The Second Circuit has ruled Friday 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-6, a Medicaid Act provision requiring that transitional Medicaid assistance (TMA) be provided to certain individuals is enforceable through Section 1983.

In Rabin v. Wilson-Coker, 03-7572, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5712 (2d Cir. March 26, 2004), the court addressed the meaning of the TMA provision. The provision requires that certain individuals who would have been eligible for the AFDC program when it existed but, because of excess earned income exceed the eligibility levels for fictitious AFDC, must receive Medicaid assistance for a transitional period. The Court ruled that TMA must be provided not only to individuals who receive additional wages but also to those persons who are earning the same income but who are discontinued because -under new eligibility provisions enacted by the state- their earned income causes them to become ineligible for AFDC.

With regard to the enforceability issue, the court distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, holding that the Medicaid provision's "language focuses much more directly than does the FERPA provision [at issue in Gonzaga] on the individual's entitlement. In particular, it contains no qualifying language akin to FERPA's "policy or practice." In addition, the court cited 42 U.S.C. 1320a-2, also known as the "Suter fix" to refute the state's argument that Medicaid provisions cannot be enforced because the statute speaks only in terms of requiring state plan provisions. 42 U.S.C. 1320a-2 provides that "[i]n an action brought to enforce a provision of this chapter [which includes the Medicaid statutes], such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of this chapter requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State plan."

New Haven Legal Assistance, Greater Hartford Legal Assistance and Connecticut Legal Services are counsel in this case.