Case: Rosie D. v. Romney

3:01-cv-30199 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: Oct. 31, 2001

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 31, 2001, the Center for Public Representation, the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, and a private law firm filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1396, against the Governor of Massachusetts and other state officials, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Rosie D. and eight other Medicaid-eligible children, aged 6 to 15, who were hospitalized or at risk of hospitalization due to a lack of home-based services. The class…

On October 31, 2001, the Center for Public Representation, the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, and a private law firm filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1396, against the Governor of Massachusetts and other state officials, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Rosie D. and eight other Medicaid-eligible children, aged 6 to 15, who were hospitalized or at risk of hospitalization due to a lack of home-based services. The class they sought to represent included tens of thousands of children in Massachusetts who were eligible for Medicaid (MassHealth) and had emotional, behavioral, or psychiatric disabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had failed to provide medically necessary services as required under the federal Medicaid Act, and that it had failed to inform parents and children that they were entitled to these covered services.

On December 19, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2002, the district court (Judge Michael A. Ponsor) denied the motion to dismiss and certified the case as a class action. The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss. On November 7, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the defendants’ appeal, holding that children had an enforceable right under the Medicaid Act to medically necessary treatment. 310 F.3d 230.

The district court issued an order compelling the defendants to produce requested documents for the plaintiffs on April 14, 2003. 256 F. Supp. 2d 115.

On December 16, 2004, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 25, 2005, the district court denied the motion for summary judgment, and the case headed for trial.

The case went through a six-week trial in the spring of 2005. On January 26, 2006, the court issued a 98-page decision that found that Massachusetts had violated the EPSDT provisions of the federal Medicaid Act (requirements for “Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment” services) by failing to provide home-based services to thousands of children across the state. 410 F. Supp. 2d 18. The result of this failure was that thousands of Massachusetts children with serious emotional disturbance were forced to endure unnecessary confinement in residential facilities or to remain in costly institutions far longer than their medical conditions required.

As a result of the judgment, the parties entered into negotiations to create a remedial plan. After six months of negotiations that failed to produce agreement, both sides presented separate plans to the court. On February 22, 2007, the court approved a modified version of the defendants’ plan. 474 F. Supp. 2d 238. The court’s adopted plan sought to restructure the children's mental health system by incorporating intensive home-based services, including behavioral health screenings, assessments, case management, crisis intervention, and in-home therapeutic supports. The plan’s strict timelines required full implementation by June 2009. The court also appointed a monitor to oversee the implementation, to mediate disputes between the parties, and to determine compliance with the court’s order.

On January 16, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to modify the judgment and to give them until July 1, 2010 to implement the plan. On February 27, 2009, the district court granted some extra time to the defendants, allowing them until December 1, 2009, to fully implement the remedial plan.

Both parties submitted periodical implementation reports on the remedial plan. On November 29, 2011, the court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to insure timely access to remedial services. The court ordered the defendants to propose a new plan for standards governing enrollment in Intensive Care Coordination, and a new timetable for implementation of these standards. The court also ordered that the defendants must appear before it every 60 days to report on their compliance progress.

Over the next few years, both parties continued to submit status reports, and the court proceeded to extend the monitor’s role in six-month increments and endorsed the parties’ agreement regarding the monitor’s budget.

On February 7, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to terminate monitoring. It noted that despite “persistent prodding from the court, Defendants are still grossly failing” to bring themselves into compliance with the remedial plan. Specifically, the defendants had failed to demonstrate they could provide “reasonably prompt” care to a substantial portion of the plaintiffs, which was defined as offering an initial appointment within fourteen days after initial contact. Citing this, and the defendants’ apparent lack of effort at compliance, the court retained its power to continue its supervision.

The defendants appealed this decision to the First Circuit on March 11, 2019. On March 13, the court denied the plaintiffs’ two outstanding motions, “in light of the general rule that…the filing of an appeal deprives a district court of the power to act substantively in a case until proceedings on appeal conclude.” The same day, the case was reassigned to Judge Richard G. Stearns.

On July 1, 2019, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the appointment of the court monitor, subject to the First Circuit’s ruling on appeal.

On May 4, 2020, the First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court. It held that because the parties’ agreement had provided for the monitor’s appointment to conclude on December 31, 2018, the district court had improperly extended the monitor’s appointment. On remand, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to show “good cause” to modify the agreement by extending the monitor’s appointment; the district court should analyze the question in light of Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 958 F.3d 51

The First Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing en banc (before the entire court, rather than the typical 3-judge panel) on June 17, 2020. As of August 2020, further proceedings are pending in the district court.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (3/14/2009)

Andrew Junker (12/4/2014)

Edward Cullen (3/21/2019)

Gregory Marsh (8/10/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4276559/parties/rosie-d-v-romney/


Judge(s)

Coffin, Frank Morey (Maine)

Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)

Lipez, Kermit Victor (Maine)

Lynch, Sandra Lea (Massachusetts)

Neiman, Kenneth P. (Massachusetts)

Ponsor, Michael Adrian (Massachusetts)

Selya, Bruce Marshall (Rhode Island)

Stearns, Richard Gaylore (Massachusetts)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burling, James C (Massachusetts)

Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)

Judge(s)

Coffin, Frank Morey (Maine)

Fletcher, Betty Binns (Washington)

Lipez, Kermit Victor (Maine)

Lynch, Sandra Lea (Massachusetts)

Neiman, Kenneth P. (Massachusetts)

Ponsor, Michael Adrian (Massachusetts)

Selya, Bruce Marshall (Rhode Island)

Stearns, Richard Gaylore (Massachusetts)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Burling, James C (Massachusetts)

Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)

Foote, Gabrielle E (New York)

Halston, Daniel W. (Massachusetts)

Laski, Frank J. (Pennsylvania)

Morton, Samantha J (Massachusetts)

Palmer, Kevin R (Massachusetts)

Prendergast, James (Illinois)

Rhee, John Sup (Massachusetts)

Rucker, Kathryn L (Massachusetts)

Schwartz, Steven J. (Massachusetts)

Shanahan, Sara Jane (Massachusetts)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Coakley, Martha (Massachusetts)

Hammond, Daniel (Massachusetts)

Healey, Maura T. (Massachusetts)

Healey [inactive], Maura (Massachusetts)

Hitt, John R. (Massachusetts)

Hollander, Bart Q (Massachusetts)

Jones, Timothy M. (Massachusetts)

Kehoe, Ronald F. (Massachusetts)

Lovell, Stephanie S. (Massachusetts)

Martland, Douglas S (Massachusetts)

Reilly, Thomas F. (Massachusetts)

Rice, Juliana DeHann (Massachusetts)

Roney, Deirdre (Massachusetts)

Salinger, Kenneth (Massachusetts)

Simms, Adam (Massachusetts)

Other Attorney(s)

Hitov, Steven A (District of Columbia)

Pulos, Victoria (Massachusetts)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:01-cv-30199

1:10-cv-30073

19-01262

19-01767

Docket [PACER]

July 28, 2020

July 28, 2020

Docket
1

3:01-cv-30199

Complaint

Rosie D. v. Swift

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

Complaint
9

3:01-cv-30199

Protective Order

Rosie D. v. Swift

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

Order/Opinion

3:01-cv-30199

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Rosie D v. Swift

Dec. 18, 2001

Dec. 18, 2001

Pleading / Motion / Brief

02-01604

Appellate Decision

Rosie D. v. Swift

U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

310 F.3d 230

Nov. 7, 2002

Nov. 7, 2002

Order/Opinion
67

3:01-cv-30199

Memorandum and Order with Regard to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

256 F.Supp.2d 115

April 14, 2003

April 14, 2003

Order/Opinion

3:01-cv-30199

Joint Motion to Amend Protective Order

Dec. 1, 2003

Dec. 1, 2003

Pleading / Motion / Brief
157

3:01-cv-30199

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Dec. 16, 2004

Dec. 16, 2004

Pleading / Motion / Brief
331

3:01-cv-30199

Memorandum of Decision

410 F.Supp.2d 18

Jan. 26, 2006

Jan. 26, 2006

Order/Opinion

3:01-cv-30199

Plaintiffs' Final Remedial Plan

Aug. 18, 2006

Aug. 18, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4276559/rosie-d-v-romney/

Last updated Aug. 4, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Summons Issued

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

PACER
1

Complaint filed. Case assigned to Judge: Michael A. Ponsor. Receipt #: 304684. Amount: $150.00. Filing Fee: Paid. CF, LR 4.1, notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons to Counsel. (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

RECAP
2

Motion by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. to proceed by pseudonym filed. (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

PACER
3

Memorandum by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. in support of [2-1] motion to proceed by pseudonym, filed. (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

PACER
4

Exhibits by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. [2-1] motion to proceed by pseudonym (mef) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

Oct. 31, 2001

Oct. 31, 2001

PACER

Description not available

Nov. 2, 2001

Nov. 2, 2001

PACER
5

Return of service executed as to Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring w/s/o 11/5/2001 filed. Answer due on 11/25/01 for Wendy E. Warring, Stephen P. Crosby, Robert Gittens, Jane M. Swift (mef) (Entered: 11/13/2001)

Nov. 13, 2001

Nov. 13, 2001

PACER
6

Ps' Consent to Trial by Magistrate filed. (mef) (Entered: 11/13/2001)

Nov. 13, 2001

Nov. 13, 2001

PACER
7

Joint motion by Rosie D., et al., and Jane M. Swift, et al., for a scheduling order, filed. . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/10/2001)

Dec. 10, 2001

Dec. 10, 2001

PACER
8

Joint motion by Rosie D., et al., and Jane M. Swift, et al., to adopt protective order, filed. . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/10/2001)

Dec. 10, 2001

Dec. 10, 2001

PACER

Description not available

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

PACER
9

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Protective Order entered. See order for details. [EOD Date 12/13/01] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

PACER
10

Notice of appearance of attorney for Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring by Stephanie S. Lovell, Daniel J. Hammond, timothy M Jones, Bart Q. Hollander, Deirdre Roney, filed. (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)

Dec. 19, 2001

Dec. 19, 2001

PACER
11

Motion by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring to dismiss, and to stay disclosure and discovery and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)

Dec. 19, 2001

Dec. 19, 2001

PACER
12

Motion by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring for leave to file oversize memorandum of law, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2001)

Dec. 19, 2001

Dec. 19, 2001

PACER
13

Pltfs' Motion to certify class action, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 12/21/2001)

Dec. 21, 2001

Dec. 21, 2001

PACER
14

Memorandum in support of [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 12/21/2001)

Dec. 21, 2001

Dec. 21, 2001

PACER
15

Joint motion by Rosie D., Jane M. Swift to adopt amended protective order, filed. . (mgl) (Entered: 01/04/2002)

Jan. 4, 2002

Jan. 4, 2002

PACER

Description not available

Jan. 9, 2002

Jan. 9, 2002

PACER
16

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Protective Order entered . See order for details, [EOD Date 1/9/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

Jan. 9, 2002

Jan. 9, 2002

PACER
17

Notice of change of address filed by timothy M Jones by Jane M. Swift . c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

Jan. 9, 2002

Jan. 9, 2002

PACER
18

Memorandum by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring in opposition to [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/18/2002)

Jan. 18, 2002

Jan. 18, 2002

PACER
19

Assented to Motion by Rosie D., et al., for leave to file memorandum in excess of twenty pages, filed. c/s (mgl) Modified on 01/22/2002 (Entered: 01/22/2002)

Jan. 18, 2002

Jan. 18, 2002

PACER
20

Response by Rosie D. in opposition to [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) Modified on 01/22/2002 (Entered: 01/22/2002)

Jan. 18, 2002

Jan. 18, 2002

PACER

Description not available

Jan. 22, 2002

Jan. 22, 2002

PACER
21

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Notice of Hearing/conference: Motion hearing before Judge Michael A. Ponsor set for 2:30 3/29/02 for [13-1] motion to certify class action, [11-1] motion to dismiss, reset pretrial conference for 2:30 3/29/02 before Judge Michael A. Ponsor . (laf) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
22

Joint statement by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N., Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring for scheduling conference . (bah) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
23

Reply Memorandum of law by Jane M. Swift in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
24

Reply by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. to response to [13-1] motion to certify class action, filed, c/s. (bah) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
25

Nine Pltf's Rule 16.1 Certifications filed . (jcs) (Entered: 02/15/2002)

Feb. 15, 2002

Feb. 15, 2002

PACER
26

Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Jane M. Swift . (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 28, 2002

March 28, 2002

PACER
27

Rule 16.1 Certification of Kevin Sullivan. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 28, 2002

March 28, 2002

PACER
28

Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Wendy E. Warring . (mgl) (Entered: 03/28/2002)

March 28, 2002

March 28, 2002

PACER

Description not available

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
29

Memorandum by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring in support of [11-1] motion to dismiss, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
30

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Pretrial Scheduling Order entered as follows: Assuming that dft's decide not to proceed with an interlocutory appeal, all non-expert discovery due 1/31/03, on or before 2/28/03 each side will convey to the other their rule 26 report, all expert deposition due 3/31//03, a final Pretrial conference is set for 2:00 P.M. on 4/11/03, in the event dft's decide to file an interlocutory appeal, a motion for stay pending appeal will be filed by 4/30/02, and opposition due on 5/17/02 [EOD Date 4/1/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

April 1, 2002

April 1, 2002

PACER
31

Judge Michael A. Ponsor. Procedural Order entered re: Pretrial on 4/11/03/Trial; . [EOD Date 4/1/02] c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

April 1, 2002

April 1, 2002

PACER
32

Notice of appeal by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring filed. Fee Status: pd Fee Amount: $ 105.00 Receipt #: 304865 Appealing: [0-0] endorsed order. Appeal record due on 5/14/02 (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 29, 2002

April 29, 2002

PACER
33

Motion by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 29, 2002

April 29, 2002

PACER
34

Memorandum of law by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring in support of [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 29, 2002

April 29, 2002

PACER
35

Certificate of Consultation re: [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. (mgl) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 29, 2002

April 29, 2002

PACER
36

Rule 16.1 Certification filed by Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring . (mef) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER

Docket Annotation

May 2, 2002

May 2, 2002

PACER
37

Volume I of Transcript of Hearing held on proceeding date: 3/29/2002 at 2:30 P.M. before Judge: Michael A. Ponsor filed. Court Reporter: Leigh B. Gershowitz. (mef) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

May 2, 2002

May 2, 2002

PACER

Appeal Transcript Order Form

May 9, 2002

May 9, 2002

PACER

Docket Annotation

May 9, 2002

May 9, 2002

PACER
38

Motion to extend time to 5/28/02 to file opposition to motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal, filed.(assented to) (jcs) (Entered: 05/20/2002)

May 20, 2002

May 20, 2002

PACER

Description not available

May 23, 2002

May 23, 2002

PACER

Docket Annotation

May 23, 2002

May 23, 2002

PACER

Full Record on Appeal Sent to USCA

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
39

Ps' Partial resp. in opposition to [33-1] motion to stay disclosure and discovery pending appeal of eleventh amendment ruling and certificate of compliance with local rule 7.1(A)(2), filed. (mef) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER

Description not available

May 29, 2002

May 29, 2002

PACER

USCA Case Number

June 6, 2002

June 6, 2002

PACER

Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA

June 7, 2002

June 7, 2002

PACER
40

Certified Copy of Order of the US Court of Appeals dated re: [32-1] appeal. Under the circumstances, we think it preferable to temporarily stay the disclosure requirement in order to permit Defts. to raise thier concerns anent this requirement in the District Court. The disclosure requirement will be stayed for a period of ten days in order to permit the Govt. to file a motion for reconsideration in the District Court. If the Govt. files such a motion in a timely fashion, the disclosure requirement will be further stayed pending order of the District Court or this Court. If either side is dissatisfied with the District Court's ruling, it may seek further relief from this Court. (mef) Modified on 07/16/2002 (Entered: 07/15/2002)

July 15, 2002

July 15, 2002

PACER
41

Ds' Motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
42

Ds' Memorandum in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order, filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
43

Ds' Affidavit of Laurie Ansorge Ball in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
44

Ds' Affidavit of Joan Mikula in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
45

Ds' Affidavit of Mary Ellen Bennard in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
46

Ds' Affidavit of Deirdre Roney in support of [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order filed. (mef) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
47

PLaintiffs' Response in opposition to [41-1] motion for partial reconsideration of 5/29/2002 [0-0] endorsed order re: Order requiring the Ds' to disclose names and addresses of Medicaid recipient children and upon reconsideration the Court deny Ps' req. for such an Order, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 08/02/2002)

Aug. 2, 2002

Aug. 2, 2002

PACER
48

Affidavit of Cathy E. Costanzo, re: [47-1] opposition response, filed. (jcs) (Entered: 08/02/2002)

Aug. 2, 2002

Aug. 2, 2002

PACER

Description not available

Aug. 7, 2002

Aug. 7, 2002

PACER
49

Order of the US Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal...the Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. (mef) (Entered: 11/12/2002)

Nov. 12, 2002

Nov. 12, 2002

PACER
50

Opinion of the Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal entered. AFFIRMED. (mef) (Entered: 11/12/2002)

Nov. 12, 2002

Nov. 12, 2002

PACER

Appeal Record Returned

Dec. 5, 2002

Dec. 5, 2002

PACER
51

Mandate of US Court of Appeals re: [32-1] appeal affirming the judgment of the district court. (jr) (Entered: 12/05/2002)

Dec. 5, 2002

Dec. 5, 2002

PACER
52

Joint motion by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N., Jane M. Swift, Robert Gittens, Stephen P. Crosby, Wendy E. Warring to amend [30-1] pretrial Scheduling order, filed. . (mgl) (Entered: 12/16/2002)

Dec. 16, 2002

Dec. 16, 2002

PACER
53

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Pretrial Scheduling Order entered setting Discovery cutoff 10/31/03 Expert witness list due on 12/31/03 Pretrial conference at 3:00 P.M. on 1/8/04 . [EOD Date 12/19/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2002)

Dec. 18, 2002

Dec. 18, 2002

PACER
54

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . Procedural Order entered re: Pretrial/Trial; . [EOD Date 12/19/02] cc/cl (mgl) (Entered: 12/19/2002)

Dec. 18, 2002

Dec. 18, 2002

PACER
55

Notice of withdrawal of counsel by attorney Sara Jane Shanahan for Joshua D., attorney Sara Jane Shanahan for Tyriek H., attorney Sara Jane Shanahan for Rosie D. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 12/23/2002)

Dec. 23, 2002

Dec. 23, 2002

PACER
56

Notice of appearance of attorney for Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. by Samantha J. Morton, filed. (mgl) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

Feb. 26, 2003

Feb. 26, 2003

PACER
57

Motion by Rosie D., et, al., to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

March 5, 2003

March 5, 2003

PACER
58

Memorandum by Rosie D., et al., in support of their [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

March 5, 2003

March 5, 2003

PACER
59

Motion by Rosie D., et al., to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

March 5, 2003

March 5, 2003

PACER
60

Memorandum of law by Rosie D., et al., in support of their [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

March 5, 2003

March 5, 2003

PACER
61

(Assented to) Motion by Rosie D., et al., and Jane M. Swift, et al., to proposed scheduling dates, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/05/2003)

March 5, 2003

March 5, 2003

PACER

Description not available

March 7, 2003

March 7, 2003

PACER
62

Dft's and non-party agencies Response by Mass Division of DMA in opposition to [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/19/2003)

March 19, 2003

March 19, 2003

PACER
63

Response by Mass Division of DMA in opposition to [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/19/2003)

March 19, 2003

March 19, 2003

PACER
64

Judge Michael A. Ponsor . ORDER entered: referral to Mag. Judge Kenneth P. Neiman . : [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within DMA'S control, [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, [52-1] joint motion to amend [30-1] pretrial Scheduling order . Purpose: Ruling Special Instructions: None . (laf) (Entered: 03/20/2003)

March 20, 2003

March 20, 2003

PACER
65

Plaintiff's Reply brief by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. in support of [59-1] motion to compel production of documents within control, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

March 24, 2003

March 24, 2003

PACER
66

Plaintiff's Reply brief by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. in support of [57-1] motion to compel responses to document requests involving client confidential information and reqests for oral argument, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

March 24, 2003

March 24, 2003

PACER

Terminate Documents

March 31, 2003

March 31, 2003

PACER

Add and Terminate Judges

April 14, 2003

April 14, 2003

PACER
67

Mag. Judge Kenneth P. Neiman . Memorandum and Order entered. The Pltfs' motions to compel - [59-1], [57-1] are ALLOWED. Defts., are to produce the requested docs. forthwith; cc/cl. [EOD] Date 4/14/03] (mef) (Entered: 04/14/2003)

April 14, 2003

April 14, 2003

PACER
68

Notice of appearance of attorney for Jane M. Swift by Adam Simms, filed. c/s (mgl) (Entered: 04/28/2003)

April 28, 2003

April 28, 2003

PACER
69

Notice of withdrawal of counsel by attorney Samantha J. Morton for Jerry N., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Shaun E., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Nathan F., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Anton B., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Devin E., attorney Samantha J. Morton for Sheena M. filed. (mgl) (Entered: 05/13/2003)

May 13, 2003

May 13, 2003

PACER

Description not available

May 15, 2003

May 15, 2003

PACER
70

Answer by Mass Division of DMA to complaint, filed. (mgl) (Entered: 05/15/2003)

May 15, 2003

May 15, 2003

PACER
71

ANSWER to Complaint by (EOHHS)the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.(Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

May 20, 2003

May 20, 2003

PACER
72

ANSWER to Complaint by Eric Kriss.(Stuckenbruck, John) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

May 20, 2003

May 20, 2003

PACER
73

MOTION for establishment of deadlines for discovery, responses and production and for a scheduling conf. filed by the Pltfs.(Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

June 2, 2003

June 2, 2003

PACER
74

MEMORANDUM in Support re 73 Ps' motion for establishment of deadlines for discovery, responses and production and for a scheduling conf. filed.(Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

June 2, 2003

June 2, 2003

PACER
75

EXHIBIT re 74 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Rosie D., Tyriek H., Joshua D., Sheena M., Devin E., Anton B., Nathan F., Shaun E., Jerry N. by Anton B., Joshua D., Rosie D., Devin E., Shaun E., Nathan F., Tyriek H., Sheena M., Jerry N.. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 06/02/2003)

June 2, 2003

June 2, 2003

PACER
76

ANSWER to Complaint by Jane M. Swift./Mitt Romney deemed substituted as Dft. for former Governer Jane Swift. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 06/04/2003)

June 3, 2003

June 3, 2003

RECAP
77

Judge Michael A Ponsor : ORDER entered REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman Referred for: Scheduling Conf(French, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/05/2003)

June 5, 2003

June 5, 2003

PACER
78

NOTICE of Scheduling Conference, ISSUED, cc:cl. Scheduling Conference set for 7/10/2003 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3 before Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman. (Healy, Bethaney) (Entered: 06/06/2003)

June 6, 2003

June 6, 2003

PACER
79

JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 116.5(C) by Anton B., Stephen P. Crosby, Joshua D., Rosie D., Devin E., Shaun E., EOHHS, Nathan F., Robert Gittens, Tyriek H., Eric Kriss, Sheena M., Jerry N., Jane M. Swift, Wendy E. Warring filed.(Finn, Mary) (Entered: 07/08/2003)

July 8, 2003

July 8, 2003

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Mental Health (Facility)

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 31, 2001

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All Medicaid-eligible children in Massachusetts with psychiatric or emotional disabilities who would benefit from home-based services.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Massachusetts, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Hospital/Health Department

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2007 - 2020

Content of Injunction:

Reasonable Accommodation

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Reporting

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Commitment procedure

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Juveniles

Public assistance grants

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

Reasonable Accommodations

Reassessment and care planning

Rehabilitation

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Least restrictive environment

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Mental health care, general

Mental health care, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Benefit Source:

Medicaid