Health Care and DD Services
Arizona Association of Providers for Persons with
Disabilities (AAPPD) v. State of Arizona:
Yesterday, 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.
The Court of Appeals remanded
the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court for a ruling on the merits
of the lawsuit. AAPPD has indicated
that it will appeal the decision to dismiss the injunction to the Arizona
Supreme Court.
The action taken by the
Arizona Court of Appeals is related only to the lawsuit filed by AAPPD, not
class actions filed by the Arizona Center for Disability Law (ACDL), such
as Ball v. Rodgers (Medicaid-funded home and community based
services) or Zoe M. v. Blessing (violations of federal IDEA Part C).
Jennifer Nye, ACDL staff
attorney, commented to the press, “We know that thousands of adults and
children with disabilities are going to be harmed by these cuts in services
and rates. We feel it is also very
short-sighted of the state to balance its budget on the back of its most
vulnerable population.”
ACDL will continue to provide
support to the lawyers representing AAPPD as they move forward with their
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
Arizona Daily Star
Article – Feb 5, 2009
Arizona Daily Sun
Article – Feb. 5, 2009
Arizona Daily Star
Article – Feb. 6, 2009
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
Ball v. Biedess - Lawsuit challenging
deficiencies in AHCCCS’s provision of home and community base services to
individuals who need personal care.
Padilla v. Biedess & Thompson - Lawsuit
challenging AHCCCS denial of kidney dialysis to certain aliens living in Arizona.
TOP
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). In
February 2005, the Center conducted a follow-up site visit and found
substantial improvements.
Unfortunately,
there has been a tremendous amount of turnover at Vista Care since the
February 2005 review. In addition,
we have recently received a series of complaints alleging improper use of
physical restraints by untrained staff, staff abuse of clients, and lack of
appropriate mental health treatment. Based on those reports, and additional
information uncovered by Center staff, we undertook another investigation
into the facility. In a report
issued on October 9, 2006, the Center found serious safety concerns
involving peer-on-peer assaults, the misuse of emergency safety responses
and continued treatment problems. The Center issued 12 recommendations to
Vista Care.
Arizona Center for Disability Law enters
comprehensive agreement with the Arizona State Hospital establishing its
right to access to patients and records - The Arizona Center for Disability Law as
Arizona's protection and advocacy system is authorized under the federal
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act to have
access to patients and records of facilities providing mental health treatment,
such as the Arizona State Hospital.
Under the agreement just reached with the Hospital, the ACDL will
have access to the hospital at all times to investigate abuse and neglect
and at reasonable times to visit patients, provide training and monitoring
activities. This agreement ensures that the ACDL's will be able to
better protect the rights of individuals with mental illness who are
patients of this facility.
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.
Arizona Center for
Disability Law Settles Lawsuit Against Tempe Union High School District on
Behalf of Student With Diabetes
The Arizona Center
for Disability Law filed suit against the Tempe Union
High School
District (“District”) under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Staff Lead Effort to Reform Due
Process Hearing Rules
In 2005,
the Arizona Center
for Disability Law drafted legislation and successfully advocated for a
statutory change to the special education due process hearing system in Arizona. The bill, sponsored by Representative
Laura Knaperek (R-17) and signed by Governor Janet Napolitano, called for
the creation of a one-tier dispute resolution system for special education
litigation. The one-tier system will
streamline the appeals process and will allow for all hearings to be
handled by the impartial Office of Administrative Hearings. This change represents an important
reform and a great victory for families of children with disabilities.
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 has
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
Community Access and Housing
(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.
Center
Assists Client in Obtaining Home Modifications - The Center
represented an individual with partial quadriplegia who required a
modification to his driveway in order to provide safe ingress and egress to
his accessible van. He lives in a home which is subject to Conditions
Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) with strict exterior aesthetic
architectural guidelines. The CC&Rs require that modifications of this
nature must be reviewed and approved by the Homeowners’ Association’s
Architectural Review Committee. Citing, its CC&Rs, the client’s first
proposal for the driveway modification was denied purportedly because the
proposal would compromise the setback lines, landscaping schemes, and
drainage. The Center intervened and requested a reasonable accommodation
under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) on the individual’s behalf and attended
Architectural Committee meetings to negotiate lawful terms for approval and
criteria for Committee approval, which were sensitive to the legitimate
interests of the homeowners’ association, yet faithful to the client’s
rights under the FHA. Based on this,
the client was able to re-present his driveway modification proposal and
was granted approval for the needed modification.
TOP
|
