised court settlement in an
ADA employment discrimination and retaliation case on behalf of five
individuals with developmental disabilities represented by Center
attorneys.
Shelley
Savage v. Glendale Union High School District No. 205 of Maricopa County:
Brief
to the U.S. Supreme Court written by Center attorneys to oppose review of
the Ninth Circuit's opinion that Arizona school districts are not immune
from liability under the employment provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TOP
Education
Arizona Center for Disability Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
against AZ Department of Economic Security
on April 15, 2009
Arizona Center for Disability Law (Center) filed
a class action lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Economic Security
(DES) to prevent the state from carrying out millions of dollars in budget
cuts which violate federal and state law and will eliminate or greatly
reduce the provision of early intervention services to eligible infants and
toddlers with disabilities. Currently, DES has reduced or eliminated
services for some 3,100 children with disabilities.
Click here for
information regarding this class action suit.
Center files Petition with Arizona Supreme Court to Allow
Non-Attorney Advocates to Assist Families in Special Education Hearings
The Arizona Center for Disability Law petitioned
the Arizona Supreme Court to amend its rules to permit lay representation
at special education “due process” administrative hearings as an exception
to the unauthorized practice of law.
We have proposed that the Court adopt the following rule: “In any
administrative proceeding pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) or (k) regarding
any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, educational
placement, or the provision of a free appropriate public education for a
child with a disability or suspected disability, a party may be represented
by a duly authorized agent who is not charging a fee for the
representation.” To view the
petition or to comment, visit the Supreme Court’s website at http://www.supreme.state.az.us/rules/prrulsct.htm
ADA, Access and Housing Issues
State of Arizona
et. al. v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises Inc. et. al.
On
January 29, 2007, the Center filed a motion to intervene in State v.
Harkins. State v. Harkins is a suit
brought by the Attorney General’s office alleging violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Arizonans Disabilities Act for
failure to provide auxiliary aids and services to the blind, deaf and hard
of hearing.
On
February 20, 2007, Harkins filed a response to the Motion to Intervene to
Dismiss the Motion. On February 27, 2007, the Center filed its Reply
and on March 21, 2007, the Court ruled that the intervention was proper
under Rule 26(b)(2). On March 28, 2007, Harkins filed a Motion to
Dismiss the State’s complaint.
Harkins
filed a Notice of Removal on April 2, 2007. Harkins filed a Motion to
Dismiss in U.S. District Court on April 8, 2007. The U.S. District
Court opened a case on April 10, 2007. The AG and the Center filed a
Joint Response to Harkins’ Motion to Dismiss.
On
March 28, 2008, the Judge granted Harkins’s Motion to Dismiss. The
Center filed its Notice of Appeal to the 9 th Circuit Court of
Appeals on April 28, 2008. The Center participated in a Settlement
Conference on August 22, 2008, but was unable to reach an amicable
solution. The Center filed its 9th Circuit Opening Brief
on December 1, 2008. Harkins’ answering brief was filed on April 7,
2009. The Center filed its 9th Circuit Reply Brief on
June 29, 2009. The 9th
Circuit oral argument was held on January 13, 2010 in San Francisco,
CA. Below is a link to an audio
recording of the 9th Circuit hearing.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000004752
Click
on the two links below for a summary of the oral arguments.
http://www.hearinglosslaw.com/
http://lflegal.com/2010/01/harkins-argument/
(Click
on article title for more information)
People with
Disabilities to Receive Improved Paratransit Service in Tucson:
Settlement Agreement in class action lawsuit in federal court against the
City of Tucson brought on behalf of individuals with disabilities who use
Van Tran, the City’s paratransit service.
|
