On April 20, 2006, a severely physically disabled individual requiring hospital-level care filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against various Illinois state officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District ...
read more >
On April 20, 2006, a severely physically disabled individual requiring hospital-level care filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against various Illinois state officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Plaintiff, represented by Equip for Equality, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the state to provide nursing and home services at the level he received before turning twenty-one years old.
Because he turned twenty-one, Plaintiff's in-home care was funded by the Medically Fragile Technology Dependent Children's (MFTDC) waiver. However, once he turned twenty-one, Plaintiff's care was funded by the PWD waiver, which provided drastically fewer hours of in-home care. Despite this reduction in benefits, Plaintiff has remained at home in the care of his parents. However, Plaintiff's parents are not able to continue to care for him around-the-clock.
The case was originally set for a bench trial in October 2007. However, it became clear after opening statements that the only disputed issue was the applicability of the integration mandate - a pure question of law - so the court ordered summary judgment briefing. Defendant argued that the state was under no obligation to fund hospital-level care for Plaintiff under the PWD waiver. Plaintiff claimed that HFS is indeed obligated to provide adequate funding for home care as long as home care is appropriate and cost-neutral. On May 30, 2008, the Court (Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer) denied Defendant Maram's motion for summary judgment. Grooms v. Maram, 563 F.Supp.2d 840 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
The Court issued a permanent injunction order and entered final judgment on June 13, 2008. The injunction provided: (1) Defendant was to restore skilled nursing services provided to Plaintiff to the amount he received before his twenty-first birthday; (2) Plaintiff was awarded attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses; (3) the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the order.
The case was closed in 2008, and there has been no further litigation.Haley Waller - 02/21/2011