On November 9, 1999, developmentally disabled individuals and the Arc of Washington State filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Medicaid Act against various Washington state officials in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that Defendants were not providing Medicaid services with reasonable promptness.
On October 5, 2000, the Court (Judge Franklin D. Burgess) granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class defined as: "all developmentally disabled persons in the Sate of Washington who i) meet the medical and financial requirements for eligibility for ICF-MR services; ii) have applied for HCB waiver services; and iii) have not received HCB waiver services, or not received them with reasonable promptness, and individuals who will be similarly situated in the future."
On November 17, 2000, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part, and denied in part, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with their Medicaid Act claim to fair hearings, their ADA and Equal Protection claims, and The Arc's claim for additional HCB services for its members currently on the waiver.
The Court issued an order to clarify its November 17, 2000, order on December 22, 2000. Specifically, the Court stated that named individual Plaintiffs were to proceed as class representatives and that The Arc and named Plaintiffs were to be treated as distinct parties.
On December 19, 2000, the Court granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the ADA claims. The Court also denied: Defendants' motion to dismiss The Arc; Plaintiffs' motion to modify the class definition; and Plaintiffs' motion to amend judgment.
The parties asked the Court for preliminary approval of a class settlement that contained significant changes from the class definition previously formulated by the Court. As a result, two parties moved to intervene to object to the proposed settlement agreement and to decertify the class. On October 26, 2001, the Court denied the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement because it found that the proposed settlement class did not satisfy Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The Court denied the would-be intervenors' motions as moot and untimely.
The Court denied approval of a second amended settlement agreement on December 2, 2002. The Court also decertified the previously certified class and lifted the stay it had entered on October 26, 2001.
On May 30, 2003, the Court denied a motion to intervene from four plaintiffs from another case (Boyle v. Braddock, No. C01-5867-FDB).
On June 17, 2003, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court found that The Arc lacked standing and that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Finally, the Court also found that it was appropriate to apply the abstention doctrine.
The Arc and individual plaintiffs appealed. On March 29, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's opinion on the ADA issue. The Arc of Washington State v. Braddock, 427 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court disposed of the other claims in an unpublished memorandum disposition and remanded, based on that, for further proceedings.
The parties executed a settlement agreement on May 23, 2007. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants were obliged to request additional funding for additional services and to pay $64,000 to Plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs. The Court dismissed the case on May 24, 2007.Haley Waller - 04/12/2011