Fitzmorris et al v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner et al, No. 1:2021cv00025 - Document 126 (D.N.H. 2023)

Court Description: ///ORDER granting 101 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(js)

Download PDF

Fitzmorris et al v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner et al Doc. 126 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 1 of 17 U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AM P S H I R E E m ily F i t zm o r r is , e t a l. v. Ca se No. 21-cv-25-P B Opin ion No. 2023 DNH 025 New H a m p sh ir e Dep a r t m en t of H e a lt h a n d H u m a n S e r v i c e s C o m m is s io n e r L o r i We a v e r 1 , e t a l. ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R P la in t iffs in t h is pu t a t ive cla ss a ct ion a r e disa bled in dividu a ls wh o a r e en r olled in New H a m psh ir e’s Ch oices for In depen den ce (“CF I”) wa iver pr ogr a m , a Medica id pr ogr a m a dm in ist er ed by t h e New H a m psh ir e Depa r t m en t of H ea lt h a n d H u m a n Ser vices (“DH H S”). Th e CF I Wa iver pr ogr a m pr ovides h om e a n d com m u n it y-ba sed ca r e ser vices t o a du lt s wh o ot h er wise wou ld be Medica id-eligible for n u r sin g h om e ca r e. P la in t iffs a llege t h a t DH H S a n d it s Com m ission er h a ve fa iled t o r em edy defect s in t h e a dm in ist r a t ion of t h e pr ogr a m , lea din g t o sign ifica n t ga ps in pla in t iffs’ ser vices. P la in t iffs filed a com pla in t on beh a lf of t h em selves a n d a pu t a t ive cla ss of sim ila r ly sit u a t ed in dividu a ls a llegin g, a m on g ot h er t h in gs, t h a t DH H S viola t es t h e Medica id Act a n d t h e F ou r t een t h Am en dm en t ’s Du e 1 Th e in it ia l com pla in t wa s filed a ga in st t h en -Com m ission er Lor i Sh ibin et t e, wh o h a s sin ce been su cceeded by Act in g Com m ission er Lor i Wea ver . Th e ca se ca pt ion h a s been u pda t ed a ccor din gly. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 2 of 17 P r ocess Cla u se by fa ilin g t o pr ovide pla in t iffs wit h n ot ice a n d a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g wh en t h ey do n ot r eceive a ll t h e ser vices t h ey h a ve been a u t h or ized t o r eceive. Defen da n t s n ow m ove for pa r t ia l su m m a r y ju dgm en t , a r gu in g t h a t n eit h er t h e Medica id Act n or t h e Du e P r ocess Cla u se r equ ir e su ch pr ocedu r a l pr ot ect ion s. I a gr ee, a n d t h er efor e gr a n t defen da n t s’ m ot ion for pa r t ia l su m m a r y ju dgm en t . I. B AC KG R O U N D Th e CF I wa iver pr ogr a m ser ves Medica id-eligible a du lt s wh o clin ica lly qu a lify for n u r sin g h om e ser vices, bu t “pr efer t o be ca r ed for a t h om e or in ot h er set t in gs less a cu t e t h a n a n u r sin g fa cilit y.” N.H . Rev. St a t . An n . §§ 151E :1; 151-E :3. Wh en DH H S det er m in es t h a t a n in dividu a l is eligible for t h e pr ogr a m , t h e in dividu a l is pa ir ed wit h a ca se m a n a gem en t a gen cy. N.H . Code Adm in . R. H e-E 805.07. Th e ca se m a n a gem en t a gen cy wor ks wit h t h e in dividu a l t o obt a in DH H S a u t h or iza t ion for a n y h om e or com m u n it y-ba sed ca r e ser vices t h a t t h e in dividu a l n eeds t o sa fely r eside in t h e com m u n it y a n d a void in st it u t ion a liza t ion . See id. H e-E 801.05. On ce ser vices a r e a u t h or ized, t h ey m a y be cover ed by t h e st a t e. See id. H e-E 801.12. Th e ca se m a n a gem en t a gen cy is t a sk ed wit h coor din a t in g a n in dividu a l’s wa iver ser vices, wh ich a r e deliver ed by pr iva t e ser vice pr ovider s. See id. H e-E 805.05. Non et h eless, t h e pr oper a dm in ist r a t ion of t h e CF I pr ogr a m a n d t h e pr ovision of wa iver 2 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 3 of 17 ser vices r em a in s t h e u lt im a t e r espon sibilit y of DH H S. See P r ice v. Sh ibin et t e, 2021 DNH 179, 2021 WL 5397864, a t *12 (D.N .H . Nov. 18, 2021). P la in t iffs a r e CF I wa iver pa r t icipa n t s wh o h a ve been a u t h or ized t o r eceive a n a r r a y of ser vices, in clu din g per son a l ca r e a n d skilled n u r sin g ser vices. See Doc. 80-4 a t 3-4; Doc. 80-5 a t 3-5. P la in t iffs com pla in t h a t t h ey “su ffer pr ot r a ct ed dela ys in t h e on set of a ll or pa r t of t h eir wa iver ser vices, fr equ en t in t er r u pt ion s in t h eir wa iver ser vices, a n d/or t h e expect ed cessa t ion of t h eir wa iver ser vices,” a llegedly du e t o t h e st a t e’s m a la dm in ist r a t ion of t h e CF I wa iver pr ogr a m . Doc. 1 a t 8-9. Th ey a sser t t h a t t h ese so-ca lled “ser vice ga ps” a r e a dir ect r esu lt of DH H S’s fa ilu r e t o (1) a t t r a ct or r ecr u it en ou gh ser vice pr ovider s for cer t a in wa iver ser vices, (2) a dequ a t ely m on it or wh et h er CF I pa r t icipa n t s a r e r eceivin g t h eir a u t h or ized wa iver ser vices, a n d (3) t a ke a ppr opr ia t e a ct ion wh en n ot ified of ser vice ga ps. See id. a t 9-13. It is u n dispu t ed t h a t DH H S does n ot pr ovide eit h er n ot ice or a n a u t om a t ic r igh t t o a h ea r in g wh en CF I wa iver pa r t icipa n t s exper ien ce ser vice ga ps. See Doc. 112-2 a t 8-10; Doc. 112-3 a t 8. Alt h ou gh pla in t iffs h a ve a sser t ed m u lt iple cla im s, defen da n t s seek su m m a r y ju dgm en t on ly a s t o Cou n t s VI a n d VII, wh ich a llege t h a t defen da n t s’ fa ilu r e t o pr ovide n ot ice a n d a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g wh er e “ser vice ga ps a n d/or dela ys con st it u t e a n effect ive r edu ct ion , den ia l, or 3 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 4 of 17 t er m in a t ion of ser vices” viola t es bot h t h e Medica id Act a n d t h e Du e P r ocess Cla u se. See Doc. 112-1 a t 6; see a lso Doc. 101-1 a t 2. II. S T AN D AR D O F R E VI E W Su m m a r y ju dgm en t is a ppr opr ia t e wh en t h e r ecor d r evea ls “n o gen u in e dispu t e a s t o a n y m a t er ia l fa ct a n d t h e m ova n t is en t it led t o ju dgm en t a s a m a t t er of la w.” F ed. R. Civ. P . 56(a ); Ta n g v. Cit izen s Ba n k, N.A., 821 F .3d 206, 215 (1st Cir . 2016). In t h is con t ext , a “m a t er ia l fa ct ” is on e t h a t h a s t h e “pot en t ia l t o a ffect t h e ou t com e of t h e su it .” Ch er ka ou i v. Cit y of Qu in cy, 877 F .3d 14, 23 (1st Cir . 2017) (qu ot in g Sa n ch ez v. Alva r a do, 101 F .3d 223, 227 (1st Cir . 1996)). A “gen u in e dispu t e” exist s if a fa ct fin der cou ld r esolve t h e dispu t ed fa ct in t h e n on m ova n t ’s fa vor . E llis v. F id. Mgm t . Tr . Co., 883 F .3d 1, 7 (1st Cir . 2018). Th e m ova n t bea r s t h e in it ia l bu r den of pr esen t in g eviden ce t h a t “it believes dem on st r a t e t h e a bsen ce of a gen u in e issu e of m a t er ia l fa ct .” Celot ex Cor p. v. Ca t r et t , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); a ccor d Ir obe v. U .S. Dep’t of Agr ic., 890 F .3d 371, 377 (1st Cir . 2018). On ce t h e m ova n t h a s pr oper ly pr esen t ed su ch eviden ce, t h e bu r den sh ift s t o t h e n on m ova n t t o design a t e “specific fa ct s sh owin g t h a t t h er e is a gen u in e issu e for t r ia l,” Celot ex, 477 U.S. a t 324, a n d t o “dem on st r a t e t h a t a t r ier of fa ct cou ld r ea son a bly r esolve t h a t issu e in [t h eir ] fa vor .” Ir obe, 890 F .3d a t 377 (qu ot in g Bor ges ex r el. S.M.B.W. v. Ser r a n o-Iser n , 605 F .3d 1, 5 (1st Cir . 2010)). If t h e n on m ova n t fa ils t o a ddu ce 4 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 5 of 17 su ch eviden ce on wh ich a r ea son a ble fa ct fin der cou ld ba se a fa vor a ble ver dict , t h e m ot ion m u st be gr a n t ed. Celot ex, 477 U.S. a t 324. In con sider in g t h e eviden ce, t h e cou r t m u st dr a w a ll r ea son a ble in fer en ces in t h e n on m ovin g pa r t y’s fa vor . Th er ia u lt v. Gen esis H ea lt h Ca r e LLC, 890 F .3d 342, 348 (1st Cir . 2018). III. AN AL YS I S P la in t iffs ba se t h eir n ot ice a n d h ea r in g cla im s on bot h t h e Medica id Act (Cou n t VII) a n d t h e Du e P r ocess Cla u se (Cou n t VI). Defen da n t s seek su m m a r y ju dgm en t on bot h cou n t s. I begin wit h t h e Medica id Act cla im . A. Me d ic a i d Ac t As a st a t e Medica id pla n a u t h or ized pu r su a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1396n , t h e CF I wa iver pr ogr a m m u st com ply wit h cer t a in feder a lly-im posed con dit ion s. See Br yson v. Sh u m wa y, 308 F .3d 79, 83-84 (1st Cir . 2002). On e su ch con dit ion is t h a t a st a t e pla n m u st “pr ovide for gr a n t in g a n oppor t u n it y for a fa ir h ea r in g befor e t h e St a t e a gen cy t o a n y in dividu a l wh ose cla im for m edica l a ssist a n ce u n der t h e pla n is den ied or is n ot a ct ed u pon wit h r ea son a ble pr om pt n ess.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a )(3). Th e r egu la t ion s t h a t im plem en t t h is con dit ion (“F a ir H ea r in g Regu la t ion s”) specify t h a t a st a t e a gen cy m u st h old a h ea r in g u pon a r equ est fr om a n a pplica n t or ben eficia r y wh o “believes t h e a gen cy h a s t a ken a n a ct ion er r on eou sly, den ied h is or h er cla im for eligibilit y or for cover ed ben efit s or 5 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 6 of 17 ser vices, or issu ed a det er m in a t ion of a n in dividu a l’s lia bilit y, or h a s n ot a ct ed u pon t h e cla im wit h r ea son a ble pr om pt n ess[.]” 42 C.F .R. § 431.220(a )(1). Th e r egu la t ion s a lso r equ ir e a st a t e a gen cy t o n ot ify a n in dividu a l of t h eir r igh t t o a h ea r in g “[a ]t t h e t im e t h e a gen cy den ies a n in dividu a l’s cla im for eligibilit y, ben efit s or ser vice . . . or t a k es ot h er a ct ion , a s defin ed a t § 431.201, or wh en ever a h ea r in g is ot h er wise r equ ir ed in a ccor da n ce wit h § 431.220(a ).” 42 C.F .R. § 431.206(c)(2). An “a ct ion ” in clu des “a t er m in a t ion , su spen sion of, or r edu ct ion in cover ed ben efit s or ser vices[.]” 42 C.F .R. § 431.201. Wh en a st a t e a gen cy is r equ ir ed t o pr ovide n ot ice u n der § 431.206(c), t h e n ot ice m u st in for m a n a pplica n t (1) of t h eir r igh t t o a h ea r in g, (2) of t h e m et h od by wh ich t h e a pplica n t m a y obt a in a h ea r in g, (3) t h a t t h e a pplica n t m a y be self-r epr esen t ed or r epr esen t ed by cou n sel, a r ela t ive, or a n ot h er spokesper son , a n d (4) t h e t im e fr a m es by wh ich t h e a gen cy m u st t a ke fin a l a dm in ist r a t ive a ct ion . 42 C.F .R. § 431.206(b). Am on g ot h er t h in gs, t h e n ot ice m u st a lso in clu de “[a ] st a t em en t of wh a t a ct ion t h e a gen cy . . . in t en ds t o t a ke a n d t h e effect ive da t e of su ch a ct ion .” 42 C.F .R. § 431.210(a ). P la in t iffs pr esen t t wo a r gu m en t s t o su ppor t t h eir con t en t ion t h a t t h e F a ir H ea r in g Regu la t ion s give t h em a r igh t t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g on t h eir ser vice ga p cla im s. F ir st , t h ey a r gu e t h a t t h eir r igh t t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g h a s been t r igger ed beca u se t h ey m a de “cla im s” for ser vices t h a t defen da n t s 6 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 7 of 17 effect ively “den ied” wh en t h ey fa iled t o close t h eir ser vice ga ps. In t h e a lt er n a t ive, pla in t iffs a r gu e t h a t t h ey a r e en t it led t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g beca u se defen da n t s effect ively t ook a n “a ct ion ” t o t er m in a t e, su spen d, or r edu ce t h eir cover ed ser vices wh en t h ey fa iled t o close t h e ser vice ga ps. I exa m in e ea ch a r gu m en t in t u r n . 1. Den ia l of a Cla im for Ser vices P la in t iffs pr im a r ily r ely on ca se la w t o su ppor t t h eir posit ion t h a t a st a t e a gen cy “den ies” a “cla im ” for ser vices wh en ever it fa ils t o deliver ser vices t h a t t h e a gen cy h a s a u t h or ized a n in dividu a l t o r eceive. I ca n n ot a ccept pla in t iffs’ a r gu m en t , h owever , beca u se it is ba sed on a m isr ea din g of t h e F a ir H ea r in g Regu la t ion s. Beca u se t h e r egu la t ion s do n ot defin e t h e t er m s “cla im ” or “den ies”/ “den ied,” I con st r u e t h em in a ccor da n ce wit h t h eir “pla in a n d or din a r y m ea n in g.” Un it ed St a t es v. La ch m a n , 387 F .3d 42, 50-51 (1st Cir . 2004) (clea n ed u p). A “cla im ” is com m on ly u n der st ood t o m ea n “a dem a n d for som et h in g du e or believed t o be du e.” See Cla im , Mer r ia m -Webst er Dict ion a r y On lin e, h t t ps://www.m er r ia m -webst er .com /dict ion a r y/cla im (la st visit ed Ma r ch 27, 2023). Th is is h ow t h e t er m “cla im ” is u sed t h r ou gh ou t bot h 42 U.S.C. § 1396a a n d t h e Medica id Act , see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1396r -8, a n d it is t h e wa y a “cla im ” is defin ed elsewh er e in Ch a pt er 7 of Tit le 42, see 42 U.S.C. § 1320a -7a (i)(2) (defin in g “cla im ” a s “a n a pplica t ion for pa ym en t s for 7 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 8 of 17 it em s a n d ser vices u n der a F eder a l h ea lt h ca r e pr ogr a m ”). Th e t er m s “den ies” a n d “den ied” a r e for m s of t h e ver b “den y,” wh ich in t h is con t ext is com m on ly u n der st ood t o m ea n “t o r efu se t o gr a n t .” See Den y, Mer r ia m -Webst er Dict ion a r y On lin e, h t t ps://www.m er r ia m -webst er .com /dict ion a r y/den y (la st visit ed Ma r ch 27, 2023). P la in t iffs do n ot pr ovide m e wit h a n y r ea son t o devia t e fr om t h ese com m on ly u n der st ood m ea n in gs. Th u s, I a pply t h em in con st r u in g §§ 431.206(c)(2) a n d 431.220. In t h e pr esen t ca se, t h e on ly “cla im s” pla in t iffs m a de for CF I wa iver ser vices a r e t h eir in it ia l a pplica t ion s for ser vices, wh ich defen da n t s a ppr oved. P la in t iffs do n ot a r gu e t h a t defen da n t s ever r evoked t h eir a ppr ova ls. In st ea d, t h ey con t en d t h a t defen da n t s la t er effect ively “den ied” t h eir cla im s wh en t h ey fa iled t o close pla in t iffs’ ser vice ga ps. Th u s, pla in t iffs’ a r gu m en t a m ou n t s t o a con t en t ion t h a t a st a t e a gen cy “den ies” a cla im for ser vices wh en ever it fa ils t o pr ovide pr eviou sly a u t h or ized ser vices. P la in t iffs’ a r gu m en t ca n n ot st a n d beca u se it a ssign s a m ea n in g t o t h e t er m s “den ies” a n d “den ied” t h a t is con t r a r y t o t h e wa y in wh ich t h ese t er m s a r e u sed in §§ 431.206(c) a n d 431.220. P la in t iffs’ in t er pr et a t ion is a lso in con sist en t wit h t h e st a t u t or y con t ext in wh ich t h e t er m “den ied” is u sed. Sect ion 1396a pr ovides t h a t a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g m a y be r equ ir ed wh er e a “cla im for m edica l a ssist a n ce . . . is den ied or is n ot a ct ed u pon wit h r ea son a ble pr om pt n ess.” 8 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 9 of 17 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a )(3) (em ph a sis a dded). If a fa ilu r e t o a ct ca n con st it u t e a den ia l of a cla im , a s pla in t iffs posit , t h er e wou ld be n o r ea son for t h e st a t u t e t o dr a w a dist in ct ion bet ween t h e t wo con cept s. Th a t dist in ct ion , h owever , is m ea n in gfu lly im plem en t ed in t h e F a ir H ea r in g Regu la t ion s. Wh en a st a t e a gen cy fa ils t o a ct wit h r ea son a ble pr om pt n ess, t h e r egu la t ion s pr ovide t h a t t h e r igh t t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g is t r igger ed u pon r equ est fr om t h e a pplica n t or ben eficia r y. See 42 C.F .R. § 431.220(a )(1); 42 C.F .R. § 431.206(c)(2). By con t r a st , t h e r igh t t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g st em m in g fr om a den ia l is t r igger ed by som e a ffir m a t ive a ct on t h e pa r t of t h e a gen cy. See 42 C.F .R. § 431.206(c)(2). Com m on sen se su ggest s t h e r a t ion a le for t h is differ en ce: t h e st a t e a gen cy m u st be a wa r e t h a t it s obliga t ion t o pr ovide n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g h a s a r isen . Th e a gen cy ga in s t h a t a wa r en ess eit h er wh en it a ct s a ffir m a t ively or wh en t h e a pplica n t a ler t s it t o it s fa ilu r e t o a ct . Th u s, a con t ext u a l r ea din g of t h e st a t u t e a n d it s im plem en t in g r egu la t ion s sh ows t h a t a “den ia l” of a “cla im ” en t a ils m or e t h a n m er e in a ct ion , su ch a s t h e st a t e a gen cy’s fa ilu r e t o close ser vice ga ps. Ra t h er t h a n focu sin g on t h e t ext of t h e st a t u t e or t h e F a ir H ea r in g Regu la t ion s, pla in t iffs r ely on Mu r ph y ex r el. Mu r ph y v. H a r pst ea d, 421 F . Su pp. 3d 695 (D. Min n . 2019), for t h e pr oposit ion t h a t a st a t e a gen cy m u st pr ovide n ot ice wh en ever it fa ils t o pr ovide ser vices t h a t t h e cla im a n t h a s been a u t h or ized t o r eceive. In Mu r ph y, pla in t iffs h a d been a u t h or ized t o 9 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 10 of 17 r eceive cer t a in ser vices u n der a wa iver pr ogr a m , bu t t h e st a t e a gen cy fa iled t o a ppr ove t h eir in for m a l r equ est s for a ddit ion a l ser vices. See id. a t 707-08; see a lso Mu r ph y ex r el. Mu r ph y v. Min n . Dep’t of H u m . Ser vs., 260 F . Su pp. 3d 1084, 1108 (D. Min n . 2017). In h oldin g t h a t t h e st a t e a gen cy wa s r equ ir ed t o pr ovide pla in t iffs wit h n ot ice of t h eir r igh t t o a h ea r in g, t h e cou r t det er m in ed bot h t h a t a n in for m a l r equ est for a ddit ion a l ser vices ca n qu a lify a s a “cla im ” a n d t h a t a n a gen cy’s fa ilu r e t o a ppr ove a ll t h e ser vices r equ est ed ca n con st it u t e a “den ia l” of t h e cla im . See Mu r ph y, 421 F . Su pp. 3d a t 708. Th e cou r t did n ot , h owever , con clu de t h a t a st a t e a gen cy’s m er e fa ilu r e t o deliver a u t h or ized ser vices ca n be t r ea t ed a s a den ia l. Beca u se t h e pr esen t ca se in volves a fa ilu r e by defen da n t s t o deliver a u t h or ized ser vices r a t h er t h a n a r efu sa l by defen da n t s t o gr a n t a r equ est for ser vices, Mu r ph y is sim ply n ot a r eleva n t pr eceden t . 2. Ter m in a t ion , Su spen sion , or Redu ct ion of Ser vices P la in t iffs’ a lt er n a t ive a r gu m en t t h a t t h ey a r e en t it led t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g beca u se defen da n t s’ fa ilu r e t o close t h eir ser vice ga ps is a n “a ct ion ” u n der §§ 431.206(c) a n d 431.220(a ) a lso fa ils t o per su a de. Sect ion 431.201 defin es a n “a ct ion ” in per t in en t pa r t a s a “t er m in a t ion , su spen sion of, or r edu ct ion in cover ed ben efit s or ser vices[.]” 42 C.F .R. § 431.201. A “t er m in a t ion ,” in t u r n , is com m on ly u n der st ood a s “t h e a ct of t er m in a t in g,” Ter m in a t ion , Mer r ia m -Webst er Dict ion a r y On lin e, h t t ps://www.m er r ia m 10 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 11 of 17 webst er .com /dict ion a r y/t er m in a t ion (la st visit ed Ma r ch 27, 2023); a “su spen sion ” is “t h e a ct of su spen din g,” Su spen sion , Mer r ia m -Webst er Dict ion a r y On lin e, h t t ps://www.m er r ia m -webst er .com /dict ion a r y/su spen sion (la st visit ed Ma r ch 27, 2023); a n d a “r edu ct ion ” is “t h e a ct or pr ocess of r edu cin g,” Redu ct ion , Mer r ia m -Webst er Dict ion a r y On lin e, h t t ps://www.m er r ia m -webst er .com /dict ion a r y/r edu ct ion (la st visit ed Ma r ch 27, 2023). Th e com m on ch a r a ct er ist ic in a ll t h r ee defin it ion s is t h a t a st a t e a gen cy m u st u n der t a ke a n a ct ion t h a t t er m in a t es, su spen ds, or r edu ces a cover ed ben efit or ser vice. Cf. N.B. ex r el. P ea cock v. Dist r ict of Colu m bia , 794 F .3d 31, 40 (D.C. Cir . 2015) (r elyin g on sim ila r dict ion a r y defin it ion s a n d expla in in g t h a t a ll t h r ee t er m s “in volve a ch a n ge in , n ot m er e m a in t en a n ce of, exist in g con dit ion s”). H er e, t h e r equ ir em en t of a n a ct ion is n ot sa t isfied by defen da n t s’ a lleged fa ilu r e t o close pla in t iffs’ ser vice ga ps. Th e n ot ice pr ocedu r es a st a t e a gen cy m u st follow wh en it t a kes a n “a ct ion ” fu r t h er u n der cu t s pla in t iffs’ a r gu m en t t h a t a fa ilu r e t o close ser vice ga ps ca n be a n “a ct ion ” t h a t t r igger s a r igh t t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g. E xcept in a lim it ed su bset of cir cu m st a n ces t h a t do n ot a pply h er e, a st a t e a gen cy m u st sen d t h e n ot ice r equ ir ed by § 431.206(c) “a t lea st 10 da ys befor e t h e da t e of t h e a ct ion .” 42 C.F .R. § 431.211. Th e r egu la t ion s a lso pr ovide t h a t t h e h ea r in g n ot ice m u st in clu de a st a t em en t of t h e a ct ion t h a t t h e a gen cy “in t en ds t o t a ke a n d t h e effect ive da t e of su ch a ct ion .” 42 C.F .R. § 431.210(a ) 11 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 12 of 17 (em ph a sis a dded). It is difficu lt t o con ceive of a wa y in wh ich a st a t e a gen cy cou ld com ply wit h t h ese r equ ir em en t s if a fa ilu r e t o close a ser vice ga p cou ld be deem ed t o be a n “a ct ion ” r equ ir in g a h ea r in g n ot ice. P la in t iffs cit e t o t wo dist r ict cou r t ca ses for t h e pr oposit ion t h a t a st a t e a gen cy t a kes a n “a ct ion ” wit h in t h e m ea n in g of § 431.201 wh en it does som et h in g t h a t h a s t h e pr a ct ica l effect of t er m in a t in g or r edu cin g a ben eficia r y’s ser vices. See H a ym on s v. Willia m s, 795 F . Su pp. 1511, 1522 (M.D. F la . 1992) (h oldin g t h a t n ot ice wa s r equ ir ed wh er e t h e st a t e disqu a lified cer t a in ser vice pr ovider s fr om pr ovidin g ser vices beca u se t h ey ser ved in dividu a ls t h a t t h e st a t e la t er det er m in ed t o be in eligible); La dd v. Th om a s, 962 F . Su pp. 284, 293 (D. Con n . 1997) (con clu din g t h a t n ot ice wa s r equ ir ed wh er e t h e st a t e a ppr oved a r equ est for a u t h or iza t ion in a m odified for m ). Th ose ca ses, h owever , in volved a ffir m a t ive a ct s by t h e r eleva n t st a t e a gen cies. Th ey do n ot go so fa r a s t o h old t h a t a st a t e a gen cy t a kes a n “a ct ion ” wh en ever it s fa ilu r e t o a ct h a s t h e pr a ct ica l effect of t er m in a t in g or r edu cin g a ben eficia r y’s ser vices. In deed, t h e pa r t ies h a ve n ot cit ed t o, a n d I h a ve n ot loca t ed, a n y ca ses t h a t t r ea t a fa ilu r e t o a ct a s a n a ct ion wit h in t h e m ea n in g of § 431.201. 2 P la in t iffs’ posit ion is t h er efor e u n su ppor t ed by bot h 2 P la in t iffs a lso cit e t o Br yson v. Sh u m wa y, 177 F . Su pp. 2d 78 (D.N.H . 2001), va ca t ed by 308 F .3d 79 (1st Cir . 2002), a n d Ca ssidy v. Zu cker , 17-cv03397, 2021 WL 4472592 (E .D.N.Y. Sept . 30, 2021). Th ose ca ses, h owever , do 12 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 13 of 17 t h e pla in la n gu a ge of t h e F a ir H ea r in g Regu la t ion s a n d t h e r eleva n t ca se la w. B. D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e P la in t iffs n ext a r gu e t h a t t h e Du e P r ocess Cla u se r equ ir es n ot ice a n d a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g, even if t h e Medica id Act does n ot . P la in t iffs a ppea r t o ba se t h eir cla im on Goldber g v. Kelly, wh ich h eld t h a t t h e Du e P r ocess Cla u se r equ ir es n ot ice a n d a n eviden t ia r y h ea r in g befor e welfa r e ben efit s m a y be t er m in a t ed. See 397 U .S. 254, 264 (1970); see a lso Doc. 1 a t 39; Doc. 112-1 a t 5. In pla in t iffs’ view, beca u se defen da n t s’ fa ilu r e t o pr ovide a ll t h e ser vices t h ey h a ve been a u t h or ized