Case: Hampe v. Hamos

1:10-cv-03121 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: May 20, 2010

Closed Date: Oct. 3, 2016

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Several young adults who were considered medically fragile (having severe disabilities and relying on technology for survival) filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 20, 2010. The named plaintiffs were each 20 years old and were able to live in the community because they received care through a Medicaid waiver for medically fragile or technology dependent (MF/TD) individuals with disabilities. This waiver program was only availa…

Several young adults who were considered medically fragile (having severe disabilities and relying on technology for survival) filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 20, 2010. The named plaintiffs were each 20 years old and were able to live in the community because they received care through a Medicaid waiver for medically fragile or technology dependent (MF/TD) individuals with disabilities. This waiver program was only available to those who were 21 or younger. Upon the 21st birthday of the recipient, the State had a policy of drastically reducing the services available to the recipient (an approximately 50% reduction) because of a change in funding source. Plaintiffs brought their complaint against the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS), alleging that the named policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (under the 1999 Supreme Court precedent, Olmstead v. L.C.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs, represented by a private disability advocacy firm, sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on June 2, 2010. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief supporting this motion on July 16, 2010, and the court (Judge Ruben Castillo) certified the class on November 22, 2010, defining the class as all persons who are, were, or will be enrolled in Illinois' MF/TD program and are subjected to reduced Medicaid funding upon turning 21. Discovery proceeded. While waiting for potential class-wide relief to be granted, individual plaintiffs moved for and were granted injunctions preventing the reduction of their services at their 21st birthdays.

In May 2012, Judge Castillo ordered the parties to submit a proposed consent decree to the court. When the parties were unable to come to a settlement agreement, on August 21, 2012, he ordered the parties to submit motions for summary judgment.

In an order on January 8, 2013, Judge Castillo denied both parties' summary judgment motions, finding that issues of fact existed as to 1) whether the plaintiffs were qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA; and 2) whether the plaintiffs' requested accommodation was reasonable. 917 F.Supp.2d 805.

In May 2013, the parties again met to negotiate a settlement agreement. On May 16, they came to a settlement regarding all issues. Finding the agreement fair and reasonable, Judge Castillo entered a Consent Decree on October 3, 2013. The Consent Decree established that a class member's need, level, and amount of services should be based upon medical need, not age. Each class member would have a service plan based on a holistic assessment of their needs and resources. The Decree also required any changes in service plans or case management to be discussed with families and patients. It also outlined when and how often class members must be assessed. It was to remain in effect until October 3, 2016.

Finally, the Decree awarded attorneys' fees and litigation costs to the plaintiffs in the amount of $525,000. On August 26, 2015, the court awarded additional attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. Following September 2015, there was no further action on the docket, indicating the Consent Decree was completed without issue. The case now appears closed.

Summary Authors

Beth Kurtz (4/13/2013)

Lauren Latterell Powell (10/27/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5529335/parties/hampe-v-hamos/


Judge(s)

Castillo, Rubén (Illinois)

Hibbler, William J. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Cahill, Mary Denise (Illinois)

Farley, Robert Hugh Jr. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Huston, John E. (Illinois)

Konieczny, Karen (Illinois)

Madigan, Lisa (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Active

Active

Judge(s)

Castillo, Rubén (Illinois)

Hibbler, William J. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Cahill, Mary Denise (Illinois)

Farley, Robert Hugh Jr. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Huston, John E. (Illinois)

Konieczny, Karen (Illinois)

Madigan, Lisa (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)

Breen, Philip L. (District of Columbia)

Fitzgerald, Patrick J. (Illinois)

Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Johnson, Patrick Walter (Illinois)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Rush, Regan (District of Columbia)

Wodatch, John L. (District of Columbia)

Wohlenhaus, Renee M. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 25, 2015 Docket
13

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification

June 2, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12

Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification

June 2, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
26

Statement of Interest of the United States of America

July 16, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
41

Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Aug. 11, 2010 Complaint
64

DEFENDANT HAMOS’ COMBINED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE A FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT INSTANTER AND IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS AS MISJOINDED PARTIES

Nov. 18, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
63

Defendant Hamos' Motion to Dismiss Certain Plaintiffs as Misjoined Parties Pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. P. 21 and 20(a)(1) and Proposed Order

Nov. 18, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
75

Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Class Certification

Nov. 22, 2010 Order/Opinion
176

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a)(2)

Aug. 23, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief
171

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

Hempe v. Hamos

Aug. 23, 2012 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5529335/hampe-v-hamos/

Last updated May 13, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link
75

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable William J. Hibbler on 11/22/2010. (ber, )

Nov. 22, 2010 RECAP
211

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 1/8/2013.(ym, )

Jan. 8, 2013 RECAP

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Olmstead Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 20, 2010

Closing Date: Oct. 3, 2016

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are medically fragile young adults who stand to have their community-based services reduced upon turning twenty-one.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Hospital/Health Department

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

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Declaratory Judgment

Attorneys fees

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 325,000

Order Duration: 2013 - 2016

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Reasonable Accommodation

Reporting

Monitoring

Issues

General:

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Individualized planning

Payment for care

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

Reasonable Accommodations

Reassessment and care planning

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Integrated setting

Least restrictive environment

Mental impairment

Mobility impairment

Mental Disability:

Brain injury

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Medical/Mental Health:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Medical care, general

Medical care, unspecified

Benefit Source:

Medicaid