The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a Medicaid beneficiary's claim that the decision to deny her a seat chair lift violated the Medicaid Act and the Due Process Clause. The court did, however, dismiss the beneficiary's ADA and Section 504 Claims. Borriello v. Novello, No. 02cv7946 (S.D. N.Y. March 24, 2004). Click to view the motion to dismiss.
Applying the three-part Wilder/Blessing test, the court held that the Medicaid provisions requiring that states provide benefits in an equal amount, duration and scope (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(B)) and that states use reasonable standards to determine the extent of medical assistance (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(17) were enforceable and that the beneficiary had stated a claim that these provisions had been violated. Essentially, the court held that it was not reasonable for the state to cover seat chair lifts for some recipients and not others. The decision does not cite Gonzaga University v. Doe.
The court dismissed the ADA and 504 claims, despite the fact that the challenged action had forced the plaintiff to move from her home to an institution, reasoning that the Supreme CourtÂ’s decision in Olmstead dealt with mentally disabled individuals. "Plaintiff's reading of Olmstead could require extending its narrowly-worded holding to create a violation of the ADA any time a party with any disability moved from her home to a nursing home because of a denial of requested Medicaid benefits." The court further interpreted the Second Circuit's holding in Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 197 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 1999), as rejecting efforts to extend Olmstead to denials of services or equipment pursuant to the Medicaid Act.
Nina Keilin is counsel in this case, in connection with Legal Services for the Elderly.
The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a Medicaid beneficiary's claim that the decision to deny her a seat chair lift violated the Medicaid Act and the Due Process Clause. The court did, however, dismiss the beneficiary's ADA and Section 504 Claims. Borriello v. Novello, No. 02cv7946 (S.D. N.Y. March 24, 2004). Click to view the motion to dismiss.
Applying the three-part Wilder/Blessing test, the court held that the Medicaid provisions requiring that states provide benefits in an equal amount, duration and scope (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(B)) and that states use reasonable standards to determine the extent of medical assistance (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(17) were enforceable and that the beneficiary had stated a claim that these provisions had been violated. Essentially, the court held that it was not reasonable for the state to cover seat chair lifts for some recipients and not others. The decision does not cite Gonzaga University v. Doe.
The court dismissed the ADA and 504 claims, despite the fact that the challenged action had forced the plaintiff to move from her home to an institution, reasoning that the Supreme CourtÂ’s decision in Olmstead dealt with mentally disabled individuals. "Plaintiff's reading of Olmstead could require extending its narrowly-worded holding to create a violation of the ADA any time a party with any disability moved from her home to a nursing home because of a denial of requested Medicaid benefits." The court further interpreted the Second Circuit's holding in Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 197 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 1999), as rejecting efforts to extend Olmstead to denials of services or equipment pursuant to the Medicaid Act.
Nina Keilin is counsel in this case, in connection with Legal Services for the Elderly.