Filed Date: Aug. 3, 2016
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case alleging that the Minnesota Department of Human Services' (DHS) reliance on group homes for individuals with disabilities made it difficult for individuals who wanted to live on their own to find housing.
On August 3, 2016, individuals with disabilities who lived in group housing in Minnesota—including some who had tried to secure individual housing—as well as their guardians filed suit against the DHS and its commissioner. The plaintiffs alleged a violation of the Medicaid Act's fair hearing requirements 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) because their attempts to secure individualized housing services were unsuccessful, and they were unable to use disability waivers to access services that would allow them to be integrated in their community despite belonging to a class of persons who would qualify for such services. As of March 16, 2016, the DHS plans which outlined how housing would be provided ceased to mention individualized housing, or how to secure it. Plaintiffs further alleged a violation of their Due Process, Advance Notice and Fair Hearing rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging they did not receive adequate information about hearings or have the ability to respond to or contest agency decisions about accessing integrated services. Plaintiffs also alleged that DHS violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to offer and provide services to the plaintiffs in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and by unnecessarily segregating them in Community Residential Setting (CRS) facilities, instead of reasonably accommodating their requests to be integrated into the community.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Ann D. Montgomery and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, but was reassigned after only one week to Judge Donovan W. Frank and Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson.
On September 14, 2016, DHS and its commissioner moved to dismiss the case. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims due to a lack of provable injury, and that the case was not ripe under the Medicaid Act's reasonable promptness requirement because the definitions of home and community-based settings had not yet been established under federal regulations.
On February 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add another named plaintiff with a disability and two legal guardians who would be capable of representing a class. The plaintiffs also added specific requests for the court to mandate DHS changes that would improve timely access to individualized housing services. In particular, the amended complaint includes a request for education efforts and service deadlines, and a periodic auditing process.
On February 27, 2017, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of persons aged 18 and older who were eligible for and had received a disability waiver and who lived in a licensed CRS facility and had not been given the choice or opportunity to reside in the most integrated residential setting appropriate to their needs.
The parties held a settlement conference on April 25, 2017 but were unable to reach an agreement.
On May 18, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims against DHS, but allowed all claims against the commissioner to proceed, explaining that claims against DHS were redundant where the commissioner was a party in her official capacity. In allowing the claims against the commissioner, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs were already experiencing segregation, and therefore had suffered an injury in fact and had standing. The court further concluded that because the plaintiffs had not been able to receive redress or due process in seeking changes to their living environments, regardless of DHS's definitional procedures, the claims were ripe for review. 260 F.Supp.3d 1084.
On September 29, 2017, Judge Donovan W. Frank certified a class of all adults that were eligible for and had received a disability waiver who lived in a licensed CRS and had not been given the choice to reside in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. 2017 WL 4355970.
On September 29, 2017, the defendants petitioned for permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which allows either party fourteen days to file a petition after an adverse class certification ruling by a District Court. The petition was denied on October 13, 2017 without explanation.
On November 15, 2017, the plaintiffs sought, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied, permission to appeal, without a reason given.
On January 25, 2018 plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions, motion for attorney fees, motion for discovery and motion for contempt, alleging the defendants had not complied with court orders regarding discovery.
On February 21, 2018 Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson granted in part and denied in part the motions for sanctions, attorney fees, discovery and contempt. The motions for discovery were granted, requiring defendants to provide all of the documents that the plaintiffs were seeking, because the requests were not unduly burdensome. The others were dropped without prejudice, with the assurances that defendants would now comply with discovery requests on the reasoning that sanctions could later be implemented if discovery did not occur.
Discovery disputes occurred repeatedly throughout the proceedings from 2018-2022, with several motions from both parties. The plaintiffs repeatedly raised issues regarding insufficient documentation provided by the defendants. Defendants repeatedly argued that supplying documentation regarding persons with disabilities would violate HIPPA confidentiality, and that plaintiffs' requests were too expansive and burdensome. The court compelled discovery under a series of protective orders to protect confidentiality, noting that defendants had not been in fully compliance. Defendants produced all discovery requested. Plaintiffs later approached the court requesting sanctions because too much discovery was produced, too last-minute for them to effectively prepare, but the court denied any motions for sanctions against defendants.
On November 8, 2018, plaintiffs submitted a letter withdrawing their demand for a jury trial. On November 9, 2018, defendants submitted a letter stating they did not object. On November 15, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a judgement in her favor on all claims before the court. The defendant also moved to decertify the class. The same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgement, seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendant was violating the Medicaid Act by not providing services with reasonable promptness and violating Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment and Medicaid due process rights, because class members could go months or years without hearing the status of their requests for individualized housing. They also sought declaratory judgment holding that the defendant was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and they sought injunctive relief requiring the defendant to implement policies that would ensure every Disability Waiver recipient in a state facility receive information about and access to individualized housing services.
On January 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson ordered a settlement conference for the parties. Settlement talks continued through March 15, 2019, leading Judge Donovan W. Frank to vacate the trial-ready date of April 15, 2019. The settlement talks ultimately proved unsuccessful.
On July 26, 2019, Judge Donovan W. Frank denied defendant's November 15, 2018, motion to decertify the class, holding that a proposed injunction or other remedy would give every class member an increased opportunity to live in the most integrated setting possible, regardless of whether or not they had been denied in the past.
The court denied defendants motion for summary judgement on September 27, 2019, on the grounds that at least 192 vulnerable people in Minnesota had been harmed by defendant's policies and practices, so a system-wide remedy was needed. He partially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement, holding that defendant's policy violated Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Medicaid Act's advance notice and fair hearing requirements under 42 U.S.C. §1983, because plaintiffs were not heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner. He denied granting an injunction regarding the state Medicaid policies, instead directing the parties to jointly revise the policies to be sufficiently clear and mutually agreeable. 421 F.Supp.3d 695.
On April 5, 2022, the case was scheduled for a July 11, 2022, bench trial. On April 22, 2022, Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson ordered a final settlement conference be held by the parties before June 17, 2022. On June 2-3, 2022, the parties participated in a two-day mediation with the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum and reached a consensus on settlement agreement terms. On June 10, 2022, the parties emailed the court indicating they had reached a settlement and on June 13, 2022, Judge Donovan W. Frank cancelled the document deadlines and hearing.
On July 1, 2022, plaintiffs moved for approval of a class action settlement. And, on July 27, 2022, plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement agreement which the court granted the same day. The settlement required defendants to change the administration of the Disability Waiver system and provide class members who wanted to move to individualized homes with the information and access to services that would allow them to do so. The Minnesota Department of Human Services was also required to provide new training to assessors and case managers, including instructing assessors to inquire of residents in congregate settings if they are interested in moving, and provide services if appropriate. The settlement also provided for additional assistance for one of the individual plaintiffs, as well as recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees, and will remain in effect for 36 months from the court's final approval of the settlement.
As of November 22, 2022, the case is ongoing pending a Fairness Hearing on January 4, 2023.
Summary Authors
Sandy Sulzer (11/12/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4514355/parties/murphy-v-minnesota-department-of-human-services/
Anthony, Joseph W (Minnesota)
Burke, Sean B (Minnesota)
Chapman, Christen Leigh (Minnesota)
Boese, Brandon L (Minnesota)
Boebel, Nicholas S (Minnesota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4514355/murphy-v-minnesota-department-of-human-services/
Last updated Nov. 3, 2025, 9:30 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Olmstead Cases
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 3, 2016
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs were persons with disabilities living in group homes in Minnesota, and their guardians.
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Minnesota Department of Human Services, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:16-cv-02623
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 17-08028
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Provide antidiscrimination training
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Sanitation / living conditions
Benefits (Source):
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: