The Plaintiff in this case has been paralyzed from the chest down ever since an accident in 2007. She has limited mobility and manual dexterity, and thus requires some assistance in caring for herself carrying out daily activities. After her accident, she placed herself on the waitlist for Florida Medicaid's Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord (TBI/SC) Waiver Program.

In early 2010, Plaintiff's husband and primary caregiver left her home following a divorce. She then contacted the state in the hope of receiving Waiver services but was told she would need to spend 60 days in an institution to then be eligible for community-based services to meet her needs. She then filed this lawsuit on May 13, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging this condition for receipt of services as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. She filed a concurrent complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to order the state to immediately provide services that will allow her to remain in the community. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest supporting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

At a June 15, 2010 hearing, the Plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the Plaintiff had been hospitalized due to an unrelated issue, but that she would not be able to return home without the services that the TBI/SC waiver provides. After additional briefing, the District Court (Judge Marcia Morales Howard) granted the motion for preliminary injunction and ordered that the Plaintiff begin to receive services on June 23, 2010 so that she could be discharged from the hospital. The court issued its full analysis in granting the preliminary injunction on July 9, 2010.

In March 2011, the court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the Plaintiff had stated a claim under the ADA. At this time, the Plaintiff had been enrolled in the waiver program for several months. Thus, the parties stipulated to settle the claims with no further obligations for the Defendants. After some dispute over attorney's fees, the parties agreed to dismiss the matter on April 19, 2011.

Beth Kurtz - 11/27/2012


compress summary