On June 25, 2003, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a five-year old developmentally disabled girl under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act, "The Medicaid Act") against the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive relief, claiming that ADHS was not in compliance with the Medicaid Act. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that her rights were violated when ADHS refused to provide her father with an enrollment application for community-based services and instead placed her on a waitlist for an indefinite time period.

Arkansas participates in Medicaid, and ADHS is the state agency charged with the administration of the Medicaid program in Arkansas. Arkansas provides services for developmentally disabled individuals in intermediate care facilities; alternatively, Arkansas also chose to provide home and community based services for developmentally disabled individuals (known as the Alternative Community Services Medicaid Waiver Program, or "ACS").

Plaintiff was a five-year-old girl with developmental and physical disabilities resulting from Down syndrome. Plaintiff's father wished to enroll her in the ACS program and requested an enrollment application in November of 2002; instead of providing an application, ADHS required Plaintiff to complete a client choice form. ADHS put Plaintiff on a wait list at number 2285 for an indefinite period of time even though there were almost 1,000 empty slots under the ACS program. Plaintiff alleged that ADHS had taken similar actions in response to other requests for ACS services.

Defendants filed an answer on July 17, 2003.

During a hearing held on August 14, 2003, Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff with an application for ACS services. Because that was the primary relief sought by Plaintiff in her Complaint, the Court (Judge G. Thomas Eisele) dismissed the case without prejudice and stated that it considered Plaintiff to be a prevailing party.

On September 22, 2003, the Court issued an order awarding attorney's fees and costs. Rejecting Plaintiff's request for more than $26,000 because it was excessive in light of the relief obtained, the Court awarded Plaintiff $16,500 in attorney's fees, and $150 in costs.

There has been no further action in the case, and it has been closed.

Haley Waller - 01/16/2011


compress summary