University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Steimel v. Minott DR-IN-0002
Docket / Court 13-cv-00957 ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Case Summary
On June 14, 2013, a disabled adult beneficiary of a state-run Medicaid waiver program who was also on a waitlist for another Medicaid waiver program filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social ... read more >
On June 14, 2013, a disabled adult beneficiary of a state-run Medicaid waiver program who was also on a waitlist for another Medicaid waiver program filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and two heads of divisions of that agency in their official capacities under the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. The plaintiff, represented by the ACLU of Indiana, asked the court for both declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs, and class action certification.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the "integration mandate" of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by changing its eligibility requirements for Medicaid waiver programs and by not allowing an appeal from the policy change as required by the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant [1] removed the waitlist for the Indiana's Community Integration and Habilitation Medicaid Waiver Program and established new "priority criteria" that limited access to the program that many and [2] instituted a new policy for Indiana's Aged and Disabled Medicaid Waiver Program and its Traumatic Brain Injury Medicaid Waiver Program require recipients to require "a nursing facility level of care." The plaintiff claimed both of these actions violated the "integration mandate" because they deprived disabled persons of the assistance they need to be integrated into the community. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant failed to inform plaintiff that she could appeal her removal from the waitlist under the Medicaid Act and that the defendant provided no means for securing such an appeal.

On June 14, 2013, the plaintiff moved to have the case certified as a class action. That same day, the plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that defendant be enjoined from removing plaintiff from the Aged and Disabled Medicaid Waiver Program pending further order of the court. The preliminary injunction was withdrawn without prejudice on September 23, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 2014 WL 1213390 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2014).

On June 26, 2014, the court dismissed the original named plaintiff's individual claims because they had become moot--she received a waiver--but she still retained the right to appeal the denial of class certification. The individual claims of intervening plaintiffs still remained.

Later in 2014, the defendants and the plaintiffs both moved for summary judgment. On Mar 27, 2015, the US filed a statement of interest in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In May 2015, the court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment.

On May 28, 2015, the court dismissed another one of the individual plaintiff's claims because they had become moot--he received a waiver. He also reserved the right to appeal the denial of class certification.

On June 9, 2015, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ integration mandate claims were not ripe for review. The integration mandate focuses on the setting in which services are administered, not the amount of services received. The plaintiffs did not contend that the setting in which they received services had changed as a result of Indiana's policy change.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification, the dismissal of the individual plaintiffs, and the grant of summary judgment to the Seventh Circuit. As of February 27, 2016, that appeal is still pending.

Brian Kempfer - 10/25/2013
Jessica Kincaid - 02/27/2016


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
Equal Protection
Disability
disability, unspecified
Integrated setting
Mental impairment
Mobility impairment
Discrimination-area
Accommodation / Leave
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Government Services (specify)
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Housing assistance
Reasonable Accommodations
Rehabilitation
Wait lists
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Medical care, general
Mental Disability
Cerebral palsy
Developmental disability without intellectual disability
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Mental Illness, Unspecified
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Title XIX of the Social Security (Medicaid) Act, 42 U.S.C §1396
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
Plaintiff Description Adult Medicaid recipient with cerebral palsy who received community-based assistance through a state-run Medicaid program.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
None
Source of Relief None yet
None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
1:13−cv−00957 (S.D. Ind.) 12/09/2015
DR-IN-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 06/14/2013
DR-IN-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Withdrawal of Motion for Preliminary Injunction] 09/23/2013 (S.D. Ind.)
DR-IN-0002-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 03/24/2014 (2014 WL 1213390) (S.D. Ind.)
DR-IN-0002-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Order 06/26/2014 (S.D. Ind.)
DR-IN-0002-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 06/09/2015 (2015 WL 3613712) (S.D. Ind.)
DR-IN-0002-0008.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Dinsmore, Mark. J. (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
DR-IN-0002-0005 | DR-IN-0002-9000
Magnus-Stinson, Jane Elizabeth (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
DR-IN-0002-0006 | DR-IN-0002-0007 | DR-IN-0002-0008 | DR-IN-0002-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Rose, Gavin Minor (Indiana)
DR-IN-0002-0001 | DR-IN-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Hurley, Ryan Michael (Indiana)
DR-IN-0002-9000
Mappes, Harmony A. (Indiana)
DR-IN-0002-9000
Other Lawyers Richards, Debra G (Indiana)
DR-IN-0002-9000
Thomas, Victoria L (District of Columbia)
DR-IN-0002-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -