Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 97 CIV. 0700 SAS.

Citation44 F.Supp.2d 601
Decision Date19 April 1999
Docket NumberNo. 97 CIV. 0700 SAS.,97 CIV. 0700 SAS.
PartiesJuana RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barbara DeBUONO, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

Leslie Salzman, Cardozo Bet Tzedek Legal Services, New York, NY, Donna Dougherty, Queens Legal Services for the Elderly, Rego Park, NY, Michael Scherz, New York Legal Assistance Group. Yisroel Schulman, New York, NY, for plaintiffs.

James M. Hershler, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, New York, NY, for state defendants.

Michael Hess, Larry Sonnenshein, Mordecai Newman, Adam Kurtz, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York, NY, for City of New York defendants.

Lori A. Alesio, Associate County Attorney, Westchester County, White Plains, NY, for Westchester County defendants.

Derrick Robinson, Assistant County Attorney, Suffolk County, Hauppauge, NY, for Suffolk County defendants.

Michael T. Hopkins, Hopkins, Kopilow & Weil, Garden City, NY, for Nassau County defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

                Table of Contents
                I.   Procedural Background .............................................................. 605
                II.  Legal Standard for a Permanent Injunction .......................................... 607
                III. Discussion ......................................................................... 607
                     A.  Plaintiffs' Medicaid Claim ..................................................... 608
                          1. Legal Standard for a Private Right of Action Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........ 609
                          2. Application of Standard .................................................... 611
                             a. 42 U.S.C. 5 1396a(a)(10)(B) ............................................. 611
                             b. Medicaid Act Regulations ................................................ 612
                          3. The Merits of Plaintiffs' Medicaid Claims .................................. 613
                             a. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(B) ........................................ 613
                             b. Plaintiffs' Regulatory Claims ........................................... 614
                     B.  Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the
                           Rehabilitation Act ........................................................... 614
                          1. Applicability of Anti-Discrimination Statutes to This Case ................. 615
                          2. The Merits of Plaintiffs' ADA and § 504 Claims ........................ 618
                             a. "Qualified Individual" With a Disability ................................ 618
                             b. Plaintiffs Are Excluded From Benefits Because of Discrimination
                                Based on Disability ..................................................... 619
                             c. Reasonable Accommodation ................................................ 619
                                i. Essential Nature of Program .......................................... 619
                                ii. Undue Burden ........................................................ 621
                     C.   Irreparable Harm .............................................................. 623
                IV.  Conclusion ......................................................................... 624
                

This class action, involving the level of care provided to mentally impaired individuals, arises out of a challenge to New York State's design and implementation of its task-based assessment ("TBA") programs. TBA programs are used throughout the State to determine the amount of personal care services hours provided to eligible Medicaid applicants and recipients. Plaintiffs, New York State Medicaid home care applicants and recipients, suffer from mental disabilities, such as Alzheimer's disease that cause them to require assistance with the activities of daily living ("ADL"). Defendants are Barbara A. DeBuono, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, and Brian Wing, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, ("the State"), and the respective Departments of Social Services of the City of New York (the "City"), Nassau County ("Nassau"), Westchester County ("Westchester") and Suffolk County ("Suffolk") (collectively with the State, "Defendants").1

Plaintiffs allege that defendants' refusal to include "safety monitoring" as an independent task discriminates against otherwise eligible cognitively impaired individuals in violation of: (1) the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. and its regulations; (2) § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (3) the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiffs now move for permanent injunctive relief on all three grounds. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs' motion is granted.

I. Procedural Background

Over two years ago, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint and an order to show cause to preliminarily enjoin the State's operation of TBA programs.2 Following a two week hearing, this Court entered an Amended Order ("August 25 Order"), granting in part and denying in part, plaintiffs' request for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.").3 See Rodriguez v. DeBuono, supra. The plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was also granted in part, based on a finding that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of: (1) their safety monitoring claim pursuant to the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(B), and its regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 440.240(b); and (2) plaintiffs' claim that due process requires the City's notices of TBA determinations for applicants and recipients to include the number and allocation of authorized hours. See id. at 157, 164-65.4 However, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to make the required showing with regard to their "span of time"5 claims against the City and Nassau County as well as with the remainder of their notice claims. See id. at 161-63, 165, 167. The Court declined to address plaintiffs' ADA and § 504 claims at that time because the preliminary injunctive relief was based on plaintiffs' other claims. See id. at 161 n. 23.

In September 1997, defendants appealed and sought an order staying the portion of the preliminary injunction requiring them to provide safety monitoring relief pending appeal. This Court granted defendants' motion for a stay. On November 16, 1998, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, without reaching the merits of the appeal, finding that "imminent irreparable harm," an essential requirement for interim relief, had not been shown in light of the District Court's stay pending appeal. See Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 162 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir.1998), opinion amended and superseded by Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227 (2d Cir.1999).

On remand, the parties requested further discovery and settlement negotiations regarding plaintiffs' span of time claim.6 See Transcript of December 2, 1998 ("Dec. 2 Tr.") at 16-17. However, all parties sought a swift resolution of the remaining claims. The parties and the Court agreed that the litigation would take "two tracks" — one being a final resolution of the safety monitoring claim, and the other a settlement track for the span of time claim. See id. at 11. Accordingly, the span of time claim was bifurcated from the safety monitoring claim, and the parties moved for final resolution of the safety monitoring claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).

Rule 54(b) provides in relevant part:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). While the language of the rule does not require the trial court to make either formal findings of fact or conclusions of law in order to certify the judgment under Rule 54(b), I shall nontheless state the reasons justifying the entry of a final order on the safety monitoring claim. See 10 Moore's Federal Practice, § 54.23[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.1999).

First, "a certification under Rule 54(b) should be granted only if there are `interest[s] of sound judicial administration' and efficiency to be served." Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627 (2d Cir.1991) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980)). A court should not enter final judgment on fewer than all the claims in an action if the same or closely related issues remain to be litigated. See Nat'l Bank of Washington v. Dolgov, 853 F.2d 57, 58 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam). Second, "[n]ot all final judgments on individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the remaining unresolved claims." Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460. The district court must determine that the final decision on certain claims is ready for appeal, taking into account the equities involved as well as judicial administrative interests. See id.

Plaintiffs' counsel expressed strong support for Rule 54(b) certification. See Transcript of April 15, 1999 ("Apr. 15 Tr."), at 7-10 (safety monitoring claim is "separable issue factually distinct" from span of time claim; they are "separate questions ... not closely related"; "[o]nce the Court of Appeals addresses the issue of whether the defendants are obligated to provide [safety monitoring], that is not going to be an issue again"). Counsel for defendants the State of New York and Westchester and Nassau Counties agree that it would be "in the interests of justice and the interest of judicial economy" to proceed under Rule 54(b) for a final determination of the "sufficiently separable" safety...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • March 30, 2006
    ...provided to one recipient with those given another and to determine whether those services are comparable." Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 44 F.Supp.2d 601, 611 (S.D.N.Y.1999). This comparison provides courts with an "objective benchmark" in enforcing provisions, namely, the amount, duration, and sc......
  • Johnson v. Guhl
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • April 7, 2000
    ...intended to benefit needy individuals for whom denial of Medicaid eligibility would work an undue hardship. Compare Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 44 F.Supp.2d 601, 611 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd on other grounds, 197 F.3d 611 (2nd Cir.1999) (noting that § 1396(a)(10)(B), which provides that a "State plan ........
  • Johnson v. Guhl, 99-Civ.-5403 (WGB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • February 6, 2004
    ...intended to benefit needy individuals for whom denial of Medicaid eligibility would work an undue hardship. Compare Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 44 F. Supp.2d 601, 611 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd on other grounds, 197 F.3d 611 (2nd Cir. 1999) (noting that § 1396(a)(10)(B), which provides that a "State plan ......
  • Timmer v. The City Univ. of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 13, 2021
    ...episodic impairments are not disabilities, the standard example being a broken leg.” (Def.'s Reply, Dkt. 21, at 3 (quoting Rodriguez, 44 F.Supp.2d at 617).) As noted, Plaintiff alleges a condition that chronically afflicted him for at least four years, and which resulted in a Workers Compen......
  • 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