Gattuso v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs.

• Decision Date: 25 July 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. 11–5763 (JBS/AMD).
• Citation: 881 F.Supp.2d 639
• Parties: Mark J. GATTUSO, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

881 F.Supp.2d 639

Mark J. GATTUSO, Sr., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 11–5763 (JBS/AMD).

United States District Court,

D. New Jersey.

July 25, 2012.

Mark J. Gattuso, Sr., Margaret C. Gattuso, Lindenwold, NJ, for Plaintiffs pro se and as guardians of Joseph C. Gattuso, Non–Competent Adult Child.

Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General of New Jersey, by: Molly Ann Moynihan, Deputy Attorney General, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants New Jersey Department of Human, Services and New Jersey Division of Disability Services.

OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the Court on the motion of Defendants New Jersey Department of Human Services (“DHS”) and Division of Disability Services (“DDS”) ¹ to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs in this matter are Mark J. Gattuso, Sr. and Margaret C. Gattuso, who bring claims on behalf of their non-competent adult child Joseph C. Gattuso, and on their own behalf for alleged violations of the laws and Constitution of the United States, specifically, Title II of the Americanswith Disabilities Act (“ADA”), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131– 12134.

Plaintiffs allege that the state of New Jersey is discriminating against them and their son, on the basis of age and disability, by failing to provide more resources and services than it already is to permit Joseph to be cared for at home rather than institutionalized in a long-term care facility; Plaintiffs further allege that their due process rights are violated by the state's benefits denial procedures. Defendants argue that the Complaint must be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims because the State Defendants retain state sovereign immunity to suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or in the alternative, because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim to relief.

The principal issues to be decided in this Opinion are (1) whether Congress has validly abrogated New Jersey's sovereign immunity as to Plaintiffs' claims, and (2) whether Plaintiffs adequately state a claim for relief that can be granted. As explained below, because the Court concludes that Congress has not abrogated the State's sovereign immunity as to Plaintiffs' claims, and because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs do not otherwise state a claim to relief that the Court can grant, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.

II. BACKGROUND

Because Plaintiffs are proceeding without the benefit of a lawyer and drafted their Complaint on their own, the Court is mindful that it should construe Plaintiffs' pleadings liberally in their favor. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). For the purposes of deciding Defendants' motion, the Court will consider only facts alleged in the Complaint and matters of public record.²

Plaintiffs' dependent adult child, Joseph Gattuso, suffers from a rare disease (not identified in the pleadings) that requires specialized care and nearly constant monitoring by a caregiver. Compl. at 2. He is 26 years old, and the Court infers from the Complaint that Plaintiffs receive funding and services through the New Jersey Community Resources for People with Disabilities (“CRPD”) Waiver program to support Joseph's care at home so that he need not be institutionalized in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Id. Plaintiffs allege that they are his primary caregivers ( id. at 1), but also allege that some of the funding they receive from the CRPD waiver services pays for in-home nursing support to assist them in the care they provide. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiffs themselves also suffer from some significant physical disabilities (they allege that they are “totally disabled”). Id. at 4.

The CRPD Waiver program is a New Jersey entitlement program authorized under and funded in part through the Medicaid provisions of the federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396n. The CRPD Waiver program provides funding and services to Medicaid beneficiaries to enable them to live in a home or community-based facility rather than in a long-term care facility. SeeN.J. Admin. Code § 10:60–6.1. “The purpose of these programs is to help eligible beneficiaries remain in the community, or return to the community, rather than be cared for in a nursing facility or hospital setting.” Id. at § 10:60–6.1(a). The CRPD Waiver program “serves a limited number of beneficiaries [in New Jersey] who meet the medical and financial eligibility requirements.” Id. at § 10:60–6.1(b). To be eligible for CRPD Waiver funding, a beneficiary must be in need of “nursing facility level of care criteria,” among other income-based eligibility requirements. Id. at § 10:60–6.2. The CRPD Waiver provides for several services including in-home nursing care and case management, but “[t]he total cost of all services provided through the Community Resources for People with Disabilities (CRPD) Waiver program must be less than the cost of care in an appropriate institution.” Id. at § 10:60–6.3(d).

Plaintiffs claim that the benefits provided under this program are insufficient in ways that are discriminatory, and that the process whereby determinations of benefits are made deprives them of the due process of law. Specifically, Plaintiffs Complaint seeks relief through four counts.

Count one claims that the funding recipients of the CRPD Waiver funding receive is insufficient for beneficiaries to pay for adequate in-home nursing care because of the CRPD monthly cost cap allowance. Compl. at 1. The Court infers from this allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are impacted by this monthly cost cap, though Plaintiffs do no so specifically allege. The Court also infers that the CRPD Waiver cost cap to which the Plaintiffs refer is the requirement that “[t]he total cost of all services provided through the Community Resources for People with Disabilities (CRPD) Waiver program must be less than the cost of care in an appropriate institution.” N.J. Admin. Code § 10:60–6.3(d). Plaintiffs allege that this monthly cost cap violates the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A), regarding reimbursement rates for the enlistment of qualified personnel such as skilled nurses. Compl. at 1. Plaintiffs do not allege any facts about the dollar amount at which their monthly costs are capped by Defendants.

Plaintiffs further allege that this monthly cost cap allowance threatens that beneficiaries (again, the Court infers that Plaintiffs include Joseph in this category) who would otherwise be better served in home or community placement may be institutionalized in order to receive adequate care. Plaintiffs further conclude that the Defendant state agencies permit or impose this funding limitation as a form of discrimination against the most disabled individuals in the state. Plaintiffs allege that this limitation on CRPD Waiver funding is a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

Count two of the Complaint claims that Defendants are discriminating against Joseph on the basis of his age because the monthly cost cap of the CRPD Waiver program was first imposed on Joseph when he turned 21 years old.

Count three of the Complaint claims that Defendants violate Plaintiffs' due process rights, presumably under the Fourteenth Amendment, for two reasons: first, because the Defendant agencies allegedly fail to put any determinations in writing generally, and secondly because “the Director of Medicaid” has some authority in New Jersey to “overturn” the decision of an administrative law judge on some unspecified matters, presumably relating to Defendants' decisions relating to CRPD Waiver benefits and services. Compl. at 3.

Count four of the Complaint alleges that Defendants additionally discriminate under Title II of the ADA against Plaintiffs themselves as disabled caregivers because the Defendants allegedly have failed to make any reasonable accommodations for Plaintiffs' disabilities and inability to provide adequate physical care for Joseph, but still are able to manage and direct such care from their home. Compl. at 3–4. Plaintiffs do not specify what services are not being provided by Defendants that could constitute a reasonable accommodation.

Plaintiffs seek exclusively monetary relief in the form of damages; they do not seek injunctive or declaratory relief. Compl. at 5.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 4, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order on December 19, 2011, and a motion for an order to show cause why immediate injunctive relief should not be entered on December 20, 2011, both seeking entry of an order unrelated to the claims raised in Plaintiffs Complaint. [Docket Items 8 & 12].³ The Court held a hearing on these preliminary motions on December 23, 2011, after which the Court denied the relief sought, concluding that Plaintiffs had not made the required showing of immediate and irreparable injury. [Docket Item 17.]

Thereafter, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss.

III. DISCUSSIONA. Standard

1. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), a defendant may move to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit has identified two types of jurisdictional defects subject to challenge by a Rule 12(b)(1) motion: (1) those that challenge the subject matter jurisdiction as sufficiently pleaded on the face of the complaint, and (2) those that attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977); NE Hub Partners, L.P. v. CNG Transmission Corp., 239 F.3d 333, 341 n....