Murphy v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., Civil No. 16–2623 (DWF/BRT)

Citation260 F.Supp.3d 1084
Decision Date18 May 2017
Docket NumberCivil No. 16–2623 (DWF/BRT)
Parties Tenner MURPHY, BY his guardians Kay and Richard MURPHY; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and Emily Johnson Piper in her capacity as Commissioner of The Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Joseph W. Anthony, Esq., and Peter McElligott, Esq., Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA; Justin H. Perl, Esq., Mid–Minnesota Legal Aid; and Sean B. Burke, Esq., Mid–Minnesota Legal Aid, Minnesota Disability Law Center, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Ian M. Welsh, Janine Wetzel Kimble, Scott H. Ikeda, Assistant Attorneys General, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants the Minnesota Department of Human Services ("DHS") and DHS Commissioner Emily Johnson Piper ("Commissioner Johnson Piper") (collectively, "Defendants"). (Doc. No. 10.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion.

BACKGROUND

This case relates to an alleged denial of services under Minnesota's Medicaid Disability Waivers and the resulting isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities who seek greater integration into their communities. This case has been designated as related to Jensen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services , Civ. No. 09–1775 (D. Minn.). (Doc. No. 6.) Mikkelson v. Johnson Piper , Civ. No. 15–3439 (D. Minn.) (formerly Guggenberger v. Minnesota ), is also related to the Jensen case. (See Order, Mikkelson v. Johnson Piper , Civ. No. 15–3439 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2015), Doc. No. 4.) Many of the allegations, claims, and legal issues presented in this case are similar to those previously considered by the Court in its July 28, 2016 Order in Mikkelson. See Guggenberger v. Minnesota , 198 F.Supp.3d 973 (D. Minn. 2016). The Court will analyze the allegations and arguments specific to this case below, but also directs readers to Guggenberger for additional background on the relevant law underlying Plaintiffs' claims.

I. Minnesota's Residential Service System Under Medicaid Disability Waivers

Minnesota participates in the federal Medicaid program, a jointly-operated federal and state program that provides "healthcare and related services" to individuals with disabilities. (Doc. No. 33 ("Am. Compl.") ¶ 32.)1 In particular, Minnesota offers Medicaid services to individuals with disabilities in the form of Medicaid Home and Community Based Disability Waivers ("Disability Waivers").2 (Id. at 2, ¶¶ 21, 25.) According to Plaintiffs, states who participate in Medicaid must do so in accordance with federal law. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Plaintiffs allege that Disability Waivers in Minnesota "provide a comprehensive, cost-effective, home and community-based package of services," including "direct care staffing, vocational skills and employment assistance, environmental modifications and other assistive technology, transitional and housing assistance, and other services designed to help people with disabilities live in his or her own home and interact with the larger nondisabled community." (Id. ¶¶ 33–34.) Plaintiffs assert that "[t]he Disability Waivers can fund a variety of residential services, including individualized housing services." (Id. ¶ 25.) According to Plaintiffs, before individuals receive Disability Waiver services, they must be assessed and deemed qualified in order to be offered "Disability Waiver services as an alternative to services in an institution." (Id. ¶ 68.)

Plaintiffs allege that Disability Waivers may be used to fund residential services in a number of different settings. (Id. ¶ 64.) One possible setting is a Community Residential Setting ("CRS") facility. (Id. at 2, ¶ 64.) Plaintiffs explain that "CRS facilities contain up to five persons, all with disabilities, living in a residence that is owned, leased, operated, and/or controlled by the same organization that provides the services." (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants oversee the licensure of CRS facilities pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 245D. (Id. ¶ 64.) According to Plaintiffs, as of July 2016, nearly 13,800 Disability Waiver recipients in Minnesota resided in approximately 3,457 licensed CRS facilities. (Id. ¶ 65.)

Plaintiffs allege that an alternative model involving individualized housing services exists under the Disability Waivers that would permit individuals to achieve greater integration in the community. (Id. ¶ 7; see also id. ¶¶ 80–83.) According to Plaintiffs, "individualized housing uses Disability Waiver services, including person-centered planning, to design and implement a customized setting for the individual to live, work, and enjoy leisure time in the most integrated setting." (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs identify examples of services offered under Disability Waivers "that help individuals transition from less integrated settings into homes of their own." (Id. ¶ 84.) For example, Plaintiffs identify Consumer Training and Education and Family Training and Counseling "which allows individuals to hire trained person-centered planners to help develop self-advocacy skills and create more individualized service plans, including a personal housing transition plan that will lay the foundation for a move into a more integrated setting." (Id. ¶ 84(a).) Plaintiffs also identify Housing Access Coordination and Transitional Services to assist with moving logistics. (Id. ¶ 84(b).)

Plaintiffs allege that DHS is the Minnesota state agency responsible for overseeing the state's provision of Medicaid, including "Disability Waivers and residential services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, traumatic brain injury

, mental illness, and other disabilities." (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs further allege that Commissioner Johnson Piper administers and manages the Disability Waivers along with overseeing residential service providers such as those who operate CRS facilities. (Id. ¶ 23.)

Plaintiffs assert that "Defendants direct and manage counties," otherwise known as "lead agencies," to administer Disability Waiver services throughout the state. (Id. ¶ 27.) Lead agencies are involved in the initial assessment for Disability Waiver services and are required by Defendants "to develop a support plan for the individual that identifies his or her needs and the types of services necessary and available to meet those needs." (Id. ¶¶ 68–69.) According to Plaintiffs, "DHS regulates all individualized housing services for individuals with disabilities while primarily relying on individual counties and private service providers to provide such services." (Id. ¶ 88.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants permit counties to exercise discretion over "whether to offer individualized housing services." (Id. ¶ 27.) According to Plaintiffs, most counties do not offer such services. (Id. )

II. The Named Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is brought by three named Plaintiffs representing a putative class including "individuals who are receiving a [Disability Waiver] and are living in a [CRS] facility, but want to live elsewhere and be integrated into their community." (Id. at 2.) Each named Plaintiff is an individual with one or more physical, developmental, or cognitive disabilities who receives a Disability Waiver. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 29, 30, 31.)

Plaintiff Tenner Murphy ("Murphy") alleges he is "stuck in the CRS facility because of Defendants' failure to provide an informed choice of integrated alternatives." (Id. ¶ 29(m).) Murphy asserts that his living environment is a segregated setting and that he primarily interacts with other individuals with disabilities and staff. (Id. ¶ 29(k).) Murphy alleges he typically "spends most of his time alone, even though he would prefer to interact with other people." (Id. ¶ 29(g).) He asserts he is not able to control staff hiring or training and cannot decide who he will live with. (Id. ¶ 29(i).) He would prefer to select his own roommates. (Id. ¶ 29(j).) Murphy's guardian "has asked several people at the lead agency about accessing more individualized housing options." (Id. ¶ 29(k).) However, Murphy asserts that Defendants "have prevented [him] from choosing individualized housing services, such as a live-in caregiver that he can hire and train to help him more fully interact with his community and be as integrated as possible." (Id. ¶ 29(m).)

Plaintiff Marrie Bottelson ("Bottelson") "has lived in a CRS facility for about thirteen years" and "would like to hire her own staff and live in her own apartment." (Id. ¶¶ 30(c), 30(g).) Bottelson contends that her ability to spend time in the community is "severely limited" due to staffing in her current residential setting. (Id. ¶¶ 30(e), 30(f).) Specifically, Bottelson "does not get out into the community nearly as much as she would if she were able to create her own schedule." (Id. ) According to Bottelson, "[f]or the past several years, she has asked ... different case managers ... to help her move into her own apartment." (Id. ¶ 30(d).) Bottelson alleges she has requested such help from her case managers to access individualized housing options since as early as 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 30(i), 30(j).) She has been told by case managers "that individualized housing is not a possibility for her," "that such housing was too hard to find," and "that there are no other options for her." (Id. ¶¶ 30(d), 30(i), 30(j).) Bottelson alleges she "needs person-centered planning to help her develop an individualized moving plan and other individualized housing services" to achieve her goals relating to her preferred living arrangement. (Id. ¶ 30(h).) She asserts that she met with a person-centered planner in July 2016 but "has not received all the necessary individualized...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Arc Iowa v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • September 13, 2021
    ...most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.’ " Murphy ex rel. Murphy v. Minn. Dep't of Hum. Servs. , 260 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1114 (D. Minn. 2017) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d) ). "[T]he most integrated setting" is described as "a setting that ......
  • Murphy v. Harpstead, Civil No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • September 27, 2019
    ...its May 2017 Order and otherwise assumes familiarity with the facts and law elaborated therein. See Murphy by Murphy v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs. , 260 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (D. Minn. 2017). To the extent necessary, the Court supplements the facts with new or different information obtained sub......
  • Elder v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • March 31, 2021
    ...the state's settlement authority far outweighs the state's interest in refusing to give notice of it"); Murphy v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1112 (D. Minn. 2017) (applying Mathews factors and concluding that plaintiffs adequately alleged inadequate procedural protect......
  • Summers v. Louisiana
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana
    • September 27, 2022
    ...... Civil Action Nos. 20-21-JWD-SDJ, 20-289-JWD-SDJ, ...at 556. . . Diamond Servs. Corp. v. Oceanografia, S.A. De C.V. ,. No. ... Murphy ex rel. Murphy v. Minn. Dep't of Human. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT