ILNews

Court doesn't order contempt sanctions on state

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with the question in an Indiana case of how much non-compliance of a consent decree involving Medicaid applications is needed before a District Court can impose civil contempt sanctions. The issue is before the 7th Circuit because plaintiffs believed Indiana's Medicaid program administrators violated a portion of a consent decree in the handling of applications for the disability program.

The case, LaMont G. Bailey, et al. v. E. Mitchell Roob, Jr., et al., No. 08-3592, has been before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, off and on since 1994 when the plaintiffs and the program administrators agreed to certain terms for the handling of disability applications. Part of the agreement stated the program would compile a complete 12-month medical history before reaching a decision on the application, but it didn't define "complete." The plaintiffs claimed the program violated the decree by relying on summary forms rather than compiling an applicant's complete medical history; they filed a petition to hold the administrators in contempt in 2006.

The District Court determined that only nine of the 26 sample files introduced by administrators were less than complete than others presented and that five contained only a summary form 251A that physicians complete but no medical records. The District Court didn't find administrators in contempt because the plaintiffs didn't meet the burden for a civil contempt petition and invited them to re-file their motion with more information, but the plaintiffs instead appealed to the 7th Circuit.

The 7th Circuit ruled the District Court didn't commit a clear legal error by requiring the plaintiffs to demonstrate Indiana Medicaid's lack of reasonable diligence because the Circuit's caselaw requires the party seeking sanctions to demonstrate that the opposing party is in violation of a court order by clear and convincing evidence. Also, there must be evidence a party willfully refused to comply with a court order or wasn't "reasonably diligent" in carrying out the terms of the order, wrote Judge Joel M. Flaum.

On the issue how much non-compliance is needed to impose civil contempt sanctions, the 7th Circuit concluded the District Court didn't abuse its discretion by ruling the plaintiffs hadn't produced clear and convincing evidence of the state's violation of the court order. Due to the inconclusive nature by the parties as to what makes a "complete" medical history, the District Court couldn't make any factual findings about whether or not they were incompliance with the consent decree. In addition, the plaintiffs cited caselaw outside the civil contempt context by using cases seeking injunctive or equitable relief. Based on the lack of evidence, sanctions aren't warranted, Judge Flaum wrote.

Finally, on the issue of whether the District Court erred by not interpreting "complete medical history" as always requiring copies of a treating physician's records, Judge Flaum wrote, "Based on this record we are not prepared to hold categorically that an agency can never use a summary form when developing that record or that the absence of any document from a physician within the last twelve months, whatever its relevance, is a violation of the regulations."

The 7th Circuit's ruling doesn't foreclose all future claims on this issue from the plaintiffs, and the District Court did indicate it would be willing to hear future claims with a greater fact-finding on the meaning of "complete medical history," he wrote.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT