Case: John B. v. Goetz

3:98-cv-00168 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

Filed Date: Feb. 25, 1998

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 25, 1998, plaintiffs, consisting of over 500,000 Tennessee residents under the age of 21 who rely on the state's Medicaid Program ("TennCare") for essential medical and mental health services, brought this class action claim against Tennessee State officials in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The plaintiffs claimed "unlawful deprivation of medically necessary care results in the needless infliction of pain, the endangerment …

On February 25, 1998, plaintiffs, consisting of over 500,000 Tennessee residents under the age of 21 who rely on the state's Medicaid Program ("TennCare") for essential medical and mental health services, brought this class action claim against Tennessee State officials in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The plaintiffs claimed "unlawful deprivation of medically necessary care results in the needless infliction of pain, the endangerment of young lives, and the stunting of children's chances to achieve their full potential" in violation of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§1396, the terms and conditions of Tennessee's conditions of risk agreements between the State of Tennessee, TennCare, managed care organizations (MCOs) and behavioral health organizations (BHOs). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Tennessee participated in Medicaid from the 1960s until it received a five year waiver under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1315, to implement a demonstration program called TennCare. TennCare has two major distinguishing features from the standard Medicaid program. First, TennCare beneficiaries were assigned to one of 11 managed care organizations (MCOs) who assigned primary care providers to serve as gatekeepers to medical services. Second, TennCare added coverage for state residents who lacked access to group health insurance and those who were "uninsurable" because of preexisting conditions.

In July, 1996, a major amendment added behavioral health services to those provided through TennCare, funded with state and federal block grant money. These funds were disbursed to a new set of behavioral health organizations (BHOs), along with the existing budget for behavioral health services. TennCare's managed care organizations ceased to have any responsibility for behavioral health care, and the BHOs assumed responsibility for providing such services to TennCare's entire enrollment.

Approximately 6,000 severely emotionally disturbed ("SED") TennCare children were considered members of the priority population. The program originally paid BHOs a single capitation rate for all TennCare children, regardless of whether they were members of the priority population classified as SED. However, after the implementation of the Partners Program, non-SED children were only entitled to inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and a limited number of outpatient mental health visits; while SED children were eligible for an "enhanced benefits package" of mental health services as needed. The definition of SED encompassed only children who scored up to fifty on the "Global Assessment Functioning" (GAF) test.

Although the waiver amendment approved by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), and the contracts signed by the BHOs contained language that the behavioral health plans were to provide children all services required by the federal EPSDT mandate, the program did not emphasize the SED or non-SED distinctions to BHOs and the public. BHOs and providers have treated the designation as determinative of a child's access to services. Consequently, many medically necessary behavioral health services have been unavailable to children who did not meet the GAF score criteria for SED designation.

In 1997, HCFA criticized the Partners Program's failure to adequately serve the needs of SED children, sparking the restructuring of the capitation payments for BHOs by TennCare so that SED enrollees now earn the BHOs markedly higher capitation payments than non-SED children. This reinforced the BHOs' perception that they did not need to provide the full array of mental health services a severely disturbed child needs unless the child has the required GAF score.

In July 1996, Tennessee created the Department of Children's Services as the agency responsible for all children in state custody. TennCare allocated $129 million to the Department of Children's Services for EPSDT services for children in state custody, or at risk of becoming in state custody. While TennCare's MCOs were supposed to meet the medical/surgical needs of these children, DCS shared responsibility with the TennCare BHOs for the funding and management of behavioral health services for children in custody. DCS claimed to use this EPSDT allocation to pay for a range of "therapeutic interventions" that complement the health and behavioral health services covered by the managed care plans. The department administered the funds outside of the TennCare MCO/BHO care delivery system.

The Department of Children Services was required to provide a basic benefits package to all children in custody, whether they met the SED qualification or not. However, the behavioral health plans had no obligation to provide enhanced services for SED children when those children entered state custody, at which point DCS became responsible.

Aside from Tennessee's participation in Medicaid, Tennessee accepted federal funds under the Adoption Assistance Act. Federal statutory conditions relating to the state's administration of services for children in custody, or at risk of coming into custody, were attached to the receipt of the funds. Most of these conditions governed the provision of social and custodial services to such children, or were designed to achieve permanent placements for them, and were not at issue in this case.

The Adoption Assistant Act's requirement of provision of necessary health services for children in custody, or at risk of coming into state custody, was at issue in these proceedings. The Act also required that health services for a child in custody, or at risk of entering custody, be coordinated with the other educational, social and custodial services which the child needs.

The plaintiffs relied on the defendants for provision of critical EPSDT and services necessary to address children's health needs. Members of this class claimed to be subject to systemic deficiencies in TennCare that impaired their access to such services.

On March 11, 1998, the parties entered a consent decree. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville (Judge William Haynes Jr.) certified the class and a subclass of consisting of children in custody or at risk of coming into custody of DCS.

In the Consent Decree, the state agreed to achieve full compliance with EPSDT, related laws, and the substantive provisions of the agreed order within five years. It also agreed to immediately begin providing partial, and steadily increasing, benefits from the remedial plan as the totality of the terms were implemented.

On December 19, 2001, Judge John Nixon found that, although the Defendants were well-intentioned in complying with the Court's 1998 Consent Decree, ultimately, they were not in compliance. John B. v. Menke, 176 F. Supp. 2d 786 (M.D. Tenn. 2001). The court appointed a special master to mediate and submit to the court an EPSDT-compliance plan. The defendants were again found to be non-compliant in 2004.

In an order dated September 18, 2009, Judge Nixon denied the Defendants' motion to vacate the Consent Decree. F. Supp.2d 871 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). The Defendants appealed and in December 2010, the Sixth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals (Judge Julia Gibbons) vacated part of the Consent Decree. John B. v. Goetz, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25589. The defendants argued that Medicaid 42 U.S.C. §1396(a)(30) was not privately enforceable. The Sixth Circuit vacated the consent decree's requirement that the Defendants ensure the availability of services was geographically comparable and any other provisions based on §1396a(a)(30). Because of concerns that the district court had developed a skewed view of the case, the Sixth Circuit also ordered that the case be reassigned to a new district judge, Thomas A. Wiseman.

In March 2011, Judge Wiseman made preliminary findings that multiple paragraphs of the Consent Decree were subject to vacatur because they were based on statutory provisions or regulations that were themselves not enforceable under § 1983. John B. V. Emkes, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20399. (Motion to Vacate Granted in Part.) The Court vacated those paragraphs, but held that the decree as a whole was still enforceable.

The state then filed a second motion to vacate the decree, this time on the grounds that it was in substantial compliance with the terms of the Decree. On February 14, 2012, the District Court concluded that the state was indeed in substantial compliance and granted the Defendant's motion to vacate both the Consent Decree and all injunctive relief that had been ordered in the case. Specifically, the court noted major improvements in the state's outreach to parents and families, communication efforts, screening processes, diagnostic and treatment processes, and compliance monitoring. The Court subsequently dismissed the case, but retained jurisdiction for the consideration of attorney's fees.

In April of 2012, the Plaintiffs filed for and were granted leave to file a Sealed Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs argued that the District Court had abused its discretion in vacating the Decree, and that the paragraphs the District Court had held were unenforceable were in fact enforceable. In March 2013, a panel of Sixth Circuit judges affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Circuit Court found that that the District Court was correct that certain paragraphs of the Decree were unenforceable, and that it had used proper discretion in finding that the state was in substantial compliance with the remaining terms of the decree. The Circuit Court declined to award Plaintiffs attorneys' fees.

The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (6/20/2012)

Lauren Latterell Powell (10/27/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4708099/parties/b-v-emkes/


Judge(s)

Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Anderson, Leanna Marie (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Aemisegger, Nicholas G. Jr. (Montana)

Ambrosius, Paul W. (Tennessee)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Alexander, Elizabeth A. (Tennessee)

Judge(s)

Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)

Cole, Ransey Guy Jr. (Ohio)

Gibbons, Julia Smith (Tennessee)

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)

Haynes, William Joseph Jr. (Tennessee)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Kethledge, Raymond M. (Michigan)

Nixon, John Trice (Tennessee)

Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)

Rogers, John M. (District of Columbia)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)

Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)

Thomas, Clarence (District of Columbia)

Wiseman, Thomas Anderton Jr. (Tennessee)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:98-cv-00168

Docket

April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Docket
1

3:98-cv-00168

Complaint

John B. v. Menke

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

Complaint
12

3:98-cv-00168

Consent Decree

March 11, 1998

March 11, 1998

Settlement Agreement
227

3:98-cv-00168

Opinion (Finding Non-Compliance with Consent Decree)

John B. v. Menke

Dec. 19, 2001

Dec. 19, 2001

Order/Opinion
609

3:98-cv-00168

Defendants' Motion to Reconsider

Feb. 27, 2006

Feb. 27, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
739

3:98-cv-00168

Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Vacate the Consent Decree and Dismiss the Case

Nov. 20, 2006

Nov. 20, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

06-00901

Opinion (Denying Petition for Writ of Certiorari)

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Order/Opinion
1029

3:98-cv-00168

Opinion (Compelling Discovery)

Oct. 10, 2007

Oct. 10, 2007

Order/Opinion
1073

3:98-cv-00168

Opinion (Re: various motions for clarification of discovery order)

Nov. 15, 2007

Nov. 15, 2007

Order/Opinion
1101

3:98-cv-00168

Opinion (Denying Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal)

Nov. 26, 2007

Nov. 26, 2007

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4708099/b-v-emkes/

Last updated Feb. 9, 2024, 3:20 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) Filing fee paid in the amount of : $150.00 Receipt # 62123 (bbj) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

2

CONSENT DECREE BRIEF for Medicaid−Based Early &Periodic Screening, Diagnosis &treatment Services FILED by pltf John B., pltf Carrie G., pltf Joshua M., pltf Meagan A., pltf Erica A., pltf Dustin P., pltf Bayli S., pltf James D., pltf Elsie H., pltf Julian C., pltf Troy D., pltf Ray M., pltf Roscoe W., pltf William B., pltf R., pltf Justin S., pltf Estel W. regarding [1−1] (bbj) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

3

JOINT MOTION by pltf, deft to approve class action settlement (bbj) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

4

NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference ; Case Management Conference set for 11:00 4/7/98 , Case referred to Magistrate Judge William J. Haynes Jr. (bbj) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

5

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft Nancy Menke on 2/25/98 (dm) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

6

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft George W. Hattaway on 2/25/98 (dm) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

7

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon deft Theresa Clarke on 2/25/98 (dm) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

8

NOTICE by pltfs to Court. Pltfs request that the Court take notice that the seventeen named pltfs in this case are referred to in the cmp by pseudonyms to protect their privacy (dm) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 26, 1998

Feb. 26, 1998

9

MOTION by pltfs for order FILED UNDER SEAL (Attached proposed order) (dm) (Entered: 02/27/1998)

Feb. 26, 1998

Feb. 26, 1998

PROPOSED Agreed Order (dm) (Entered: 03/04/1998)

March 4, 1998

March 4, 1998

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defts by Jennifer Helton Small per signature on proposed order (gi) (Entered: 03/13/1998)

March 4, 1998

March 4, 1998

10

RESPONSE by deft to motion [9−1] FILED UNDER SEAL (gi) (Entered: 03/13/1998)

March 4, 1998

March 4, 1998

11

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon: Hearing is set for 10:00 on 3/11/98 to consider whether a consent decree submitted jointly by the parties shall be approved. EOD 3/11/98 (cc: all counsel) (gi) (Entered: 03/11/1998)

March 10, 1998

March 10, 1998

12

CONSENT DECREE by Judge John T. Nixon for Medicaid based early and periodic secreening, diagnosis and treatment services. This Consent Decree shall expire upon proof that defts have reached an Adjusted Periodic Screening Percentage and Dental Screening Percentage of 80 percent and are in current, substantial compliance with the requirements herein. (See decree for complete details) EOD 3/12/98 (cc: all counsel) (gi) (Entered: 03/12/1998)

March 11, 1998

March 11, 1998

13

CLERK'S RESUME: Hearing held 3/11/98 on mtn to certify the class. Granted. The Court approved the notice. (gi) (Entered: 03/13/1998)

March 12, 1998

March 12, 1998

14

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon FILED UNDER SEAL regarding [9−1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/17/98 (dm) (Entered: 03/17/1998)

March 13, 1998

March 13, 1998

15

JOINT NOTICE by parties of filing of Class Notice, Attachment 4. This Attachment 4 should be substituted for the Attachment 4 filed by the parties on 2/25/98 (Attachment) (dm) (Entered: 03/26/1998)

March 26, 1998

March 26, 1998

16

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon: ORDERED that the parties who submitted material under seal ([10−1]), shall retrieve the same w/i 10 days of entry of this order on the docket. If the material is not retrieved w/i the time specified, the clerk is directed to destroy the material (cc: all counsel)EOD 6/3/98 (dm) (Entered: 06/03/1998)

June 1, 1998

June 1, 1998

18

JOINT NOTICE AND MOTION by ptys for an extension of 20 days through &including 8/6/98 prior to submission of itemizations to this Court (w/proposed order) (jb) (Entered: 07/17/1998)

July 16, 1998

July 16, 1998

19

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon granting motion for an extension of 20 days through &including 8/6/98 prior to submission of itemizations of attys fees and expenses to this Court [18−1] (cc: all counsel) (EOD 7/29/98) (tlc) (Entered: 07/29/1998)

July 29, 1998

July 29, 1998

20

NOTICE by defts of filing semi−annual progress report; w/attachments (tlc) (Entered: 07/30/1998)

July 30, 1998

July 30, 1998

21

JOINT MOTION by parties to extend time to 8/21/98 to submit atty fees to court (tlc) (Entered: 08/07/1998)

Aug. 6, 1998

Aug. 6, 1998

PROPOSED Order granting motion,DE #21 (tlc) (Entered: 08/07/1998)

Aug. 6, 1998

Aug. 6, 1998

22

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon; time is extended for the filing of pltf's affidavits and itemizations of atty fees and expenses to the Court, up through and including 8/21/98 (cc: all counsel) (EOD 8/14/98) (tlc) (Entered: 08/14/1998)

Aug. 13, 1998

Aug. 13, 1998

23

JOINT NOTICE by parties re attorney fees (w/proposed order) (dm) (Entered: 08/21/1998)

Aug. 20, 1998

Aug. 20, 1998

24

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon: Pursuant to Joint Notice [23−1], attorney fees are hereby ORDERED in this case as follows: Michele Johnson $55,804.85, Gordon Bonnyman $36,347.00, Jane Perkins $4,635.00, Mary Gilbert $1,876.00 (cc: all counsel) EOD 8/26/98 (dm) (Entered: 08/26/1998)

Aug. 25, 1998

Aug. 25, 1998

25

NOTICE by defts of filing Report of the Review Team for the EPSDT Consent Decree (w/attachments) (dm) (Entered: 12/14/1998)

Dec. 11, 1998

Dec. 11, 1998

26

NOTICE by defts of filing Proposed Remedial Plan (w/attachment) (dm) (Entered: 12/14/1998)

Dec. 11, 1998

Dec. 11, 1998

PROPOSED Agreed Order ext ddl to 2/1/99 for pltfs to respond to deft's Remedial Plan (dm) (Entered: 01/13/1999)

Jan. 13, 1999

Jan. 13, 1999

27

AGREED ORDER approved by Judge John T. Nixon: The pltfs shall respond to the defts' Remedial Plan [26−1] by 2/1/99. ORDERED that the pltfs shall submit their response to defts' Remedial Plan no later than 2/1/99 (cc: all counsel)EOD 1/20/99 (dm) (Entered: 01/20/1999)

Jan. 19, 1999

Jan. 19, 1999

28

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT/ORDER by Magistrate Judge William J. Haynes Jr: the Court has entered a Consent Decree, accordingly, there will be no further proceedings before the Mag Judge. (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/29/99 (bj) (Entered: 01/29/1999)

Jan. 28, 1999

Jan. 28, 1999

29

NOTICE by pltfs of filing January 1999 Semi−Annual Progress Report (dm) (Entered: 01/29/1999)

Jan. 29, 1999

Jan. 29, 1999

PROPOSED Agreed Order to continue the response ddl for pltf to respond to deft's Remedial Plan to 2/17/99 (dm) (Entered: 02/02/1999)

Feb. 1, 1999

Feb. 1, 1999

30

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defts by Linda A. Ross (dm) (Entered: 02/03/1999)

Feb. 2, 1999

Feb. 2, 1999

31

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon: Pltfs shall respond to the Remedial Plan [26−1] no later than 2/17/99 (cc: all counsel) EOD 2/9/99 (dm) (Entered: 02/09/1999)

Feb. 8, 1999

Feb. 8, 1999

32

RESPONSE by pltf to Proposed Remedial Plan [26−1] (w/attachment) (dm) (Entered: 02/18/1999)

Feb. 17, 1999

Feb. 17, 1999

33

NOTICE by pltfs of filing copy of Declaration of Linda and Walter Allen which was filed in case 3:98−127 (w/attachments) (dm) (Entered: 02/18/1999)

Feb. 17, 1999

Feb. 17, 1999

35

SUPPLEMENT by pltfs to response [32−1] to Proposed Remedial Plan. (bj) (Entered: 03/05/1999)

March 4, 1999

March 4, 1999

36

SECOND NOTICE by pltfs of Filing Documents (to be accepted as exhibits). (attachments) (bj) (Entered: 03/05/1999)

March 4, 1999

March 4, 1999

37

LETTER from Linda A. Ross, atty for defts requesting a status conf. (bj) (Entered: 03/09/1999)

March 8, 1999

March 8, 1999

PROPOSED Agreed Order re schedule for filings (tlc) (Entered: 03/10/1999)

March 10, 1999

March 10, 1999

38

AGREED ORDER approved by Judge John T. Nixon: Defts will have 30 days from the entry of this order to file a reply to pltfs' Response [32−1] to the Proposed Remedial Plan [26−1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/16/99 (dm) (Entered: 03/16/1999)

March 15, 1999

March 15, 1999

PROPOSED Agreed Order: Defts will have 30 days from the entry of this order to file a reply to pltfs' response to defts' proposed remedial plan (dm) (Entered: 04/13/1999)

April 13, 1999

April 13, 1999

39

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon allowing the defts 30 days from the entry of this Order to file a reply to the pltfs' response to the defts' proposed remedial plan (cc: all counsel) (EOD 5/18/99) (jb) (Entered: 05/18/1999)

May 17, 1999

May 17, 1999

PROPOSED Order granting extension of time to reply to proposed remedial plan (gi) (Entered: 06/17/1999)

June 16, 1999

June 16, 1999

40

AGREED ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon allowing defts until 6/30/99 to file a reply to the pltfs' response to the defts' proposed remedial plan (cc: all counsel) (EOD 7/1/99) (jb) (Entered: 07/01/1999)

July 1, 1999

July 1, 1999

41

MOTION by defts for extension of time of 30 days to file a revised proposed remedial plan (jb) (Entered: 07/21/1999)

July 20, 1999

July 20, 1999

42

REPLY by defts to pltfs' response to proposed remedial plan [26−1] (jb) (Entered: 07/21/1999)

July 20, 1999

July 20, 1999

43

JULY 1999 SEMI−ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT by state defts (gi) (Entered: 08/02/1999)

July 30, 1999

July 30, 1999

44

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon granting motion for extension of time of 30 days to file a revised proposed remedial plan [41−1] (cc: all counsel) (EOD 8/9/99) (jb) (Entered: 08/09/1999)

Aug. 6, 1999

Aug. 6, 1999

45

PARTIES' JOINT REPORT AND MOTION by pltfs &defts for order to hold in abeyance the Court's deliberations on the ptys pending contentions regarding the terms of a remedial plan for the care of child in, or at risk of entering, state custody &for order allowing until 10/15/99 to implement the negotiation procedures outlined in this motion (jb) (Entered: 08/23/1999)

Aug. 20, 1999

Aug. 20, 1999

46

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon granting the parties' joint motion for order to hold in abeyance the Court's deliberations on the ptys pending contentions regarding the terms of a remedial plan for the care of child in, or at risk of entering, state custody [45−1] &for order allowing until 10/15/99 to implement the negotiation procedures outlined this motion [45−2]; Ptys will report back to the Court by 10/15/99 regarding a proposed timetable for future negotiations. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 8/30/99) (jb) (Entered: 08/30/1999)

Aug. 27, 1999

Aug. 27, 1999

47

JOINT STATUS REPORT by pltfs &defts of the proposed timetable for the completion of the process for negotiating the development of a comprehensive remedial plan for the care of children in, or at risk of entering, state custody. (jb) (Entered: 10/15/1999)

Oct. 14, 1999

Oct. 14, 1999

48

MOTION by class pltfs to withdraw attorney Lenny L. Croce as counsel of record (jb) (Entered: 12/02/1999)

Dec. 1, 1999

Dec. 1, 1999

49

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon granting motion to withdraw attorney Lenny L. Croce as counsel of record [48−1] for pltfs. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 1/25/00) (jb) (Entered: 01/25/2000)

Jan. 24, 2000

Jan. 24, 2000

51

NOTICE by defts of filing of proposed Health Plan For Children In State Custody (w/attached Health Plan) (jb) (Entered: 02/16/2000)

Feb. 15, 2000

Feb. 15, 2000

52

MOTION by defts for a case management conference (w/attachment) (jb) (Entered: 02/18/2000)

Feb. 18, 2000

Feb. 18, 2000

53

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon granting motion for a case management conference [52−1]; Case Management Conference set for 10:00 3/6/00 (cc: all counsel) (EOD 2/25/00) (jb) (Entered: 02/25/2000)

Feb. 24, 2000

Feb. 24, 2000

PROPOSED Agreed Order re Plan to implement the requirements of the Consent Decree with respect to the pltf subclass. (jb) (Entered: 04/14/2000)

April 13, 2000

April 13, 2000

54

AGREED ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon; the court finds the proposed procedure as to a plan to implement the requirements of the Consent Decree w/respect to the pltf subclass is reasonable and should be adopted (cc: all counsel) (EOD 4/18/00) (tlc) (Entered: 04/18/2000)

April 17, 2000

April 17, 2000

PROPOSED Order re remedial plan (gi) (Entered: 05/01/2000)

April 28, 2000

April 28, 2000

55

AGREED ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon; The ptys report to the Court that they have reached an agreement in principle regarding the elements of the plan. However, the ptys are still finalizing a document to be filed with the Court. Hearing set for 1:00 5/11/00 at which time the Court will review the ptys proposed remedial plan. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 5/4/00) (jb) (Entered: 05/04/2000)

May 4, 2000

May 4, 2000

56

CLERK'S RESUME; Hearing on Remedial Plan for Children held 5/11/00 ; Remedial Plan approved. Order will enter; C/R: Charlotte Sloan (jb) (Entered: 05/12/2000)

May 11, 2000

May 11, 2000

57

AGREED ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon governing children at serious risk of entering state custody. The Court finds that the Serious Risk Plan is fair, adequate, reasonable to those it affects, &consistent with the public interest. The Court therefore accepts &incorporates by reference the terms of the Serious Risk Plan as an amendment to the Consent Decree. the Court notes, however, that the Serious Risk Plan was based on the structure of the TennCare Program in place as of 5/11/00. In the event that TennCare undergoes programmatic structural changes, the ptys will assess whether related modification to this plan are made necessary, will work together to develop appropriate modifications, and, if unsuccessful in that effort, will seek appropriate relief from the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 5/16/00) (jb) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

May 12, 2000

May 12, 2000

58

PARTIES PLAN FOR CHILDREN AT SERIOUS RISK OF ENTERING STATE CUSTODY re Order [57−1] (jb) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

May 12, 2000

May 12, 2000

59

AGREED ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon governing the coordination and delivery of health services to children in state custody; The Court finds that the remedial plan is fair, adequate, reasonable to those it affects, &consistent with the public interest. The Court therefore accepts &incorporates by reference the terms of the remedial plan as an amendment to the Consent Decree. The Court notes, however, that the remedial plan was based on the structure of the TennCare program in place as of 5/11/00. In the event that TennCare undergoes programmatic structural changes, the ptys will assess whether related modifications ot this remedial plan are made necessary, will work together to develop appropriate modifications, and if unsuccessful in that effort, will seek appropriate relief from the Court. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 5/16/00) (jb) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

May 12, 2000

May 12, 2000

60

PARTIES' REMEDIAL PLAN FOR CHILDREN IN STATE CUSTODY re Order [59−1] (jb) (Entered: 05/16/2000)

May 12, 2000

May 12, 2000

61

JULY 2000 SEMI−ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT by defts (jb) (Entered: 07/31/2000)

July 31, 2000

July 31, 2000

62

NOTICE by defts of late filed attachment to July 2000 Semi−Annual Progress Report (w/attachment) (jb) (Entered: 08/08/2000)

Aug. 8, 2000

Aug. 8, 2000

64

AFFIDAVIT of Fredia Wadley in support of motion to stay [63−1] (jb) (Entered: 11/17/2000)

Nov. 16, 2000

Nov. 16, 2000

65

BRIEF by pltfs in opposition to defts' motion to stay enforcement of the remedial plan pending resolution of proposed modifications [63−1] (w/attached exh. A) (jb) (Entered: 11/28/2000)

Nov. 27, 2000

Nov. 27, 2000

66

REPLY BRIEF by defts to pltfs' brief in opposition to defts' motion to stay enforcement of the remedial plan pending resolution of proposed modifications [63−1] (jb) (Entered: 12/11/2000)

Dec. 8, 2000

Dec. 8, 2000

67

TRANSCRIPT filed of the proceedings before the Hon. Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 5/11/00; CR: Charlotte H. Sloan (jb) (Entered: 12/15/2000)

Dec. 15, 2000

Dec. 15, 2000

68

MOTION by defts for designation of a Magistrate Judge . (dlt) (Entered: 12/20/2000)

Dec. 18, 2000

Dec. 18, 2000

69

MOTION by defts to modify the Remedial Plan for children in custody and the plan for children at serious risk of entering state custody . (w/ attachments) (dlt) (Entered: 12/20/2000)

Dec. 18, 2000

Dec. 18, 2000

70

MEMORANDUM by deft in support of motion to modify the Remedial Plan for children in custody and the plan for children at serious risk of entering state custody [69−1]. (w/ attachment) (dlt) (Entered: 12/20/2000)

Dec. 18, 2000

Dec. 18, 2000

71

MOTION by pltfs to compel discovery (jb) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

Jan. 2, 2001

Jan. 2, 2001

72

BRIEF by pltfs in support of motion to compel discovery [71−1] (jb) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

Jan. 2, 2001

Jan. 2, 2001

73

CERTIFICATE by pltfs of counsel in support of pltfs' motion to compel discovery (w/attached exhs. a−j) (jb) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

Jan. 2, 2001

Jan. 2, 2001

74

RESPONSE by pltfs to defts' motion to modify the Remedial Plan for children in custody and the plan for children at serious risk of entering state custody [69−1] (jb) (Entered: 01/03/2001)

Jan. 2, 2001

Jan. 2, 2001

75

MEMORANDUM by defts in opposition to pltfs' motion to compel discovery [71−1] (w/attached exhs. A−M) (jb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

Jan. 16, 2001

Jan. 16, 2001

76

MOTION by defts for setting of a prehearing discovery conference and for entry of a scheduling order (w/attached proposed order re: hearing and proposed scheduling order) (jb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)

Jan. 16, 2001

Jan. 16, 2001

77

MEMORANDUM by defts in support of motion for setting of a prehearing discovery conference [76−1] and for entry of a scheduling order [76−2] (w/attached exhs. 1 &2) (jb) Modified on 01/17/2001 (Entered: 01/17/2001)

Jan. 16, 2001

Jan. 16, 2001

78

ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon granting motion for designation of a Magistrate Judge [68−1]; The Clerk of Court will assign a Magistrate to this case in the usual manner. Case assigned to Magistrate Judge E. C. Knowles. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 1/23/01) (jb) (Entered: 01/23/2001)

Jan. 22, 2001

Jan. 22, 2001

79

MOTION by pltfs for order to show cause (w/attached certificate of counsel) (jb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

Jan. 29, 2001

Jan. 29, 2001

80

CERTIFICATE by pltfs of counsel (jb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

Jan. 29, 2001

Jan. 29, 2001

81

BRIEF by pltfs in support of motion for order to show cause [79−1] (jb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

Jan. 29, 2001

Jan. 29, 2001

82

ORDER by Magistrate Judge E. C. Knowles denying motion for setting of a prehearing discovery conference [76−1] and for entry of a scheduling order [76−2]; Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) does not apply in the context of defts' motion to modify the remedial plan, and pltfs seek to take only one deposition. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 1/30/01) (jb) (Entered: 01/30/2001)

Jan. 30, 2001

Jan. 30, 2001

PROPOSED Agreed Case Mangement Order (jb) (Entered: 01/31/2001)

Jan. 30, 2001

Jan. 30, 2001

84

JANUARY 2001 SEMI−ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT submitted by State Defts (jb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)

Jan. 31, 2001

Jan. 31, 2001

85

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for State Defts Nancy Menke, Theresa Clarke, &George W. Hattaway by Katherine Anne Brown (jb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)

Feb. 1, 2001

Feb. 1, 2001

86

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for State Defts Nancy Menke, Theresa Clarke, &George W. Hattaway by Nicholas G. Aemisegger Jr. (jb) (Entered: 02/01/2001)

Feb. 1, 2001

Feb. 1, 2001

PROPOSED Agreed Order granted an extension of time until 5/28/01 in which to respond to the pltfs' motion to show cause. (jb) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

87

AGREED ORDER by Judge John T. Nixon: The pre−hearing brief filed by the defts shall also serve as an answer to the pltfs' motion to show cause, filed with this Court on 1/29/01. The defts are granted an extension of time up to &including 5/28/01 in which to respond to the pltfs' motion for order to show cause [79−1]. (cc: all counsel) (EOD 2/28/01) (jb) (Entered: 02/28/2001)

Feb. 28, 2001

Feb. 28, 2001

PROPOSED Amended Agreed Case Management Order (dlt) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

March 1, 2001

March 1, 2001

88

AMENDED AGREED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER approved by Judge John T. Nixon; Evidentiary Hearing set for 6/18/01 at 9:00 a.m.; Written Discovery ddl set for 3/12/01; The ptys shall submit a final case management order by 5/7/01; Pre−hearing Briefs ddl 5/28/01 (cc: all counsel) (EOD 3/6/01) (jb) (Entered: 03/06/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

89

MOTION by defts for protective order . (w/ att'd exhibit A) (dlt) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

April 11, 2001

April 11, 2001

90

MEMORANDUM by deft in support of motion for protective order [89−1]. (w/ att'd exhibit 1) (dlt) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

April 11, 2001

April 11, 2001

91

JOINT STATEMENT of counsel of the matters at issue in this discovery dispute. (dlt) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

April 11, 2001

April 11, 2001

92

MOTION by pltfs to compel discovery (jb) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 13, 2001

April 13, 2001

Case Details

State / Territory: Tennessee

Case Type(s):

Child Welfare

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 25, 1998

Closing Date: 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

500,000 children enrolled in the TennCare Program for mental and medical services

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Bazelon Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Assistant Commissioner (Nashville, Davidson), State

Commissioner (Nashville), State

Commissioner (Nashville, Davidson), State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq.

State law

Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1998 - 2012

Content of Injunction:

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Funding

Government services

Juveniles

Payment for care

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Disability and Disability Rights:

Mental impairment

Depression

Developmental disability without intellectual disability

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Benefit Source:

Medicaid