University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Pediatric Specialty Care Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services PB-AR-0003
Docket / Court 4:01-cv-00830 ( E.D. Ark. )
State/Territory Arkansas
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Public Benefits / Government Services
Special Collection Olmstead Cases
Case Summary
On December 6, 2001, a number of healthcare providers and members of the state's Medicaid-established Child Health Management Services (CHMS) program filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Medicaid Act ... read more >
On December 6, 2001, a number of healthcare providers and members of the state's Medicaid-established Child Health Management Services (CHMS) program filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Medicaid Act against the director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS), the plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the state's proposal to remove certain CHMS programs from the state's Medicaid plan and to cease paying for them violated their substantive and procedural due process rights and the Medicaid Act. Specifically, the state intended to stop paying for CHMS early-intervention day treatment for children who don't have a serious medical problem, but are still considered at risk. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel.

On the same day as they filed their complaint, plaintiffs sought temporary injunctive relief; the state opposed such relief and moved to dismiss the matter altogether for failure to state a claim. The Court (Judge William R. Wilson) held a four-day trial beginning a week after the complaint was filed, and then, on Dec. 19, 2001, permanently enjoined the state from implementing the proposed spending cuts. (The court denied the motion for temporary injunctive relief as moot.) The court held that the Medicaid Act mandated that the state's plan must specifically include in its services early-intervention day treatment. Judge Wilson announced his ruling from the bench; there is no written opinion. DHS appealed the decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that same day.

On July 15, 2002, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges McMillian, Heaney, and Riley) affirmed that at-risk children have a federal right to early-intervention day treatment when a physician recommends it. However, it reversed the lower court's holding to the extent that it required CHMS early-intervention day treatment services to be specifically included in the state's Medicaid plan. All that is required, the appellate court held, is that the state plan pay part or all of the cost of treatments for conditions discovered by a screening process when those treatments meet the definitions set forth in the Medicaid Act. The case was remanded to the district court with orders to modify its injunction in light of the appellate court's holding, as well as to consider the plaintiffs' procedural due process claim, which the district court initially did not reach in its decision.

On July 30, 2002, Judge Wilson entered an amended injunction, which did not require the state to specifically include CHMS early-intervention day treatment services in the state plan, but did require it to pay for those services when prescribed by a physician. The state must also inform potential Medicaid recipients about these available services.

The district court then held a number of hearings on the plaintiffs' procedural and substantive due process claims. On Nov. 27, 2002, Judge Wilson issued an Order and Opinion holding for the plaintiffs on all three of their counts: that the state's proposed plan was in violation of the Medicaid Act; that the state violated plaintiffs' procedural due process by failing to conduct a study about the effect such a change in the program would have had on the efficiency, economy, quality of care, and access to care, as required by the Medicaid Act; and that the state's attempt to move the CHMS services off-plan for cost savings violated plaintiffs' substantive due rights because it "shocked the conscience."

On December 18, 2002, the Court issued a second Order extending its injunction to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal regulatory authority for the Medicaid program, and ordered that CMS continue to pay federal matching funds to any state expenditure on early-intervention day treatment services, even though CMS was not a party to the suit.

The state moved to amend the court's judgment and raised the question of whether guidelines published by the Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care, Inc. (AFMC), the organization contracted by the state to determine the eligibility of CHMS participants, also violated their procedural and substantive due process rights. The plaintiffs requested to amend their complaint to make AFMC a party and directly challenge the legality of those access guidelines. And on Dec. 18, 2002, the Court granted their request. That same day, the state and CMS appealed the Court's Nov. 27, 2002, Order and Opinion to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Throughout 2003 and 2004, the plaintiffs were granted permission to amend their complaint a number of times, which eventually culminated in a fifth amended complaint filed on Jan. 4, 2005. Meanwhile, on April 16, 2004, the 8th Circuit issued an opinion on the state's and CMS's appeal. It affirmed the lower court's holding that the state violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights, but reversed district court's decision that the state violated substantive due process rights. It also reversed the district court's enjoining of CMS because the agency wasn't a party to the underlying suit.

Plaintiffs moved to compel ADHS and AFMC to reveal the names of the peer reviewers responsible for determining when and whether CHMS services are medically necessary. On Nov. 29, 2004, the district court granted the motion. The next month, AFMC appealed the decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

During this period, the district court also considered damages claims against defendants who were current or past high-level supervisors of ADHS. They all moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. ADHS contended that it was entitled to absolute immunity under the 11th Amendment because it was an agency of the state of Arkansas. On Feb. 7, 2005, the district court (Judge Wilson) denied all but one of the defendant's motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. It was silent as to the ADHS's 11th Amendment claim. The state and remaining defendants appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 17, 2006, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued opinions on both outstanding appeals: AFMC's appeal regarding disclosure of the peer supervisors, and the qualified and absolute immunity claims of the individual defendants and ADHS. The appellate court held that the relevant Medicaid regulations did not require AFMC to reveal the names of its peer supervisors, and so reversed the district court on that count. With regard to the immunity claims, it affirmed the district court's decision rejecting the qualified immunity claims, but ordered that it dismiss ADHS from the suit on 11th Amendment grounds.

The remaining individual defendants who were not granted qualified immunity appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Apparently the parties settled, because on June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment because it had become moot. Selig v. Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc., 551 U.S. 1142 (2007).

On Nov. 11, 2008, back in district court, the remaining plaintiffs entered a stipulation of dismissal with the defendants because both sides agreed to an undisclosed settlement agreement. The court then dismissed the case with prejudice.

Andrew Junker - 10/02/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Medicaid
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Hospital/Health Department
Jurisdiction-wide
Disability
Mental impairment
General
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Juveniles
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Wait lists
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title XIX of the Social Security (Medicaid) Act, 42 U.S.C §1396
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Arkansas Department of Human Services
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are a number of healthcare providers and members of Arkansas's Medicaid-established Child Health Management Services program.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2007 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2008
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
4:01−cv−00830 (E.D. Ark.) 11/13/2008
PB-AR-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 12/06/2001
PB-AR-0003-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appellate Court Opinion (06/10/2002) [affirming DCt's injunction] 06/10/2002 (293 F.3d 472)
PB-AR-0003-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Amended Injunction [removing language that state had to include CHMS program services in its Medicaid plan] 07/30/2002 (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 11/27/2002 (2002 WL 34236910) (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0014.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Amended Complaint 01/06/2003
PB-AR-0003-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint 06/23/2003
PB-AR-0003-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appellate Court Opinion (04/16/2004) [aff'ing DCt's injunction; rejecting DCt's finding of substantive due process violation] 04/16/2004 (364 F.3d 925)
PB-AR-0003-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Order 04/28/2004 (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Amended Complaint 05/14/2004
PB-AR-0003-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Party Complaint 07/06/2004
PB-AR-0003-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Fourth Amended Complaint 07/07/2004
PB-AR-0003-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [requiring AFMC to identify peer supervisors] 11/29/2004 (W.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0016.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Fifth Amended Complaint 01/04/2005
PB-AR-0003-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [denying Dfts SJ] 02/07/2005 (2005 WL 5660038) (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Appellate Court Opinion (04/17/2006) [aff'ing in part DCt's finding that qualified imm. does not apply] 04/17/2006 (443 F.3d 1005)
PB-AR-0003-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Appellate Court Opinion (04/17/2006) [rev'ing DCt's order that AFMC must disclose identities of peer supervisors] 04/17/2006 (444 F.3d 991)
PB-AR-0003-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11/13/2008 (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0012.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Heaney, Gerald William (Eighth Circuit)
PB-AR-0003-0008 | PB-AR-0003-0009 | PB-AR-0003-0010 | PB-AR-0003-0011
Miller, Brian Stacy (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0012 | PB-AR-0003-9000
Wilson, Billy Roy (E.D. Ark.)
PB-AR-0003-0013 | PB-AR-0003-0014 | PB-AR-0003-0015 | PB-AR-0003-0016 | PB-AR-0003-0017
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Banks, Charles A. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-9000
Bowen, Martin W. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-0001 | PB-AR-0003-0002 | PB-AR-0003-0003 | PB-AR-0003-0004 | PB-AR-0003-0005 | PB-AR-0003-0006 | PB-AR-0003-9000
Kaplan, Philip E. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-0001 | PB-AR-0003-0002 | PB-AR-0003-0003 | PB-AR-0003-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Freno, Lori (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-0004 | PB-AR-0003-0005 | PB-AR-0003-0006 | PB-AR-0003-0007 | PB-AR-0003-9000
Hopkins, Breck G. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-0002 | PB-AR-0003-0003 | PB-AR-0003-0004 | PB-AR-0003-0005 | PB-AR-0003-0006 | PB-AR-0003-0007 | PB-AR-0003-9000
Pence, Richard M. Jr. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-9000
Rainwater, Michael R. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-0003 | PB-AR-0003-0004 | PB-AR-0003-0005 | PB-AR-0003-0006 | PB-AR-0003-9000
Thalheimer, Lee S. (Arkansas)
PB-AR-0003-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -