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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT