Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. Barry, 918 F.Supp. 440 (D.D.C. 1996).
In this case challenging the administration of Washington, D.C.'s shelter system for homeless families, the court found that the plaintiffs had a right to due process in spite of statutory language stating that "[n]othing in [the law] shall be construed to create an entitlement in any homeless person or family to emergency shelter or support services." The court based this determination on the fact that the law regarding emergency shelter placed substantial limits on official discretion in determining shelter eligibility and that the District had a policy of determining eligibility only when shelter space was available and then providing shelter to any family found eligible. In light of these factors, the court found that the entitlement language was more a statement of the fiscal reality that shelter was not available for all families that needed it than a statement that families seeking shelter had no protected interest deserving of due process protection. The court then held that due process required the District to be flexible in its documentation requirements and to ensure that hearings of appeals take place within a reasonable time, that decisions be promptly rendered, and that those time frames be communicated to applicants.
Daniels v. Wadley, 926 F. Supp. 1305 (M.D.Tenn., 1996).
The court modified a consent decree concerning due process in the Tennessee medicaid program. Since the order had been entered, Tennessee had moved from a fee for service basis for providing medicaid benefits to contracts with managed care organizations (MCOs) to provide all services and determine whether a service should be provided. The court found that "because of the pecuniary incentives that MCOs have for denying, suspending or terminating care... enrollees need strong due process protections to protect themselves from inappropriate denials of health care...." In addition to sustaining plaintiffs' claims under federal medicaid law, the court found that "the state has effectively delegated to these MCOs Tennessee's duty to provide health care to poor and uninsurable citizens," "the state and the MCOs have a symbiotic relationship...", and that the MCOs "effectively make any decisions to deny, terminate, suspend, reduce or delay medial assistance on behalf of the state...." Accordingly, "Goldberg v. Kelly requires that enrollees receive a predeprivation hearing in those situations in which the Medicaid Act would require a predeprivation hearing." Termination followed by reimbursement if found eligible is not sufficient, since enrollees are destitute and cannot continue medical coverage on their own. Adjudicators from the MCO will not suffice since they have a "direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest" in the outcome.
Grijalva v. Balistreri, 1996 WL627497 (D. Ariz., Oct. 17, 1996).
HMOs providing Medicare benefits under contract with the federal government are engaged in state action and are therefore required to comply with due process requirements. The court rejected the Clinton Administration's argument that the HMOs are private, nongovernmental entities and therefore free from Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements. The Court relied upon other cases finding that determinations by medical providers of eligibility for services was a government function, and distinguished cases finding that medical treatment decisions by private providers were not state action. The court found the notices provided by the HMOs shockingly insufficient (they were "hiding the ball"), and observed that "the record reflects rampant timeliness problems."
Melgar v. California Dept. of Social Servs., No. 96AS05728 (Sacramento Cy. Superior Ct., Cal. Oct. 31, 1996).
This class action challenges the state agency's implementation of the new welfare law's denial of Food Stamps to legal immigrants with respect to applicants. The state implemented the bar through an All County Letter. The Court has issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the instructions in the All County Letter until such time as the state agency complies with state Administrative Procedure Act. CH #pending.
The City of New York v. The United States of America, Civ. Action No.____ (S.D.N.Y., October, 1996).
This action challenges provisions of the new welfare law, P.L. 104-193, and the new immigration law, P.L. 104-208 which prevent any state or local law from prohibiting or restricting communication between state and local officials and the INS. The complaint alleges that these provisions interfere with the City's power to establish policies to ensure public health and safety and regulate its workforce and prohibit the City from continuing a longstanding policy barring its employees from disclosing the immigration status of people who come to its attention. According to the City its policy reflects a decision not to deter undocumented aliens who are crime victims or witnesses from coming forward, who have contagious diseases from seeking medical treatment, or who are children from forfeiting their right to an education. The complaint alleges that the federal law provisions violate principles of federalism reflected in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution's Guarantee Clause, Article IV, section 4, which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. CH # pending.
Ortiz v. Hammons, Index No. 406095/96 (N.Y. Supreme Court filed October 1996).
Plaintiff in this case was a high school student at the time his home relief (general assistance) case was closed for failure to comply with a workfare assignment which would have forced him to quit school. He challenges that closure under the state constitutional provision that guarantees him a public education, thestate education law, and the state social services law, which states that inmost cases nineteen year olds should be assigned to education as their mandatory activities under the state's .JOBS program (which applies to HR recipients as well as AFDC recipients) and that, in any case, people should not be assigned to activities that interfere with their educations. The Center is co-counsel in this case with a pro bono law firm. CH # pending.
Rivera v. Bane, Index No. 45305/92 (NY Sup.Ct.)
Plaintiffs' counsel has moved to punish defendant New York City Department of Social Services for contempt for failing to provide copies of .documents in advance of fair hearings in violation of federal and state regulations and the due process clause of the United States and New York Constitutions. In 1995, plaintiffs obtained an order in this class action requiring the New York City Department of Social Services to provide copies of documents necessary for preparation for a fair hearing within 5 days of request or to withdraw the adverse notice of intent. CH# pending.