Mendez v. Brown: Individually enforceable Medicaid rights
Friday, April 02, 2004
- Organization: NHeLP
- Source: New York > Disability Rights
DISTRICT COURT DECISION
In Mendez v. Brown, No. 03-30160-KPN, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5127 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2004), the Federal District Court for Massachusetts denied the state's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Medicaid, ADA and 504 claims.
The plaintiffs, clinically obese Medicaid beneficiaries, claim that the state Medicaid agency's practice of denying them breast reduction surgery violates the ADA, Section 504 and several Medicaid Act requirements. The specific Medicaid provisions at issue are the "reasonable promptness" requirement in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8), the "comparability" provision in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(B) and the "reasonable standards" provision in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(17).
The court found that each of these Medicaid provisions conferred individually enforceable rights upon beneficiaries, following previous cases decided both before and after Gonzaga University v. Doe. The court applied the test articulated in Blessing v. Freestone, as modified by Gonzaga, to find that each section contained "rights creating language" that "readily survived any heightened analysis which Gonzaga requires." The court specfically declined to follow the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision in Sabree v. Houston, which found the entire Medicaid Act unenforceable.
The court also held that, despite defendant's argument that obesity did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA or Section 504, the plaintiffs had stated a claim that these laws had been violated. The court refused to rule that obesity is not considered a disability as a matter of law.
Congratulations to Western Massachusetts Legal Services for this victory.
In Mendez v. Brown, No. 03-30160-KPN, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5127 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2004), the Federal District Court for Massachusetts denied the state's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Medicaid, ADA and 504 claims.
The plaintiffs, clinically obese Medicaid beneficiaries, claim that the state Medicaid agency's practice of denying them breast reduction surgery violates the ADA, Section 504 and several Medicaid Act requirements. The specific Medicaid provisions at issue are the "reasonable promptness" requirement in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8), the "comparability" provision in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(B) and the "reasonable standards" provision in 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(17).
The court found that each of these Medicaid provisions conferred individually enforceable rights upon beneficiaries, following previous cases decided both before and after Gonzaga University v. Doe. The court applied the test articulated in Blessing v. Freestone, as modified by Gonzaga, to find that each section contained "rights creating language" that "readily survived any heightened analysis which Gonzaga requires." The court specfically declined to follow the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision in Sabree v. Houston, which found the entire Medicaid Act unenforceable.
The court also held that, despite defendant's argument that obesity did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA or Section 504, the plaintiffs had stated a claim that these laws had been violated. The court refused to rule that obesity is not considered a disability as a matter of law.
Congratulations to Western Massachusetts Legal Services for this victory.
Topics:
