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 attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4708099/parties/b-v-emkes/


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)

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)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Anderson, Leanna Marie (California)

Bonnyman, George G. Jr. (Tennessee)

Bowden, Ellen M. (Alabama)

Bristol, Marjorie A. (Tennessee)

Burnim, Ira Abraham (District of Columbia)

Caster, Shawn L. (Tennessee)

Chang, William S.W. (New York)

Choy, Jason Francis (New York)

Cohen, J. Richard (Alabama)

Croce, Lenny L. (Tennessee)

Doffermyre, Everette L. (Georgia)

D'Souza, Lisa J. (Tennessee)

Dunlap, Andrew R. (New York)

Evans, Katherine (California)

Giliberti, Mary (District of Columbia)

Goldman, Jeffrey S. (Illinois)

Gunn, Patricia C. (Tennessee)

Heyman, Gregory Todd (New York)

Hutto, Elizabeth Banston (Tennessee)

Hutton, Robert L. (Tennessee)

Johnson, Michele M. (Tennessee)

Jones, Ronald Cantrell (Illinois)

Joseph, Robert Thomas (Illinois)

Kass, Albert Howard (New York)

Khalil, Junaid (New York)

Knowles, Ralph I. Jr. (Georgia)

Kozlowski, David Arthur (Tennessee)

McDaniel, Katherine L. (New York)

Overby, Russell J. (Tennessee)

Reznik, Victoria (New York)

Richardson, Tony L. (California)

Schlaff, Shira Judith (New York)

Seltzer, Tamara Lynn (District of Columbia)

Singh, Vanessa C. (New York)

Tsou, Sarah Kao-Yen (New York)

Weissman, Barry Leigh (California)

Yerian, Christina M. (Tennessee)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Aemisegger, Nicholas G. Jr. (Montana)

Brown, Katherine Ann (Tennessee)

Cooper, Charles Justin (District of Columbia)

Hann, Jennifer Helton (Tennessee)

Harris, Ronald G. (Tennessee)

Harwell, Aubrey B. Jr. (Tennessee)

Hinson, Leesa Ann (Tennessee)

Hume, Hamish P.M. (District of Columbia)

Irwin, Philip D. (Tennessee)

Kirk, Michael W. (District of Columbia)

Kleinfelter, Janet M. (Tennessee)

Koukoutchos, Brian Stuart (District of Columbia)

Miller, Charles A. (District of Columbia)

Minkoff, Elizabeth B. (Tennessee)

Moss, Nicole J. (District of Columbia)

Ney, Paul C. Jr. (Tennessee)

Reed, Carolyn E. (Tennessee)

Ross, Linda A. (Tennessee)

Sauer, Dean John (District of Columbia)

Shaffer, Derek L. (District of Columbia)

Stephenson, Kathryn A. (Tennessee)

Summers, Paul G. (Tennessee)

Walkup, John Knox (Tennessee)

Weitzner, Michael (District of Columbia)

Wheelbarger, Kathryn L. (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Alexander, Elizabeth A. (Tennessee)

Bailey, Martin B (Tennessee)

Barrett, George E. (Tennessee)

Biller, Stephen H. (Tennessee)

Boulware, Leilani (Tennessee)

Carey, Edmund L. Jr. (Tennessee)

Carter, Richard A. (Tennessee)

Cates, Taylor A. (Tennessee)

Coleman, Christopher E. (Tennessee)

Davidson, Paul (Tennessee)

Dermody, Kelly M. (California)

Dietz, Wallace Wordsworth (Tennessee)

Domenick, Beth L. (Pennsylvania)

Hickman, Scott (Tennessee)

Hicks, John S. (Tennessee)

Hornback, Michael D (Tennessee)

Hubbard, William B. (Tennessee)

Jenkins, Marc R (Tennessee)

Kay, Susan Laurie (Tennessee)

Lewis, George Tolbert III (Tennessee)

Lillard, David H (Tennessee)

Martin, Jerry E. (Tennessee)

Passino, Michael James (Tennessee)

Perkins, Jane (North Carolina)

Rivera, David (Tennessee)

Safar, Joseph C (Pennsylvania)

Shockley, Gary C (Tennessee)

Smith, Robert Lewis (Tennessee)

Somers, Sarah (North Carolina)

Vernick, Scott L. (Pennsylvania)

Walker, Kathryn Hannen (Tennessee)

Webb, Christopher Corum (Tennessee)

Welch, Charles B Jr. (Tennessee)

Wright, Sonya Smith (Tennessee)

Expert/Monitor/Master

DeMuro, Paul (New Jersey)

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

176 F.Supp.2d 786, 2001 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 23090

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

549 U.S. 1279, 127 S.Ct. 1831, 167 L.Ed.2d 319

March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Order/Opinion
1029

3:98-cv-00168

Opinion (Compelling Discovery)

2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 75457

Oct. 10, 2007

Oct. 10, 2007

Order/Opinion
1073

3:98-cv-00168

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

2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 84557

Nov. 15, 2007

Nov. 15, 2007

Order/Opinion
1101

3:98-cv-00168

Opinion (Denying Defendants' motion for stay pending appeal)

2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 86782

Nov. 26, 2007

Nov. 26, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

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

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:07 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1028

*Substituted at 1341 * MEMORANDUM-Pages 1-47: Order to enter. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 10/9/07. (Attachments: (1) Memo Continued, Pages 48-94 (2) Memo Continued, Pages 95-144 (3) Memo Continued, Pages 145-187)(jb) Modified text on 2/8/2010 (tmw).

1 Memo Continued, Pages 48-94

View on PACER

2 Memo Continued, Pages 95-144

View on PACER

3 Memo Continued, Pages 145-187

View on PACER

Oct. 9, 2007

Oct. 9, 2007

RECAP
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

1029

ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum filed herewith, the Pltfs' 826 Renewed Motion to Compel is granted except as modified by the Court for certain managed care contractors. The Defts shall provide complete responses to the Pltfs' dis covery requests for ESI with the agreed search terms, the designated key custodians and for the time period of 6/1/04 to the present within 100 days from the date of entry of this Order. Within 11 days from the date of entry of this Order, the Defts shall provide a complete and accurate response to Interrogatory 22 by the person whose name is mentioned in Pltfs' Exhibit 12. Within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order, the Defts shall provide the personal responses of each of the cur rent key custodians and shall use their best efforts to secure responses from former key custodians to the Pltfs' last set of requests for admissions, as directed in the accompanying Memorandum. Within 15 days of the entry of this Order, the Def ts shall comply with the 1/14/07 Order requiring the Defts' current and former key custodians to file certifications that ESI has been removed from any state computer or personal computer provided by the State to the Defts' designated curre nt and former key custodians. Effective upon entry of this Order, the Defts shall implement the 3/17/04 Memorandum and shall report to the court instanter as outlined in this Order. Within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order, those managed care contractors ("MCC" or "MCCs") that have not agreed with the Pltfs on ESI discovery, shall respond to Pltfs' ESI discovery requests, as modified by the Court in the accompanying Memorandum. Within 11 days of the entry of this Order, the Defts shall respond why the Defts should not be required to pay the production costs of the MCCs under this Order or any agreement between the Pltfs and any MCC, including the MCCs' attorney fees and costs. In light of this Order , the MCCs' related motions to allocate discovery costs, (Docket Entry Nos. 920 , 921 , 935 ) are denied as moot. The MCC, BlueCross/BlueShield's motion to alter or amend the 6/1/07 Order or motion for a partial new trial (Docket Entry No. 931 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 10/10/07. (jb) Modified on 10/10/07 (jb). ***Amended - See Order #1145*** (km).

Oct. 10, 2007

Oct. 10, 2007

RECAP
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

1069

MEMORANDUM: Order to enter. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 11/14/07. (jb)

Nov. 15, 2007

Nov. 15, 2007

RECAP
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

1100

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 11/26/07. (gi)

Nov. 26, 2007

Nov. 26, 2007

RECAP
1101

ORDER denying 1080 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal in accordance with the accompanying memorandum. Signed by Judge William J. Haynes Jr. on 11/26/07. (gi)

Nov. 26, 2007

Nov. 26, 2007

RECAP
5

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

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

1157

PROTECTIVE ORDER Regarding Information Produced by MCCs Tennessee Behavioral Health, Inc. & Premier Behavioral Systems of Tennessee, LLC. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/9/08. (jb)

April 9, 2008

April 9, 2008

RECAP
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

1158

ORDER: The 1154 Motion to Ascertain Status of the Protective Order Governing the State's Production of the Department of Children's Services TennKids and the Tennessee Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Incident and Incident Reports Databases as denied as moot. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/9/08. (jb)

April 9, 2008

April 9, 2008

RECAP
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

1156

ORDER: The 1155 Motion for Leave to Obtain Sealed Documents is unopposed and granted. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 4/9/08. (jb)

April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

RECAP
9

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

Feb. 26, 1998

Feb. 26, 1998

1328

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 9/18/09. (af)

Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

RECAP

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

March 4, 1998

March 4, 1998

1341

ORDER: Upon review of the file, the Court found errors and omissions in its prior Memorandum of 10/9/2007 1028 . The attached Memorandum corrects those errors and omissions, but the underlying substance of the Memorandum remains unchanged. Thus, the attached Memorandum shall be substituted for Docket Entry No. 1028 . Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 1/27/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum pages 1-70, # 2 Memorandum pages 71-130, # 3 Memorandum pages 131-186, # 4 Order)(dt)

1 Memorandum pages 1-70

View on PACER

2 Memorandum pages 71-130

View on PACER

3 Memorandum pages 131-186

View on PACER

4 Order

View on PACER

Jan. 28, 2010

Jan. 28, 2010

RECAP
1455

MEMORANDUM OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. Again pending before this Court are some portions of Defendants' November 2006 motion to vacate the Consent Decree 738 . In sum, the Court reaches the preliminary conclusion that Paragraphs 43, 50, 58, 60, 61 (ii), 71(ii), and 78-84 of the Consent Decree, in addition to paragraphs 45-49 and 61(iii), are subject to vacatur; the Court hereby signals its inclination to grant in part the Defendants' Motion to Vacate to reflect this finding. Pursuant to t he parties' request, however, the Court's finding remains preliminary and does not constitute an appealable Order. The Court defers entry of an Order at this time, pending further discussions among the parties, entry of a case management order, and substantial progress toward resolution of the dispositive issues in this case. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 3/1/11. (tmw)

March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011

RECAP

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

1512

ORDER: Before the Court is the State's Motion in Limine (ECF No. 1506 ) seeking to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' designated expert, Sara Rosenbaum. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (ECF No. 1508 ). The State has failed to show either that Sara Rosenbaum's testimony is precluded by Judge Nixon's July 14, 2004 order or that Ms. Rosenbaum's testimony, in its entirety, will invade the province of the Court to determine the legal issues in this matter. The motion is the refore DENIED, but without prejudice to the State's ability either to file a motion to exclude on the basis that Ms. Rosenbaum's testimony does not meet the criteria set forth in Rule 702, or to object to specific portions of Ms. Rosenbaum's testimony at the time the Plaintiffs seek to introduce it. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 9/8/11. (tmw)

Sept. 8, 2011

Sept. 8, 2011

RECAP
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

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

Availably 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:

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

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Funding

Government Services

Juveniles

Payment for care

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

Disability:

Mental impairment

Mental Disability:

Depression

Developmental disability without intellectual disability

Mental Illness, Unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Mental health care, general

Benefit Source:

Medicaid