Judge approves proposed settlement agreement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has approved a proposed settlement agreement in a class-action lawsuit against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration alleging that an agency policy that doesn’t allow certain Medicaid waiver enrollees to apply for services other than what’s been approved by their case manager is in violation of federal Medicaid law.

Bernis Boatman, by her daughter Diana Wilbur, filed the original action in February 2010 against the then-FSSA Secretary Anne Waltermann Murphy, and the directors of the Division of Aging and Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning, after their case manager did not submit a request for additional services to the Division of Aging. Boatman was enrolled in the Aged & Disabled Waiver Program, and was approved to receive certain services each week or month. When her daughter, who was her primary caretaker, became ill and unable to care for her mother as she had before, the pair asked for additional services from their case manager.

There is no mechanism for someone to request additional services beyond what they had already been approved for, and their class-action suit claimed they were unable to apply for these services because of FSSA policy. The class consists of anyone who is enrolled or will be enrolled in the ADW program operated by FSSA. The FSSA operates five Medicaid waiver programs approved by the federal government, including the ADW program. The Department of Health and Human Services may waive certain requirements of the Medicaid program for states that include as “medical assistance” home and community-based services that are provided to someone, who but for such services, would require the level of care provided in a hospital, nursing facility, or intermediate care facility for the mentally disabled.

The parties stipulated and agreed to enter into a settlement agreement in March 2011. Under the terms of the settlement, when case managers create waiver enrollees’ proposed cost comparison budget and plan of care to submit to the FSSA for approval, case managers must submit a request for services for whatever amount and type of service each waiver enrollee desires. Case managers will be trained that they are now required to submit these requests to FSSA, and if for some reason, the case manager refuses or does not submit the request for services, the waiver enrollee may contact FSSA directly.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in the Southern District of Indiana approved the proposed settlement in Edna Chadwell, et al. v. Michael A. Gargano, et al., No. 1:10-CV-158, finding it to be fair, reasonable and an adequate resolution. The plaintiffs are receiving everything that they could obtain through a final judgment in their favor in the settlement, she wrote, and this settlement spares the continued expense of litigating the matter.

The defendants, who deny all the allegations against them, also agreed to pay $16,000 in attorney fees to the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, who represented the plaintiffs. The parties have 60 days from July 21 to jointly file a status report regarding the ultimate dismissal of the case.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?