Emily Q. v. Belshe

Full title: EMILY Q., et al. v. S. KIMBERLY BELSHE

Court: United States District Court, C.D. California

Date published: Feb 24, 1999

Case No. CV 98-4181-WDK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 1999)

Opinion

Case No. CV 98-4181-WDK

February 24, 1999

PROCEEDINGS:

HONORABLE WILLIAM D. KELLER, Judge

Before the Court are plaintiffs' motions for: (1) a preliminary injunction; and (2) class certification. The Court will discuss these motions in turn.

I. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

The Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated both a high probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., defendant is required to provide "preventive and rehabilitative" services to children under the age of 21, when such services are necessary. The Court finds that therapeutic behavior services could be considered both preventive and rehabilitative as contemplated by the statute, and, therefore, when necessary should be a covered Medi-Cal benefit. The Court's perception of the legalities is buttressed by the HCFA State Medicaid Manual, which states: "Additionally, the Act [Social Security Act] requires that any service which you are permitted to cover under Medicaid that is necessary to treat or ameliorate a defect, physical and mental illness, or a condition identified by a screen must be provided to EPSDT participants regardless of whether the service or item is otherwise included in your Medicaid plan." Mot., Ex. 22 at 90.

The Court recognizes that in cases involving mandatory injunctions, a higher standard is imposed. See Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9^th Cir. 1979). Yet, it is the Court's perception that the patent harm facing these plaintiffs, as attested to by plaintiffs' experts Drs. Willis and Morone, combined with plaintiffs' probability of success on the merits, render a preliminary injunction in this case proper.

The Court is further aware that in cases where injunctive relief is directed at State agencies, the Court must be sensitive to concerns of equity, federalism and comity. See Cupolo v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 5 F. Supp.2d 1078, 1084 (9^th Cir. 1997). The Court does not minimize the importance of these concerns. However, under the circumstances of this case, where the State has opted into a federal program, the Court views injunctive relief as an appropriate mechanism for enforcing the State's compliance with the mandates of this federal program.

II. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be addressed at the hearing set forth in the injunction.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.