Case: Frew v. Traylor

3:93-cv-00065 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Filed Date: Sept. 1, 1993

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 1, 1993, two indigent mothers brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of their children, and on behalf of all persons under the age of 21 in the state of Texas who were eligible for the Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program ("EPSDT" or "the Program"). The Program is a Medicaid program which provides regular physical and mental health screenings to indigent children. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for …

On September 1, 1993, two indigent mothers brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of their children, and on behalf of all persons under the age of 21 in the state of Texas who were eligible for the Early, Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program ("EPSDT" or "the Program"). The Program is a Medicaid program which provides regular physical and mental health screenings to indigent children. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Legal and Social Justice, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, and private counsel, sued the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Human Services Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that because of the state's failure to effectively advertise and efficiently administer EPSDT, their children's health suffered. The plaintiffs asked that the court certify their class, declare that Texas violated the federal Medicaid Act, and enjoin Texas from violating EPSDT standards, as well as order that Texas provide the plaintiffs with attorney's fees.

According to the plaintiffs' complaint, EPSDT is one of Congress' most important initiatives to improve the health of indigent children. It is also a mandatory program. Because the Program is a mandatory Medicaid service, states must administer it in order to get Medicaid funding. As part of its Medicaid's minimum requirements, states must advertise and administer physical and mental health screens to a certain percentage of the indigent children in the state. The plaintiffs asserted that Texas did not appropriately administer the Program, failed to meet the minimum participation requirements prescribed by the statute, failed to inform eligible citizens about the availability of the Program as prescribed by statute, failed to appropriately provide mental health services and treatment, failed to provide case management services, and, finally, failed to ensure that EPSDT services were available across the state. Because of the statewide nature of the problem, the plaintiffs asked that the court certify a class of "present and future Texas Medicaid recipients who are eligible for EPSDT services because they have not reached the age of 21."

Following the plaintiffs' complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment on November 3, 1993. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not deprived of any right guaranteed by the constitution because citizen participation in EPSDT is voluntary. Second, the defendants argued that plaintiffs did not have a private right of action to enforce participation goals on the part of the defendants. Third, defendants argued that because an injunction would, in essence, force them to make state policy, an injunction was improper. Finally, the defendants asked that the two state agencies, the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Human Services Commission be dismissed because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

On June 7, 1994, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Approximately two months later, on August 10, 1994, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, though most of it was denied. The court agreed that the state agencies had immunity from the lawsuit, but disagreed on everything else, stating that the plaintiffs had standing despite the voluntary nature of EPSDT, and that they had a private right of action because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 not only gives a plaintiff the ability to sue for a constitutional right, but also gives them an ability to enforce a right defined in a federal statute. The court agreed that the state agencies were immune from lawsuit, but asserted that it was completely appropriate to sue the heads of the agencies in their official capacity.

Following the denial of the motion to dismiss, the parties were involved in extended negotiations until finally, on February 20, 1996, they arrived at and filed a consent decree. The decree stipulated that the state of Texas was to reorganize the department of health in order to more efficiently administer EPSDT and that departments were to do a better job at reaching out to eligible participants by making numerous written and oral communications, as well as making a conscious media effort to educate citizens about the availability of the Program. The settlement also stipulated that the defendants needed to keep close records of persons who missed appointments and checkups in order to keep indigent children in the Program. If participation in the Program was too low, or if statewide indicia of health were not met, the defendants were to make plans to fix those problems, which would ultimately be approved or rejected by plaintiffs. The records were to be presented quarterly. Another effort of the Program was to improve access by simplifying paperwork, providing accurate referral lists of Medicaid providers, and making the transportation assistance Program more user-friendly. Defendants were also required to create a plan that made case management available state-wide.

For over two years, the case was relatively quiet—the docket was only active when defendants presented their quarterly reports on the success of the Program—but on November 10, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree, restarting the entire litigation. This motion alleged that the defendants had not done a good enough job at meeting their outreach goals: though more children were enrolled in the Program, the plaintiffs still believed that participation was well below expected levels and many children were still not receiving the required medical and dental checkups. In fact, participation in a key demographic-young people aged 15-20-actually dropped following the consent decree. Defendants also failed to provide managed care to eligible participants. Though it was within the consent decree to contract the managed care to other companies, the plaintiffs argued that defendants still retained the ultimate responsibility in making sure that class members received the managed care to which they were entitled. Finally, defendants were tasked with creating "Corrective Action Plans" to help lagging counties keep up with improvements made in the rest of the states. Though there were plenty of lagging counties, the defendants only managed to create one corrective action plan in two and one half years. The defendants also failed in some of their record-keeping responsibilities.

In light of the defendants' alleged failures, the plaintiffs asked the court to permit the plaintiffs to conduct discovery, and, after hearings and notice, find that the defendants had violated the decree and the relevant law. The plaintiffs also asked that the court enter remedial orders to resolve the problems associated with the violations, and also allow the defendants time to address said problems.

On August 14, 2000, the court published a memorandum opinion, finding that the court could force the state of Texas to comply with the consent decree. The lengthy opinion found that the defendants had violated numerous portions of the consent decree; the court found that (1) the outreach system was not effective, (2) portions of the reporting system regarding checkups were either nonexistent or ineffective, (3) the managed care system was unsatisfactory and was managed poorly, (4) the toll-free help line was not well-staffed, (5) case managers were underutilized, and (6) health care providers remained uneducated about the Program. 109 F. Supp. 2d. 579.

On September 11, 2000, the defendants filed a notice of appeal in the district court. On September 25, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to stay all injunctive relief pending the outcome of their appeal. On October 10, 2000, the court denied the stay, citing the fact that many Texas children relied on the injunction to receive health care, and that the defendants "narrow, crabbed interpretation of the consent decree . . . would only serve to restrict and dilute the rights of the children covered by it." 2000 WL 33795091. But on October 18, 2000, the Fifth Circuit granted the defendants' motion to stay, citing the "public interest."

On July 24, 2002, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its judgement. The Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment. First, it stated that "violation of a federal statute, by itself, does not entitle a plaintiff to relief under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983." Instead, the plaintiffs needed to assert a "right," not simply the violation of a "law." The Fifth Circuit also cited Eleventh Amendment Immunity as a further limit on the ability of a federal circuit court to enforce anything that was not a federal "right." With the limitations of federal courts in mind, the Fifth Circuit said, the "plaintiffs have not established any violations of the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid statute which are actionable under § 1983 and the Ex Parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment. 300 F.3d 530. On October 2, 2002, the plaintiffs petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The district court ordered the plaintiffs on February 3, 2003, to explain why the case should not be dismissed within 30 days. On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their response. The plaintiffs asserted that their motion to appear before the Supreme Court was pending, and that, because the Fifth Circuit had not ordered the case dismissed, the District Court had leeway to hold on to the case. The district court agreed to hold onto the case.

On March 23, 2003, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions: first, whether states forfeit Eleventh Amendment protection when they enter into consent decrees, and, second, whether states must violate federal law and not simply a consent decree in order to be subject to federal court judgment.

The Supreme Court entered its judgment on January 14, 2004. In a unanimous decision, it decided that states do forfeit Eleventh Amendment protection when they enter into consent decrees, and that when states violate those consent decrees, they are subject to the federal court's judgment. The Fifth Circuit's decision was thereby reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 540 U.S. 431. On July 2, 2004, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to settle what essentially had become a dispute about contract interpretation.

On October 29, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the judgment of the district court regarding the 1996 consent decree. They stated that the prospective nature of the consent decree was no longer appropriate considering that Texas already spent more money on the EPSDT Program than any other state. The defendants asserted that the ends of the Program had already been met.

Following the entry of the motion to set aside judgment, the parties engaged in a flurry of briefs and reply briefs, and they entered into discovery at the beginning of 2005. On May 24, 2005, the defendants withdrew their motion to set aside judgment, just before a scheduled June 6 hearing on the subject. The defendants stated that the consent decree in 1996 was not "a final judgment," and therefore, the defendants did not need to comply with its orders. On May 29, 2005, after discovering that the Rule 60(b) motion was, in fact, appropriate following the Supreme Court's "instant action," the defendants filed a motion to reinstate their motion to set aside the judgment. The motion was granted on June 3, 2005.

An evidentiary hearing was held between June 9 and June 15, 2005, and on August 22, 2005, the defendants' motion to set aside judgment was denied. The court painstakingly went through all of the provisions of the consent decree, deciding which ones could still be enforced by the court. The court concluded that the defendants "failed to prove significant changed factual circumstances warranting revision of the Consent Decree with respect to the [the Program]." 401 F. Supp. 2d 619. On August 24, 2005, the defendants appealed the district court's judgment.

The defendants filed a motion on April 17, 2006, to stay the proceedings in the district court pending their appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On May 4, 2006, the district court granted the defendants' stay.

On July 20, 2006, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the state's compliance with federal law did not confer automatic grounds for dissolving the consent decree and also holding that the district court's finding that there was not a material change in factual circumstances necessitating the dissolution of the consent decree was not an abuse of discretion. 457 F.3d 432. On September 7, 2006, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for rehearing. The defendants filed a petition to appear before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court denied the petition on January 17, 2007.

On January 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion to enforce to consent decree. After discovery and negotiations, on August 10, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Memorandum outlining eleven Corrective Action plans that each party found reasonable. The eleven plans outlined the party's future actions on (1) Case Management, (2) Checkup Reports and Lagging Counties, (3) Checkups, (4) Health Outcomes and Dental Assessment, (5) Managed Care, (6) Outreach and Informing, (7) Prescription and Non-prescription Medicine and Supplies, (8) Provider Supply, (9) Provider Training, (10) Toll Free Numbers, and (11) the Transportation Program. On September 5, 2007, the court decided that the settlement between the parties was fair and adequate. 2007 WL 2667985.

The case lay mostly dormant until May 27, 2010, when the defendants filed a "Motion to Modify the Health Outcomes Measures and Dental Assessment Corrective Action Order to Eliminate the Requirements that Defendants Implement a Corrective Action Plan and Conduct a Second Dental Assessment." Discovery began anew in August of 2010.

On December 31, 2010, the parties agreed to allow the defendants to amend the part of the consent decree which involved check-up letters and when they were to be sent. The amendments to the consent decree were minor and, according to the court, "promoted the goals of the consent decree." The court granted the check-up letter amendments on January 13, 2011. 2011 WL 13157061.

On March 30, 2011, the court denied the defendants' Motion to Modify the Health Outcomes Measures and Dental Assessment Corrective Action Order. The court noted that, though the defendants had made strides in achieving the objectives of the consent decree, under no circumstances had the objectives been met. Therefore, the motion to modify was denied. 775 F. Supp. 2d 930.

On August 6, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further Action regarding the "lagging counties" provisions of the corrective action order. On August 23, 2012, the defendants filed another Motion to Modify. This time, the defendants hoped to eliminate the portions of the consent decree that dealt with "lagging counties," or counties that were behind on their healthcare goals due to the sparseness of healthcare providers in the area. The defendants asserted that other decisions in Texas had alleviated of them to ensure equal Program participation in all parts of the state. (See Equal Access for El Paso v. Hawkins, 428 F. Supp. 2d 585 (W.D. Tex. 2006).)

On November 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the corrective action order on prescription and non-prescription medications. The motion was sealed. March 23, the plaintiffs filed a separate Motion to Enforce the Provider Supply Corrective Action Order. This motion was also sealed.

On March 28, 2013, after an extensive back and forth and evidentiary hearings, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Modify and denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Further Action. Though participation in the "lagging counties" was still low, the court noted that a specific percentage point for participation was never stipulated in the consent decree, and the court stated that it would not read into the consent decree more than was written. In regards to the defendants' Motion to Modify, the court stated that there were enough changed factual circumstances to allow the defendants to modify the consent decree. The court did not resolve the issue of the Provider Supply or Medication Corrective Action Orders, and hearings and discovery on this issue continued. 2013 WL 12177863.

On December 18, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs motion regarding the prescription and non-prescription medication corrective action order. The court dissolved the portions of the prescription and non-prescription medication corrective action order that both the plaintiffs and defendants deemed met, as well as two paragraphs that were in contention. The court and ordered that the defendants continue to adhere to the consent decree and remaining corrective action orders. 5 F. Supp. 3d. 845.

On January 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an opposed motion for attorneys' fees. The defendants had been paying attorneys' fees for a long period, but this time disputed the need to for attorneys' fees for the year 2012 because of their success in vacating some of the corrective action orders. On September 30, 2014, the court granted the motion for attorneys' fees. On October 28, 2014, the defendants appealed the issue of the attorneys' fees to the Fifth Circuit.

On March 31, 2014, while the dispute over attorneys' fees continued, the defendants filed a Motion to Vacate the corrective action order on Health Care Provider training, even as litigation on the Provider Supply corrective action order continued. On August 25, 2014, the defendants filed another Motion to Vacate, this time hoping to vacate the portions on Dental Assessment in both the Health Outcomes corrective action order and the Dental Assessment corrective action order.

On January 20, 2015, the court ruled on the Provider Supply corrective action order, denying the plaintiffs order and granting in part the defendants motion to dissolve the corrective action order. The court dissolved ten paragraphs of the corrective action order, and stated that the other paragraphs in contention were mostly background information, and therefore did not need to be modified. The court stipulated that the defendants were still required to comply with the remaining provisions of the consent decree and corrective action orders. 2015 WL 13357954.

On February 17, 2015, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's ruling on the Provider Supply corrective action order. Meanwhile, on April 28, 2015, the defendants filed another Motion to Vacate, this time for the Outreach and Informing corrective action order. On March 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's holding on the Provider Supply corrective action order, thereby dissolving the paragraphs at issue. 780 F.3d 320.

On January 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed another Motion to Enforce Judgment. This time, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants failed to provide timely medical and dental check-ups, that when participants in the Program did receive check-ups, the check-ups were "incomplete," and that the defendants had failed to comply with the Managed Care corrective action order. On March 4, 2016, the defendants filed a Motion to Vacate the Managed Care corrective action order and the Check-Up corrective action order, as well as related portions of the consent decree. The defendants also filed a motion on December 14, 2016, to clarify and re-vacate the corrective action order.

The parties continued litigating the portions of the consent decree that the court still had jurisdiction over. On January 10, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to modify the Case Management corrective order.

On April 27, 2017, the Fifth Circuit decided the issue of the attorneys' fees, which had initially been broached in January of 2014. The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, stating that the plaintiffs were still entitled to attorneys' fees, but the district court had to modify the amount of attorneys' fees after determining the plaintiffs' actual "success." 2017 WL 1520865.

On May 23, 2017 the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay the deadlines in the Health Outcomes corrective action order. That motion was granted on May 31, 2017. Litigation continued, when the defendants filed another motion to stay the deadlines in the Health Outcomes corrective action order on June 21, 2017. The defendants filed a second motion to stay the deadlines on July 20, 2017, and then another one on January 3, 2018. The court denied all but the last of these motions as moot in an oral order on January 25, 2018.

The case was reassigned on March 1, 2018, to District Judge Richard A. Schell. On December 3, 2018, the case was reassigned to Senior District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III.

Half a year before, on July 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees incurred from 2011 to 2016. Then on April 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed for attorneys' fees incurred during 2017 and 2018.

On December 11, 2019, the defendants filed to vacate the corrective action order.

On April 7, 2020, the court issued a memorandum opinion, in which it denied the defendants' motion from December 14, 2016, to reinstate the vacating order for the corrective action order (i.e. re-vacate the order). The court found that there was necessary analysis to be done pursuant to the Fifth Circuit's instructions. 2020 WL 1685159. On the same day, the court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for interim attorneys' fees from April 27, 2017. 2020 WL 1695429. One month later, on May 7, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for the court to reconsider its denial of the motion for interim attorneys' fees.

On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed for attorneys' fees incurred during 2019.

The court denied the May 7 motion for reconsideration on July 23, 2020. 2020 WL 8994102. On August 13, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed this order to the Fifth Circuit (No. 20-40541). The Fifth Circuit held on March 26, 2021, that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying attorneys' fees and reaffirmed the July 23, 2020, order. 992 F.3d 391. On May 4, 2021, the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for a rehearing en banc.

Meanwhile, in the district court, on October 5, 2020, the court had denied as moot the plaintiffs' 2018 motion for attorneys' fees covering 2011-2016. The next day, it denied the defendants' motion from January 3, 2018, to stay a specific section of the corrective action order.

On May 17, 2021, the plaintiffs filed for attorneys' fees incurred in 2020.

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Megan Brown (8/1/2017)

Edward Cullen (4/10/2019)

Lauren Yu (9/12/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4531503/parties/frew-v-traylor/


Judge(s)

Clement, Edith Brown (Louisiana)

Costa, Gregg Jeffrey (Texas)

Davis, W. Eugene (Louisiana)

DeMoss, Harold R. Jr. (Texas)

Dennis, James L. (Louisiana)

Engelhardt, Kurt Damian (Louisiana)

Jolly, E. Grady (Mississippi)

Jones, Edith Hollan (Texas)

Justice, William Wayne (Texas)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Clement, Edith Brown (Louisiana)

Costa, Gregg Jeffrey (Texas)

Davis, W. Eugene (Louisiana)

DeMoss, Harold R. Jr. (Texas)

Dennis, James L. (Louisiana)

Engelhardt, Kurt Damian (Louisiana)

Jolly, E. Grady (Mississippi)

Jones, Edith Hollan (Texas)

Justice, William Wayne (Texas)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Reavley, Thomas Morrow (Texas)

Schell, Richard A. (Texas)

Schroeder, Robert William III (Texas)

Smith, Jerry Edwin (Texas)

Wiener, Jacques Loeb Jr. (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Amaya, Joaquin Jr (Texas)

Craig, Timothy David (Texas)

Garrigan, Timothy Borne (Texas)

Heard, John Robert (Texas)

Levin, Jeffrey S (Texas)

Reyna, Israel Morales (Texas)

Reynerson, Sharon E (Texas)

Sanchez, Rodolfo David (Texas)

Swanson, Jane Kathryn (Texas)

Zinn, Susan Finkelstein (Texas)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barbour, Laura Alicia (Texas)

Batista, Andrea Levya (Texas)

Cloutman, Edward Bradbury III (Texas)

Coleman, Gregory Scott (Texas)

Eberhart, Allison V (Texas)

Eccles, James B. (Texas)

Ennis, Chad Phillip (Texas)

Flammer, Sean (Texas)

Gdula, Kimberly Ann (Texas)

Grayson, Marianna Vishnevetsky (Texas)

Halpern, Linda A. (Texas)

Hanna, Mark J (Texas)

Hawkins, Kyle Douglas (Texas)

Horne, Edwin N. (Texas)

Keller, Scott A. (Texas)

Leyva, Andrea (Texas)

Miller, Randall Wilson (Texas)

Mitchell, Jonathan F. (Texas)

Plowman, Melanie D (Texas)

Salisbury, Richard E. (Texas)

Sarwal, Melanie Plowman (Texas)

Stowe, Matthew F. (Texas)

Strelitz, Peter J (Texas)

Wassdorf, William David (Texas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:93-cv-00065

Docket [PACER]

Frew vs. Traylor

Sept. 10, 2021

Sept. 10, 2021

Docket
1

3:93-cv-00065

Complaint

Frew vs. Traylor

Sept. 1, 1993

Sept. 1, 1993

Complaint
80

3:93-cv-00065

Order [clarifying class certification]

Frew vs. Traylor

July 18, 1994

July 18, 1994

Order/Opinion
85

3:93-cv-00065

Order [granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss]

Frew vs. Traylor

Aug. 10, 1994

Aug. 10, 1994

Order/Opinion
93

3:93-cv-00065

Amended Complaint

Frew vs. Traylor

Oct. 19, 1994

Oct. 19, 1994

Complaint
135

3:93-cv-00065

Consent Decree

Frew vs. Traylor

Feb. 20, 1996

Feb. 20, 1996

Settlement Agreement
315

3:93-cv-00065

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Enforcement of Consent Decree]

Frew v. Gilbert

109 F.Supp.2d 579

Aug. 14, 2000

Aug. 14, 2000

Order/Opinion
330

3:93-cv-00065

Order [Denying Motion to Stay]

Frew v. Gilbert

2000 WL 33795091

Oct. 10, 2000

Oct. 10, 2000

Order/Opinion
335

3:93-cv-00065

00-41112

[Order from Court of Appeals Regarding Stay]

Frazar v. Ladd

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Oct. 18, 2000

Oct. 18, 2000

Order/Opinion

00-41112

01-40667

Order and Opinion

Frazar v. Ladd

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

300 F.3d 530

July 24, 2002

July 24, 2002

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4531503/frew-v-traylor/

Last updated Aug. 4, 2022, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Original Complaint filed (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/07/1993)

Sept. 1, 1993

Sept. 1, 1993

PACER
2

Motion by Jeneva Frazar to proceed in forma pauperis (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/07/1993)

Sept. 1, 1993

Sept. 1, 1993

PACER
3

Motion by Linda Frew to proceed in forma pauperis (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/07/1993)

Sept. 1, 1993

Sept. 1, 1993

PACER
4

In compliance with Article One of the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, and after a review of the pleadings, this action has been assigned to track 3 for case management purposes. (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/07/1993)

Sept. 7, 1993

Sept. 7, 1993

PACER
5

Amended complaint by Jeneva Frazar, James Curtis Brown, Crystal Noelevol Brown, Jeremiah DeMark Phillips, Russell Kline Walton, Dominique Shantel Frazar, Linda Frew, Carla Frew, amending [1-1] complaint Deann Friedholm, Bridgett Cook, Susan Penfield, Beverly Koops (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/16/1993)

Sept. 16, 1993

Sept. 16, 1993

PACER
6

Order granting [3-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/9-14-93 cc:atty on 9-20-93 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/20/1993)

Sept. 16, 1993

Sept. 16, 1993

PACER
7

Order granting [2-1] motion to proceed in forma pauperis ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/9-14-93 cc:atty on 9-20-93 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/20/1993)

Sept. 16, 1993

Sept. 16, 1993

PACER

Summons(es) issued for Richard Ladd, Texas HHS, David Smith, Texas Dept of Health, Deann Friedholm, Bridgett Cook, Susan Penfield, Beverly Koops (former empl)

Sept. 20, 1993

Sept. 20, 1993

PACER
8

Return of service executed as to Deann Friedholm 9/23/93 by certified mail of summons complaint Answer due on 10/13/93 for Deann Friedholm (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
9

Return of service executed as to Beverly Koops 9/23/93 by certd mail of summons complaint Answer due on 10/13/93 for Beverly Koops (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
10

Return of service executed as to Richard Ladd 9/23/93 by certd mail of summons complaint Answer due on 10/13/93 for Richard Ladd (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
11

Return of service executed as to David Smith 9/23/93 by certd mail of summons complaint Answer due on 10/13/93 for David Smith (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
12

Return of service executed as to Texas HHS 9/23/93 by certd mail of summons complaint Answer due on 10/13/93 for Texas HHS (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
13

Return of service executed as to Texas Dept of Health by certd mail of summons complaint on 9/23/93 Answer due on 10/13/93 for Texas Dept of Health (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
14

Return of service executed as to Bridgett Cook by certd mail of summons complaint on 9/23/93 Answer due on 10/13/93 for Bridgett Cook (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
15

Return of service executed as to Susan Penfield by certd mail of summons complaint on 9/23/93 Answer due on 10/13/93 for Susan Penfield (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/05/1993)

Oct. 4, 1993

Oct. 4, 1993

PACER
16

Motion by All Defendants for Edwin N Horne to appear pro hac vice (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/22/1993)

Oct. 22, 1993

Oct. 22, 1993

PACER
17

Motion by All Defendants to extend time to file motion ot dismiss or motion for summary judgment . cc:trassfm (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/22/1993)

Oct. 22, 1993

Oct. 22, 1993

PACER
18

Order granting [16-1] motion for Edwin N Horne to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/10-26-93 cc:attys on 10-28-93 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/28/1993)

Oct. 28, 1993

Oct. 28, 1993

PACER
19

Unopposed Motion by All Plaintiffs to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment . (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/29/1993)

Oct. 28, 1993

Oct. 28, 1993

PACER
20

Response by All Plaintiffs to [16-1] motion for Edwin N Horne to appear pro hac vice (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/29/1993)

Oct. 28, 1993

Oct. 28, 1993

PACER
21

Order granting [17-1] motion to extend time to file motion ot dismiss or motion for summary judgment ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/11-1-93 cc:attys on 11-3-93 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/03/1993)

Nov. 3, 1993

Nov. 3, 1993

PACER
22

Motion by All Defendants with memorandum in support to dismiss case, or for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/03/1993)

2 Exhibit A

View on PACER

3 Exhibit A (cont)

View on PACER

4 Exhibit B

View on PACER

5 Exhibit C

View on PACER

6 Exhibit D

View on PACER

Nov. 3, 1993

Nov. 3, 1993

RECAP
23

Response by All Plaintiffs to [22-1] motion to dismiss case (former empl) Modified on 11/03/1993 Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/03/1993)

2 Exhibits

View on PACER

3 Exhibits (cont)

View on PACER

4 Exhibits (cont)

View on PACER

Nov. 3, 1993

Nov. 3, 1993

PACER
24

Order granting [19-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment until after they receive Exhibit D ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/11-1-93 cc:attys on 11-3-93 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/03/1993)

Nov. 3, 1993

Nov. 3, 1993

PACER
25

Affidavit of Bridget Cook by All Defendants Re: [22-1] motion to dismiss case, [22-2] motion for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/03/1993)

Nov. 3, 1993

Nov. 3, 1993

PACER
26

Motion by All Plaintiffs to extend time to file response to motion for summary judgment . (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/09/1993)

Nov. 8, 1993

Nov. 8, 1993

PACER
27

Notice of refiling of response to motion to dismiss by All Plaintiffs (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/09/1993)

Nov. 8, 1993

Nov. 8, 1993

PACER
28

Response by All Plaintiffs to [22-1] motion to dismiss case (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/09/1993)

2 Exhibits

View on PACER

3 Exhibits (cont)

View on PACER

4 Exhibits (cont)

View on PACER

Nov. 8, 1993

Nov. 8, 1993

PACER
29

Brief filed by All Plaintiffs in response to motion to dismiss (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/09/1993)

Nov. 8, 1993

Nov. 8, 1993

PACER
30

Notice of disclosure by All Plaintiffs (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 11/29/1993)

Nov. 24, 1993

Nov. 24, 1993

PACER
31

Order granting [26-1] motion to extend time to file response to motion for summary judgment ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:attys on 12-8-93 (ttm) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 12/08/1993)

Dec. 3, 1993

Dec. 3, 1993

PACER
32

Response by All Plaintiffs to [22-2] motion for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 12/20/1993)

Dec. 17, 1993

Dec. 17, 1993

PACER
33

Reply by Richard Ladd, David Smith, Deann Friedholm, Bridgett Cook, Susan Penfield, Beverly Koops to response to [22-1] motion to dismiss case, [22-2] motion for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 01/06/1994)

2 Exhibits

View on PACER

Jan. 5, 1994

Jan. 5, 1994

RECAP
34

Motion by All Plaintiffs to supplement response to dfts motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/04/1994)

Feb. 4, 1994

Feb. 4, 1994

PACER
35

Motion by Jeneva Frazar to voluntarily dismiss party (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/08/1994)

Feb. 8, 1994

Feb. 8, 1994

PACER
36

Motion by All Plaintiffs for leave to file second amended complaint (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/08/1994)

Feb. 8, 1994

Feb. 8, 1994

PACER
37

Motion by All Plaintiffs for Doe plaintiffs to appear under pseudonym (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/08/1994)

Feb. 8, 1994

Feb. 8, 1994

PACER
38

Motion by All Plaintiffs to certify class action (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/11/1994)

Feb. 11, 1994

Feb. 11, 1994

PACER
39

Memorandum by All Plaintiffs in support of [38-1] motion to certify class action (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/11/1994)

Feb. 11, 1994

Feb. 11, 1994

PACER
40

Motion by All Plaintiffs for Israel Reyna, Rodolfo David Sanchez and Joaquin Amaya Jr to appear pro hac vice (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/11/1994)

Feb. 11, 1994

Feb. 11, 1994

PACER
41

Order granting [34-1] motion to supplement response to dfts motion to dismiss or for summary judgment ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/2-9-94 cc:attys on 2-14-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/15/1994)

Feb. 14, 1994

Feb. 14, 1994

PACER
42

Supplemental response by All plaintiffs to [22-1] motion to dismiss case, or [22-2] motion for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/15/1994)

2 Exhibits

View on PACER

Feb. 14, 1994

Feb. 14, 1994

PACER
43

Order granting [40-1] motion for Israel Reyna, Rodolfo David Sanchez and Joaquin Amaya Jr to appear pro hac vice ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/2-16-94 cc:attys on 2-22-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/22/1994)

Feb. 17, 1994

Feb. 17, 1994

PACER
44

Order granting [35-1] motion to voluntarily dismiss party, dismissing party plaintiff Jeneva Frazar OB Ref: v22 p88 ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/2-14-94 cc:attys on 2-22-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/22/1994)

Feb. 17, 1994

Feb. 17, 1994

PACER
45

Order granting [36-1] motion for leave to file second amended complaint ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/2-22-94 cc:attys on 2-23-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/7/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/23/1994)

Feb. 23, 1994

Feb. 23, 1994

PACER
46

Amended complaint by All Plaintiffs, (Answer due 3/7/94 for All Defendants, for Beverly Koops, for Susan Penfield, for Bridgett Cook, for Deann Friedholm, for Texas Dept of Health, for David Smith, for Texas HHS, for Richard Ladd ) amending [1-1] complaint added pla Maria Ayala, Martha Doe, Mary . Fisher, Mary Jane Garza, Gloria Padilla (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/23/1994)

Feb. 23, 1994

Feb. 23, 1994

PACER
47

Motion by All Defendants to extend time to respond to second amended complaint and motions for class certification and Doe family (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 02/25/1994)

Feb. 25, 1994

Feb. 25, 1994

PACER
48

Order granting [47-1] motion to extend time to respond to second amended complaint and motions for class certification and Doe family ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/3-3-94 cc:attys on 3-8-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 03/08/1994)

March 7, 1994

March 7, 1994

PACER
49

Joint Motion by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants concerning Doe family (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 03/16/1994)

March 16, 1994

March 16, 1994

PACER
50

Response by All Defendants to [38-1] motion to certify class action (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 03/23/1994)

March 23, 1994

March 23, 1994

PACER
51

Motion by All Defendants to file motion to dismiss with excessive pages (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 03/23/1994)

March 23, 1994

March 23, 1994

PACER
52

Motion by All Plaintiffs to extend time to respond to motions (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 03/28/1994)

March 28, 1994

March 28, 1994

PACER
53

Order granting [51-1] motion to file motion to dismiss with excessive pages ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/3-30-94 cc:attys on 4-1-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/01/1994)

April 1, 1994

April 1, 1994

PACER
54

Amended [22-1] motion to dismiss case, [22-2] motion for summary judgment amended to dismiss, or amended for summary judgment by All Defendants (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/01/1994)

2 Exhibit A

View on PACER

3 Exhibit A (cont)

View on PACER

4 Exhibit B

View on PACER

5 Exhibit C

View on PACER

6 Exhibit D

View on PACER

7 Exhibit E

View on PACER

April 1, 1994

April 1, 1994

PACER
55

Order granting [52-1] motion to extend time to respond to motions until 4/22/94 ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/3-30-94 cc:attys on 4-5-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/05/1994)

April 4, 1994

April 4, 1994

PACER
56

Order granting [49-1] motion concerning Doe family ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) s/4-6-94 cc:attys on 4-11-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/11/1994)

April 8, 1994

April 8, 1994

PACER
57

Motion by All Plaintiffs to extend time to respond to amended motion to dismiss (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/15/1994)

April 14, 1994

April 14, 1994

PACER
58

SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault (former empl) (pad, ). (Entered: 04/15/1994)

April 15, 1994

April 15, 1994

PACER
59

Notice of supplemental disclosure by All Plaintiffs (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/18/1994)

April 18, 1994

April 18, 1994

PACER
60

Reply by All Plaintiffs to response to [38-1] motion to certify class action (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/22/1994)

April 22, 1994

April 22, 1994

PACER
61

Response by All Plaintiffs to [54-1] amended motion amended to dismiss, [54-2] amended motion amended for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/29/1994)

April 22, 1994

April 22, 1994

PACER
62

Memorandum by All Plaintiffs in support of [61-1] motion response (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/29/1994)

April 22, 1994

April 22, 1994

PACER
63

Order granting [57-1] motion to extend time to respond to amended motion to dismiss re dfts Koops asnd Cook until 5/25/94 ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:attys on 4-29-94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 04/29/1994)

April 25, 1994

April 25, 1994

PACER
64

Reply by Richard Ladd, Texas HHS, David Smith, Texas Dept of Health, Deann Friedholm, Bridgett Cook, Susan Penfield, Beverly Koops to response to [54-1] amended motion amended to dismiss, [54-2] amended motion amended for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 05/11/1994)

May 11, 1994

May 11, 1994

PACER
65

Motion by All Plaintiffs to file supplemental response to amended motion to dismiss or partial summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 05/13/1994)

May 12, 1994

May 12, 1994

PACER
66

Notice of disclosure by All Plaintiffs (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 05/17/1994)

May 16, 1994

May 16, 1994

PACER
67

Response by All Plaintiffs to [22-1] motion to dismiss case, [22-2] motion for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 05/23/1994)

May 20, 1994

May 20, 1994

PACER
68

Affidavit of Susan F Zinn by All Plaintiffs Re: [67-1] motion response (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 05/23/1994)

May 20, 1994

May 20, 1994

PACER
69

Motion by All Plaintiffs to extend time to respond to motion to dismiss dft Cook (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 05/23/1994)

May 20, 1994

May 20, 1994

PACER
70

Order that plantiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as 23(b)(2). Accordingly, an order certifying the class shall issue concurrently with this order ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 06/20/1994)

June 17, 1994

June 17, 1994

PACER
71

ORDER granting [38-1] motion to certify class action. Such class shall consist of all present and future Texas Medicaid recipients who are under the age of 21, and therefore eligible for EPSDT services, but who have not received the entire range of EPSDT services to which they are entitled, except anyone who has knowingly and voluntarily refused EPSDT services ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 06/20/1994)

June 17, 1994

June 17, 1994

RECAP
72

JOINT Notice of by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants concerning services for named plantiffs (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 06/22/1994)

June 20, 1994

June 20, 1994

PACER
73

RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to [54-1] amended motion amended to dismiss, [54-2] amended motion amended for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 06/28/1994)

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 4 (cont)

View on PACER

June 27, 1994

June 27, 1994

PACER
74

ORDER granting [69-1] motion to extend time to respond to motion to dismiss dft Cook. Plaintiffs shall respond on or before 6/28/94 ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record, Judge Justice (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/06/1994)

June 30, 1994

June 30, 1994

PACER
75

ORDER granting [65-1] motion to file supplemental response to amended motion to dismiss or partial summary judgment ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record, Judge Justice on 7/7/94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/07/1994)

July 5, 1994

July 5, 1994

PACER
76

Reply by All Plaintiffs to their response to [54-1] amended motion amended to dismiss, [54-2] amended motion amended for summary judgment (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/07/1994)

2 Affidavit

View on PACER

3 Exhibits

View on PACER

July 5, 1994

July 5, 1994

PACER
77

Reply by All Defendants to plaintiffs' response to [22-1] motion to dismiss case (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/12/1994)

July 11, 1994

July 11, 1994

PACER
78

MOTION by All Defendants for reconsideration and/or clarification of [71-1] order (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/12/1994)

July 11, 1994

July 11, 1994

PACER
79

JOINT MOTION by All Plaintiffs, All Defendants to Take Deposition (concerning discovery) (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/12/1994)

July 12, 1994

July 12, 1994

PACER
80

ORDER granting [78-1] motion for reconsideration and/or clarification of [71-1] order. The Court's order of 6/16/94 is clarified as described in this order. ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record, Judge Justice on 7/19/94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/19/1994)

July 18, 1994

July 18, 1994

PACER
81

ORDER granting [79-1] motion to Take Depositions. Unless witnesses are not available, the parties shall complete the depositions mentioned in this order by the end of October, 1994. ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record, Judge Justice on 7/19/94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/19/1994)

July 18, 1994

July 18, 1994

PACER
82

Response by All Plaintiffs to [78-1] motion for reconsideration and/or clarification of [71-1] order (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 07/21/1994)

July 21, 1994

July 21, 1994

PACER
84

Request of plaintiffs, Doe and Padilla for voluntary dismissal tendered for filing (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 08/15/1994)

Aug. 1, 1994

Aug. 1, 1994

PACER
83

Notice of by Jeneva Frazar, James Curtis Brown, Crystal Noelevol Brown, Jeremiah DeMark Phillips, Russell Kline Walton, Dominique Shantel Frazar, Linda Frew, Carla Frew, All Plaintiffs, All Defendants, Maria Ayala, Martha Doe, Mary . Fisher, Mary Jane Garza, Gloria Padilla concerning publication of Wellington v District of Columbia (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 08/11/1994)

Aug. 8, 1994

Aug. 8, 1994

PACER
85

ORDER granting in part, denying in part [22-1] motion to dismiss case, denying [22-2] motion for summary judgment. ORDERED that dfts' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the state agency defendants. ORDERED that dfts' motion to dismiss shall be DISMISSED in all other respects. ( signed by Judge William W. Justice ) cc:Attys of record, Judge Justice on 8/15/94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2005 (mjc, ). (Entered: 08/15/1994)

Aug. 10, 1994

Aug. 10, 1994

RECAP

Terminated document #37 per order 3/7/94 & #54-1,2,3 per order 8/10/94 (mpt)

Aug. 29, 1994

Aug. 29, 1994

PACER
86

MOTION by All Plaintiffs for leave to file Third amended complaint (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/02/1994)

Sept. 2, 1994

Sept. 2, 1994

PACER
87

Notice of Hearing: set management conference for 1:30 10/20/94 before Judge William W. Justice (mpt) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/07/1994)

Sept. 7, 1994

Sept. 7, 1994

PACER
88

Notice of Substitution by Richard Ladd has resigned from the position of Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. Defendant DeAnn Freidholm has replaced him in that position on an interim basis. (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 09/27/1994)

Sept. 23, 1994

Sept. 23, 1994

PACER
89

Response by All Defendants to [86-1] motion for leave to file Third amended complaint (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/14/1994)

Oct. 11, 1994

Oct. 11, 1994

PACER
90

Joint Motion Concerning Scheduling by Jeneva Frazar, James Curtis Brown, Crystal Noelevol Brown, Jeremiah DeMark Phillips, Russell Kline Walton, Dominique Shantel Frazar, Linda Frew, Carla Frew, Richard Ladd, Texas HHS, David Smith, Texas Dept of Health, Deann Friedholm, Bridgett Cook, Susan Penfield, Beverly Koops, All Plaintiffs, All Defendants, Maria Ayala, Martha Doe, Mary . Fisher, Mary Jane Garza, Gloria Padilla Concerning Scheduling (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/17/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

PACER
91

Plas' Notice for Management Conference (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2005 (mjc, ). (Entered: 10/20/1994)

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

Oct. 19, 1994

Oct. 19, 1994

PACER
92

ORDER granting [86-1] motion for leave to file Third amended complaint ( signed by Judge William W. Justice s/10/19/94) cc:plas/dfts on 10/21/94, WWJ (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994

Oct. 19, 1994

PACER
93

Third Amended Complaint by All Plaintiffs (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2005 (mjc, ). (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994

Oct. 19, 1994

PACER
94

ORDER granting [90-1] motion Concerning Scheduling, SET status conference for 1:30 1/27/95 before Judge William W. Justice ( signed by Judge William W. Justice s/10/19/94) cc:plas/dfts/WWJ on 10/21/94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994

Oct. 19, 1994

PACER
95

ORDER that plas' DOE and PADILLA, as well as their children, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the refiling of their claims ( signed by Judge William W. Justice s/10/19/94) cc:plas/dfts/WWJ on 10/21/94 (former empl) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2005 (mll, ). (Entered: 10/21/1994)

Oct. 19, 1994

Oct. 19, 1994

PACER

Status conference held before Judge William W. Justice (mpt)

Oct. 20, 1994

Oct. 20, 1994

PACER
96

Rec'd Elements & Defenses of Plas' Claims (former empl) (pad, ). (Entered: 10/27/1994)

Oct. 20, 1994

Oct. 20, 1994

PACER
97

Rec'd dfts' List of Fact Witnesses (former empl) (pad, ). (Entered: 10/27/1994)

Oct. 20, 1994

Oct. 20, 1994

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 1, 1993

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Present and future Texas Medicaid recipients who are eligible for EPSDT services because they have not reached the age of 21.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Texas, State

Texas, State

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1996 - None

Content of Injunction:

Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements

Monitoring

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Issues

General:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Government Services

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

Record-keeping

Records Disclosure

Benefit Source:

Medicaid