The First Circuit Court of Appeal has denied a sovereign immunity-based motion to dismiss, allowing the progress of a class action on behalf of children and youth with mental illnesses who are entitled to Medicaid services. The state of Massachusetts had argued that the Medicaid act contained a "detailed remedial scheme" that indicated Congressional intent to foreclose prospective injunctive relief in federal court under the Ex Parte Young exception. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Medicaid Act contained no clear intent that Congress meant to foreclose individual enforcement, finding that the Act contained neither a comprehensive nor detailed set of remedies. The Court wrote:
[W]e hold that the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent Medicaid beneficiaries from seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officials. In so holding, we preserve three decades of case law refusing to construe the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit suits for prospective relief involving Title XIX of the Social Security Act [citations omitted].
Steve Schwartz and Cathy Costanzo of the Center for Public Representation, represented the plaintiffs, along with the Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr. A brief amici curiae was filed by the National Health Law Program on behalf of NHeLP, the Mass. Law Reform Institute, Western Mass. Legal Services, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Services, National Mental Health Association, National Alliance of the Mentally Ill and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health.
Rosie D. v. Swift, 2002 US App. LEXIS 23147 (Nov. 7, 2002 1st Cir.)
The First Circuit Court of Appeal has denied a sovereign immunity-based motion to dismiss, allowing the progress of a class action on behalf of children and youth with mental illnesses who are entitled to Medicaid services. The state of Massachusetts had argued that the Medicaid act contained a "detailed remedial scheme" that indicated Congressional intent to foreclose prospective injunctive relief in federal court under the Ex Parte Young exception. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Medicaid Act contained no clear intent that Congress meant to foreclose individual enforcement, finding that the Act contained neither a comprehensive nor detailed set of remedies. The Court wrote:
[W]e hold that the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent Medicaid beneficiaries from seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officials. In so holding, we preserve three decades of case law refusing to construe the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit suits for prospective relief involving Title XIX of the Social Security Act [citations omitted].
Steve Schwartz and Cathy Costanzo of the Center for Public Representation, represented the plaintiffs, along with the Boston law firm of Hale and Dorr. A brief amici curiae was filed by the National Health Law Program on behalf of NHeLP, the Mass. Law Reform Institute, Western Mass. Legal Services, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Services, National Mental Health Association, National Alliance of the Mentally Ill and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health.
Rosie D. v. Swift, 2002 US App. LEXIS 23147 (Nov. 7, 2002 1st Cir.)
