Case: Smith v. Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff, a man with cerebral palsy, filed this class-action lawsuit against the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (DPW) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 27, 2013. As a person with a physical disability, plaintiff was eligible for in-home services under the State's Act 150 Program, a program aimed at allowing individuals with disabilities to live as independently as possible in their communities. However, plaintiff alleged that because the Program had at least a two-year-long waiting list, he was unable to receive services and was therefore forced to reside in a nursing home. Plaintiff claimed that defendants' failure to provide him and other similarly-situated persons with in-home care services resulted in unnecessary institutionalization in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Represented by the Disability Rights Network of PA and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, plaintiff sought class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On October 3, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction which, if granted, would require defendants to provide him with appropriate community-based attendant care services and allow him to leave the nursing home where he had resided for over two years.

On October 9, an Amended Complaint was filed to include a second named plaintiff. The second plaintiff, Ms. Smith, a woman with multiple sclerosis, was also on the waiting list for Act 150 services and, while she was able to remain in her own home under the care of her teenage daughter, anticipated being forced to move into a nursing home once her daughter left for college unless she received in-home care. On October 24, the original plaintiff removed himself as a party and the case continued with one named plaintiff, Ms. Smith.

On October 30, plaintiff moved to certify a class defined as "all Pennsylvanians who are or will be placed on the waiting list for the Act 150 Program."

The parties began discovery in November of 2013. Both plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment on April 11 and May 9, 2014, respectively. DPW argued that any change in the way it provided its services would constitute a fundamental alteration its state programs and would impermissibly interfere with its discretion to administer Medicaid services.

Before any motions were decided, on June 12, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted a statement of interest. The DOJ asserted that because the ADA requires states to avoid unnecessary institutionalization, including where a reasonable accommodation is available to avoid said institutionalization, if the court found that a plausible accommodation was available that would allow plaintiffs to avoid living in a segregated setting, DPW would have the burden of showing that providing that accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of its programming. The DOJ also pointed out that several other courts had found that changing the location of services provided from an institutional setting to a community setting was not in itself a fundamental alteration.

After several months of conferring, the parties submitted a voluntary stipulation of dismissal on June 11, 2015. While it is probable that the parties reached a private settlement agreement, no information on any agreement is available. The case is now closed.