Health Care and DD Services
Access Now, Inc.
et.at. v. Ambulatory Surgery Center, et.al.
Notice of Partial Settlement – February 11, 2011
A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc.,
et.al. v. Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd., et.al., Case No.
99-0109-CIV-GARBER is currently pending in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities
of Good Samaritan Hospital, LP and the Los Robles Regional Medical Center.
The complaint alleges, on behalf of all disabled individuals, including
individuals with mobility, visual or hearing impairments, that the Centers
are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing
regulations. Both lawsuits have
received a Notice of Partial Settlement (see below).
Good
Samaritan Hospital Class Action Lawsuit
Los Robles Medical
Center Class Action Lawsuit
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
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
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 violated federal and state law and would 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.
Passage of Keeping All Students Act H.R. Bill 4272
On
March 3, 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4247, the Keeping
All Students Safe Act (formerly called the Preventing Harmful Restraint and
Seclusion in Schools Act). The bill will greatly lessen the incidents
of restraint and seclusion in school settings. The bill was supported by the National
Disabilities Rights Network in Washington, D.C.
For more information, click
here.
ADA, Access and Housing Issues
Proposed
Remediation Plan reached in National Federation of the Blind v. Cardtronics
Plaintiffs’ attorneys for the National Federation of the Blind have
agreed to a proposed remediation plan in their class action lawsuit against
Cardtronics, owners of ATM machines throughout the U.S.
A Fairness Hearing has been set for November 3, 2010.
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/
|
