ILNews

ACLU of Indiana files class-action lawsuit against FSSA for changes to Medicaid waiver programs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The ACLU of Indiana has slapped the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration with a class-action lawsuit over the way the state agency operates two of its Medicaid waiver programs.

Filed Friday in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, the lawsuit alleges that policy changes made in late 2012 and early 2013 to two Medicaid wavier programs have put Hoosiers at “grave risk of immediate and irreparable harm in the community.”

The two programs are the Community Integration and Habilitation Waiver and the Aged and Disabled Waiver.

These programs, according to the ACLU of Indiana, serve thousand of Hoosiers, offering services that enable them to live in their community even though their disabling conditions would otherwise require that they be institutionalized.

The lawsuit, Karla Steimel, et. al. v. Debra Minott, et. al., 1:13-CV-957-JMS-MJD, alleges the agency’s policies violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

“The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that the state provide services to individuals with disabilities in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs,” said ACLU of Indiana staff attorney Gavin Rose. “Right now, Indiana is not living up to that mandate.”

As part of the policy changes, the FSSA eliminated entirely a waiting list for the CIH Waiver. It instead moved to determining that only individuals who meet certain “priority criteria” may receive placement on that waiver.

Historically, the FSSA has maintained a waiting list for the CIH Waiver which often delayed services for needy individuals for 10 to 15 years. Under the new rules, the ACLU of Indiana asserts, many people who once would have been eligible to receive services through the program can never become eligible.

Also, the agency recently decided that individuals with developmental disabilities who do not required skilled nursing services, such as assistance with a ventilator or medication administration, may no longer received services through the A&D Waiver.    

The lead plaintiff in the case, Karla Steimel brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of three classes of those similarly situated.  

Steimel is a 27-year-old Knox County resident who has cerebral palsy along with physical disabilities. She lives by herself in the community but requires complete assistance for daily activities like bathing, preparing meals and running errands.

She has been on the waiting list for the CIH Waiver for at least 12 years but she was removed around Sept. 1, 2012.

Through the A&D Waiver, Steimel receives about 160 hours each month of attendant care services. This includes transportation to the Knox County ARC where she is employed and receives employment-related services five days a week.

The suit requests the court issue a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, requiring the FSSA to re-instate the waiting list for placement on the CIH Waiver, eliminate any requirement that individuals meet the agency’s priority criteria to be placed on the waiting list and provide sufficient slots through this waiver for the waiting list to move at a reasonable pace.

Also, the suit requests a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to continue providing services through the A&D Waiver.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT