Filed Date: Dec. 23, 2010
Closed Date: Sept. 20, 2013
Clearinghouse coding complete
This federal lawsuit is a challenge to a reduction in in-home personal care hours provided to eligible Medicaid recipients in Washington. The plaintiffs in this case were individuals with disabilities who receive in-home personal care and would risk institutionalization if the amount of in-home care is insufficient to meet their care needs (which were determined by the state's individualized assessment process under Medicaid). There are also three organizational plaintiffs which serve individuals with disabilities in Washington.
After Washington announced its reduction of care hours (deemed necessary to control state spending), the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on December 23, 2010 and sought to prevent the reductions from taking effect by filing an accompanying motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On December 30, District Judge Thomas S. Zilly denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. The United States filed a statement of interest supporting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in January 2011. After some scheduling issues and minor motions, Judge Zilly denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on February 9, 2011. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In December 2011, Judge William Fletcher, writing for a 2-1 majority, reversed the District Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Fletcher's opinion held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their ADA claims, and that they would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. In June 2012, the Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc.
In October 2012, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (press release) decided not to appeal the denial of preliminary injunction to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks in part to an advocacy effort on the part of disability rights organizations.
On May 23, 2013, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the Due Process claims. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on June 17. The parties jointly moved to withdraw their motions on July 18, 2013 to engage in settlement discussions aimed at resolving the case. The court granted their joint motion on July 22. The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the court dismissed the case on September 20, 2013, leaving open the option for parties to reopen the case within 60 days. Since neither party did so, the case is presumably closed. The exact terms of the settlement agreement are unknown.
Summary Authors
Beth Kurtz (11/9/2012)
Elizabeth Heise (11/11/2018)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4410752/parties/mr-v-dreyfus/
Bea, Carlos T. (California)
Fletcher, William A. (California)
Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)
Zilly, Thomas Samuel (Washington)
Berzon, Stephen P. (California)
Brenneke, Andrea (Washington)
Cervantez, Eve Hedy (California)
Frank, Katrin E. (Washington)
Leyton, Stacey (Washington)
Bea, Carlos T. (California)
Fletcher, William A. (California)
Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)
Zilly, Thomas Samuel (Washington)
Berzon, Stephen P. (California)
Brenneke, Andrea (Washington)
Cervantez, Eve Hedy (California)
Frank, Katrin E. (Washington)
Leyton, Stacey (Washington)
Murray, Matthew J (California)
Bashford, Jonathon (Washington)
Dee, Edward Joseph (Washington)
Egeler, Anne Elizabeth (Washington)
McIlhenny, John K (Washington)
McKenna, Robert M. (Washington)
Rush, Regan (District of Columbia)
Stephens, William T. (Washington)
Work, William Bruce (Washington)
Bailey, Regan Monica (Maryland)
Bird, Melinda R. (California)
Bobroff, Rochelle (District of Columbia)
Brown, Gregory David (California)
Perkins, Martha Jane (North Carolina)
Ferguson, Robert W. (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4410752/mr-v-dreyfus/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 23, 2010
Closing Date: Sept. 20, 2013
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are disabled individuals who are entitled to receive a certain number of Medicaid in-home personal care service hours each month. They allege that Washington's 10% reduction of in-home care hours places them at risk of institutionalization.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Availably Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Disability:
Benefit Source: