On February 3, 1997, a group of New York State Medicaid home care applicants and recipients filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Medicaid Act, against the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health in the United States ...
read more >
On February 3, 1997, a group of New York State Medicaid home care applicants and recipients filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Medicaid Act, against the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs, represented by legal services, asked the court for a permanent injunction, claiming that the State had discriminated against them in violation of the ADA. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that the State's failure to include safety monitoring discriminates against individuals who would otherwise be eligible for community services.
On August 25, 1997, the Court (Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) granted in part and denied in part both Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 177 FRD 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The Court found that Plaintiffs met the requirements for certification of a statewide class. The Court then held that Plaintiffs met the requirements to certify a statewide subclass of applicants and recipients with safety monitoring needs, as well as City and Nassau subclasses. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' "span of time" subclass. Further, considering Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court found that Plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on their safety monitoring claim, but that they had not done so on their "span of time" claims.
Defendants appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded on November 16, 1998. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 162 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the District Court's order that imposed a preliminary injunction granting safety monitoring relief because it found that the District Court "misunderstood" the requirement that harm be imminent. The Second Circuit issued an amended opinion on March 23, 1999. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227 (2d Cir. 1999).
On April 19, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 44 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Specifically, the Court found that Defendants' failure to include safety monitoring in its program for home care services violated the Medicaid Act, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act and permanent injunctive relief was warranted.
Defendants appealed, and the Second Circuit reversed on October 6, 1999. Rodriguez v. City of New York, 197 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court of Appeals held that Defendant did not violate the ADA by failing to provide safety monitoring to those with disabilities because it did not provide safety monitoring as a separate benefit for any person. As such, Defendants were not discriminating against Plaintiffs within the meaning of the ADA.
Over the next five years, the parties executed a series of settlement agreements. There has been no action in the case since a stipulation and order filed September 10, 2004, in which Nassau County agreed to pay certain Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs.
Haley Waller - 04/08/2011
compress summary
