Opinion
Civil No. 03-2939 (JRT/FLN)
September 16, 2003
Barnett I. Rosenfield, MINNESOTA DISABILITY LAW CENTER, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiffs
William A. Szotkowski, St. Paul, MN, for defendant
Francis C. Ling, St. Paul, MN, for defendant
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiffs have requested a temporary restraining order pursuant to Rule 65(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Court held a telephone hearing on September 15, 2003, at which the parties were represented by counsel.
The Court considered the amended verified complaint, the motion, other written submissions of plaintiffs, and the parties' previously submitted briefs on defendant's motion to dismiss, in addition to the arguments of the parties. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the following temporary restraining order intended to maintain the status quo until the Court can consider plaintiffs' motion following full briefing and hearing.
The individual plaintiffs are recipients of Home and Community-Based Medicaid waiver services. Plaintiff Arc Minnesota is a nonprofit corporation that advocates for persons with disabilities and is incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Defendant Kevin Goodno is Commissioner of Human Services for the State of Minnesota and is responsible for Minnesota's administration of the federal Medicaid plan and supervision of the Home and Community-Based Service program. Plaintiffs have sued the Commissioner of Human Services to challenge his "rebasing plan."
Plaintiffs allege that an administrative order implemented by the defendant violates federal Medicaid law and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The administrative order (the "rebasement order") purports to "rebase" or reallocate funds for the Home and Community-Based Service program. Plaintiffs claim three violations of the federal Medicaid Act, including a failure to provide sufficient Medicaid services; a failure to provide a choice of appropriate services; and a violation of the "statewideness" requirements. In addition, plaintiffs have asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d) for the commissioner's alleged violation of the ADA integration mandate.
The rebasing plan is published at 27 State Register 1326-1329 (February 19, 2003).
This claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10), 1396n(c)(1); 1396n(c)(2)(A) and 1396n(c)(4)(B), and 42 C.F.R. § 440.230(b).
This second claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(2)(C) and 42 C.F.R. § 441.302.
The "statewideness" claims is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(1) and 1396n(c)(3) and 42 C.F.R. § 431.50.
This case is consolidated with Association of Residential Resources in Minnesota, Inc. and Rodenberg-Roberts v. Goodno et al., 03-CV-2438 (JRT/FLN) (" ARRM"). Plaintiffs in ARRM are a non-profit trade association of providers of residential and support services for Minnesota citizens with disabilities, as well as one individual plaintiff who receives home-based services pursuant to the waiver. The ARRM plaintiffs sued Goodno and the Minnesota Department of Human Services, also alleging that the rebase plan violates federal law. The ARRM plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction, which the Court denied on August 29, 2003. In denying the preliminary injunction in that case, the Court specifically noted that although the case had been consolidated with the instant case, the Order was applicable only to the ARRM matter.
The ARRM case is brought primarily by service providers and focuses largely on the procedure followed in adoption of the rebasing amendment. In contrast, the Masterman plaintiffs focus on the rights of the individual recipients of waivered services. Unlike the association plaintiffs in ARRM, plaintiffs in this case have averred that they face immediate and significant cuts to their funding, and that those cuts will jeopardize the plaintiffs' health and welfare. Plaintiffs have also indicated that the administrative appeals process, that the Court relied on in its August 29, 2003 Order in its determination that the health and welfare of individual waiver recipients was adequately protected, is futile. For those reasons, the Masterman plaintiffs are sufficiently distinguishable from the ARRM plaintiffs that the Court's denial of injunction relief as to the ARRM plaintiffs is not controlling as to the Masterman plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Rodenberg-Roberts alleges that she faces a budget reduction, however the reduction is only seven percent, as compared to the cuts of over one-third to one-half of the budgets of the Masterman plaintiffs. More importantly, however, is the Masterman plaintiffs' clarification that the administrative appeal process is likely futile. The futility of the process is as true for plaintiff Rodenberg-Roberts as it is for the Masterman plaintiffs. Because this Order has the effect of suspending cuts and the "rebase" program, the Court will not revisit its Order dissolving the TRO in the ARRM case.
Therefore, for the purpose of preserving the status quo as much as possible, and minimizing the possibility of irreparable harm until the Court has had an opportunity to rule on plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, the Court issues the following order.
ORDER
Based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and upon the argument of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order [Docket No. 2] is GRANTED;
2. Until further order of this Court granting or refusing a preliminary injunction or dissolving this Temporary Restraining Order, a temporary restraining order is hereby entered. Defendant shall take all necessary steps to insure that no reduction in payments to individual beneficiaries results from the challenged administrative order;
3. In accordance with Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs shall post a bond with the Clerk in the amount of $5,000.00 for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by defendant in the event defendant is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.
4. No party may take any future action inconsistent with this Order.
5. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion will be set for a date and time to be determined in Courtroom 13E of the United States Courthouse in Minneapolis. The Court intends to hold a hearing on defendants' Motion to Dismiss at the same time.
6. A briefing and scheduling order will follow separately.