Filed Date: May 20, 2010
Closed Date: Oct. 3, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
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)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5529335/parties/hampe-v-hamos/
Castillo, Rubén (Illinois)
Cahill, Mary Denise (Illinois)
Farley, Robert Hugh Jr. (Illinois)
Bagenstos, Samuel R. (District of Columbia)
Breen, Philip L. (District of Columbia)
Castillo, Rubén (Illinois)
Hibbler, William J. (Illinois)
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)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5529335/hampe-v-hamos/
Last updated July 10, 2023, 3:16 a.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
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):
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):
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
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 325,000
Order Duration: 2013 - 2016
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Reassessment and care planning
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Disability:
Mental Disability:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Medical/Mental Health:
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Benefit Source: