AZ Association v. Hon. Mangum/State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, an Arizona nonprofit corporation; BEVERLY HERMON, individually and as legal guardian for Eric Herman; TONI McCLEOD, as legal guardian for E.K. and R.K.; REEVES FOUNDATION, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABRIO FAMILY SERVICES AND SUPPORTS, INC., an Arizona limited liability company; METRO CARE SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE J. KENNETH MANGUM, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, STATE OF ARIZONA; NEAL YOUNG, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security; and THOMAS BETLACH, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration, Real Parties in Interest. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-SA 10-0031 DIVISION ONE FILED: 04-01-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT B Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV 2009-006509 DECISION ORDER JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF DENIED In this special action, petitioners ask us to reverse the superior court s dismissal of their equal access claim, see 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) ( § 30 ), against real parties in interest, State of Arizona and the Directors, named in their official capacities, of the Arizona Department of Economic Security ( DES ) and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System ( AHCCCS ). Petitioners equal access claim arises out of, first, a 10% reduction in rates paid by DES s Division of Developmental Disabilities ( Division ), to providers for homeand-community-based services for the developmentally disabled, and second, delays in payments made by the Division to its service providers. Because proceedings in this case are ongoing, and an appeal would not present an equally plain and speedy resolution of petitioners challenge to the superior court s dismissal of their § 30 claim, IT IS ORDERED, the court, Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judges participating, in Daniel the A. Barker exercise of and its Peter B. discretion, Swann, accepts special action jurisdiction of this matter, but denies relief. Petitioners, who are service providers and Medicaid beneficiaries (through their legal guardians), do not have an equal access claim organization ( MCO ). 2d __, 2009 WL under § 30 against a managed care See generally G. v. Hawaii, __ F. Supp. 5061578 (D. Haw. Dec. 23, 2009); Medicaid Program; Medicaid Managed Care: New Provisions, 67 Fed. Reg. 2 40,989, 41,036 (June 14, 2002); see Ariz. Ass n of Providers for Persons with Disabilities v. State, 223 Ariz. 6, __, ¶ 42, 219 P.3d 216, 227 (App. 2009) (per curiam). On the record presented, the superior court did not improperly dismiss petitioners equal access claim against the state s MCO. petitioners. We therefore deny the relief requested by In so doing, however, we express no opinion on the effect of § 30, if any, on the establishment or computation of capitation rates paid to MCOs. /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
