Filed Date: April 16, 2014
Closed Date: Sept. 30, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
After budget cuts, an intermediate care facility serving individuals with intellectual disabilities operated by Washington State was ordered to cut costs by up to $1.8 million. To comply with the October 2010 order, management moved 27 residents from the intermediate care facility to its nursing facility and simultaneously reduced programs and staffing at both sites. After bringing problems to the attention of state agencies, investigations by Disability Rights Washington (DRW)—the state National Disability Rights Network organization—found materially significant loss of services, findings which were confirmed by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). In fact, CMS found over 40,000 violations of the NHRA pertaining to these 27 individuals alone.
CMS found that Washington State failed to comply with Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA), that residents were housed in inappropriate settings, the transfer violated federal law, and as a result the state had received federal funds in error. CMS then announced an expansion of the investigation to other state-operated, Medicaid-certified nursing facilities. Pertinent state departments issued a corrective action plan in response to CMS’s findings.
DRW claimed the correction plan was inadequate in a complaint it filed on April 16, 2014 on behalf of a class of plaintiffs of people with intellectual disabilities. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Director of the Washington State Health Care Authority in their official capacities under the Medicaid Act and the Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA). The plaintiffs, represented by both DRW and a private firm, sought injunctive and declaratory relief to require defendants to establish an adequate system to provide Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) screenings, assessments, specialized services, and, when appropriate, community-based integrated placement for class members who reside in privately-operated Medicaid-certified Nursing Facilities.
Defendants filed an answer on May 8, 2014. The plaintiff moved for class certification on October 17, 2014 and filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the proper standard for PASRR screenings and evaluations. On November 10, 2014 defendants responded to plaintiffs’ motions and moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and for partial summary judgment. The motions were resolved by the court on April 10, 2015 with Judge James L. Robart ruling mostly in favor of the plaintiffs. 99 F.Supp.3d 1297. The Judge granted part of defendant’s motion to dismiss, but gave plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint and file a valid claim.
The Court certified a class (April 10, 2015) comprised of all individuals who: (A) are or will be residents of Medicaid-certified, privately-operated nursing facilities in the State of Washington; and (B) who are Medicaid recipients with an intellectual disability or related condition(s) such that they are eligible to be screened and assessed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(e)(7) and 42 C.F.R. § 483.122 et seq.
The defendants appealed the class certification on April 24, 2015 to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Docket #:15-80076. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff’s only allegation was that he should have been a part of this class, so therefore was not qualified to represent it. On August 10, 2015, Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and Andrew D. Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit denied permission to appeal.
After negotiations, in August of 2016, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of a settlement agreement, class certification, and a settlement approval hearing and process. The settlement agreement required copies to be sent to every member of the class. Class members would also be notified of the date and time of the final settlement hearing. Any objecting class member had an opportunity to speak at the final hearing.
After giving time for notice to be provided to all class members, the final settlement hearing took place on January 9, 2017. The court approved the final settlement agreement on January 10, 2017. 2017 WL 123011. The settlement provided for a comprehensive reform of defendant’s PASRR screenings required under the NHRA, establishing procedures for timeliness of evaluations, Post-PASRR meetings, provision of specialized services to increase class members’ independence and/or discharge planning for class members who are medically able and willing to live in an alternative placement in the community. It also established metrics for monitoring implementation of new PASRR system, with reporting to class counsel on a quarterly basis. The court retained jurisdiction over the case and the settlement agreement. Lodestar attorneys’ fees of over $600,000 were scheduled to be paid by defendants.
The settlement was under court supervision through September 30, 2020 and provided for a joint court order to terminate the case if the defendants showed that they completed all requirements before the September 2020 date.
On March 23, 2021 the case was dismissed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Malcolm Clayton (2/9/2019)
Maddie McFee (11/3/2019)
Nina Charap (5/3/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411395/parties/dunakin-v-quigley/
Eaton, Sarah (Washington)
Hamburger, Eleanor (Washington)
Coats, Sarah (Washington)
Comeau, Gina L (Washington)
Erickson, Courtlan P (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411395/dunakin-v-quigley/
Last updated Dec. 7, 2025, 3:32 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 16, 2014
Closing Date: Sept. 30, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All individuals who: (A) are or will be residents of Medicaid-certified, privately-operated nursing facilities in the State of Washington; and (B) who are Medicaid recipients with an intellectual disability or related condition(s) such that they are eligible to be screened and assessed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(e)(7) and 42 C.F.R. § 483.122 et seq.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
Nursing Care Reform Act of 1987/ Omnibus Reconciliation Act
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 2:14-cv-00567
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: 655371.59
Order Duration: 2017 - 2020
Issues
General/Misc.:
Reassessment and care planning
Benefits (Source):
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in mental health facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care: