Cornell v. Creasy, C 77-434.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. C 77-434.,C 77-434. |
| Citation | 491 F. Supp. 124 |
| Parties | Susan CORNELL, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth CREASY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (A. B. L. E.) Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
Richard W. Hanusz, Asst. Pros. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, Thomas W. Hess, Richard J. Forman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, Jerry Banks, Pros. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, Patrick J. Foley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, Robert A. Dublin, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
This cause came to be heard on several motions: Motion by Defendant Ackerman, Director of Ohio Department of Health, for Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P.; Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the Ground of Mootness, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed pursuant to Rules 12(h)(3) and 56, F.R.Civ.P.; Defendant Creasy's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, filed pursuant to Rules 12 and 56, F.R.Civ.P.; and County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed pursuant to Rule 12. All issues have been briefed by the parties and are now ripe for disposition.
The Court having carefully reviewed the pleadings and memoranda of counsel, it is
ORDERED that the Motions of Defendants Ackerman, Creasy and the County Defendants for Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint should be and hereby are granted, for the reason that Plaintiffs' First and Second Causes of Action fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted, and the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state claims alleged in Plaintiffs' Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. See Bates v. Dause, 502 F.2d 865, 867 (6th Cir. 1974). See also Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Califano's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, should be and hereby is denied in part and granted in part. Defendant Califano's motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness is found to be without merit. Defendant Califano's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' First, Second and Third Causes of Action is found to be well taken for the reason that, assuming all the plaintiffs' factual allegations to be true, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant Califano's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action is found to be without merit. Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the HEW regulations at issue herein (45 C.F.R. § 249.10(b)(15)(v); 45 C.F.R. § 249.12(a)(1)(ii)(A)(iii)), and there do exist issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness of said regulations, and the manner of their issuance. Accordingly, resolution of these claims must await trial on the merits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants Ackerman and Creasy to Answer Requests for Admission and for Expenses should be and hereby is denied as moot.
This cause is before the Court on plaintiffs' motion to reconsider this Court's Order of March 8, 1978, dismissing all claims against the State defendants and the County defendants, and part of the claims against the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW).
This cause involves the standard of life care and due process required in the involuntary transfer of nursing home care recipients. Plaintiffs contend that the individual patients are entitled to a pre-transfer hearing, and in addition are entitled to counselling to avert "transfer trauma" under the pertinent HEW regulations, relying mainly on Klein v. Mathews, 586 F.2d 250 (3rd Cir. 1978), aff'd sub nom. Klein v. Califano.
The Court had vacated in part the judgment of March 8, 1978, to permit all parties to participate in the motion for reconsideration and a plethora (13) of briefs were filed, together with numerous motions for extensions of time.
On March 13, 1978, after the March 8, 1978 order dismissing all other defendants, trial was had on the issues remaining between the plaintiffs, the class they represent, and HEW. The trial was continued pending the filing of the depositions of the experts who were unavailable for trial. These were filed on April 24, 1978.
As to the issue of "transfer trauma," this cause is ripe for decision based on the stipulation for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newfield House, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Welfare
...costs and interim expenses. 1 Second, following HEW's agreement to a consent decree of general applicability in Cornell v. Creasy, 491 F.Supp. 124 (N.D.Ohio 1978), and subsequent to the events at issue in this case, HEW's Health Care Finance Administration issued guidelines detailing state ......