Health Care and DD Services
Ball v. Betlach
March and April 2010 Updates:
(formerly Ball v. Rodgers)
On Monday, March 8, 2010 United Stated District Court Judge
Earl H. Carroll issued another decision in favor of older persons and
persons with disabilities in the long running class action case Ball v.
Betlach.
The Court
ruled that the Arizona’s Medicaid program failed to follow the Court’s
prior orders by not implementing a statewide hotline for beneficiaries to
report gaps in critical home care services and by failing to require its
program contractors to have back-up workers on-call to substitute for times
when a gap in critical services occurs. Click on the following files to see
the latest updates on Ball v. Betlach.
Ball v. Rodgers –
April 25, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Update on Arnold
v. Sarn:
On March 9, 2010, the Superior Court of Arizona
in Maricopa County agreed to Stay Litigation for two years during the
state’s current fiscal budget crisis.
For more
information on the recent ruling, click here.
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/
|