t o r eceive con st it u t es a n effect ive t er m in a t ion of t h ose ser vices, n ot ice a n d a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g a r e con st it u t ion a lly r equ ir ed. Goldber g, h owever , dea lt wit h a n officia l t er m in a t ion of ben efit s t h r ou gh a gen cy a dju dica t ion , n ot t h e effect ive t er m in a t ion of ben efit s t h r ou gh in a ct ion . See id. a t 257-58. Nor does it s r ea son in g ext en d t o ca ses wh er e a n ot con sider t h e m ea n in g of a n “a ct ion ” a s defin ed in § 431.201. See Br yson , 177 F . Su pp. 2d a t 98 (in t er pr et in g t h e m ea n in g of “den ied” in 42 U .S.C. § 1396a (a )(3)); Ca ssidy, 2021 WL 4472592, a t *6 (in t er pr et in g t h e t er m “a dver se ben efit det er m in a t ion ” a s defin ed in 42 C.F .R. § 438.400). In a n y even t , t h ose ca ses r equ ir ed n ot ice on ly in r espon se t o a n a ffir m a t ive a ct by t h e st a t e, r a t h er t h a n a m er e fa ilu r e t o a ct . See Br yson , 177 F . Su pp. 2d a t 98 (pla cin g a pplica n t s for wa iver ser vices on a wa it in g list ); Ca ssidy, 2021 WL 4472592, a t *6 (t r a n sfer r in g ben eficia r ies t o a n ew m a n a ged lon g t er m ca r e pr ovider ). 13 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 14 of 17 cla im a n t is u n a ble t o obt a in a n a u t h or ized ben efit beca u se of defen da n t s’ in a ct ion . Key t o t h e Su pr em e Cou r t ’s r ea son in g in Goldber g wa s t h e weigh t y in t er est in t h e “u n in t er r u pt ed pr ovision [of welfa r e] t o t h ose eligible t o r eceive it ,” wh ich cou ld on ly be a ch ieved t h r ou gh a pr e-t er m in a t ion h ea r in g. See id. a t 265. Yet t h a t in t er est is in a pplica ble wh er e, a s h er e, t h e cla im ed n ot ice a n d h ea r in g r igh t s on ly m a t er ia lize a ft er a ben eficia r y h a s been u n a ble t o obt a in ser vices t h a t defen da n t s h a ve a u t h or ized t h em t o r eceive. Mor eover , t h e sin gu la r pu r pose of t h e pr e-t er m in a t ion h ea r in gs in Goldber g wa s t o exa m in e “t h e va lidit y of t h e welfa r e depa r t m en t ’s gr ou n ds for discon t in u a n ce of pa ym en t s in or der t o pr ot ect a r ecipien t a ga in st a n er r on eou s t er m in a t ion of h is ben efit s.” Id. a t 267. Th a t ca n n ot occu r wh er e, a s h er e, t h er e h a s been n o decision by t h e st a t e a gen cy for a h ea r in g officer t o r eview. Accor din gly, n eit h er t h e h oldin g n or t h e r ea son in g of Goldber g m a n da t es t h e pr ocedu r a l pr ot ect ion s t h a t pla in t iffs seek. Of cou r se, Goldber g is n ot t h e on ly sou r ce of pr ocedu r a l du e pr ocess r igh t s. Ra t h er , pr ocedu r a l du e pr ocess r equ ir em en t s va r y wit h cir cu m st a n ce a n d m u st be det er m in ed by ca r efu lly ba la n cin g t h e in t er est s a t pla y. See Ma t h ews v. E ldr idge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976). Accor din gly, wh et h er a ddit ion a l pr ocedu r a l pr ot ect ion s a r e con st it u t ion a lly r equ ir ed t u r n s on (1) “t h e pr iva t e in t er est t h a t will be a ffect ed by t h e officia l a ct ion ,” (2) “t h e r isk of er r on eou s depr iva t ion of su ch in t er est t h r ou gh t h e pr ocedu r es u sed, a n d 14 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 15 of 17 t h e pr oba ble va lu e, if a n y, of a ddit ion a l or su bst it u t e pr ocedu r a l sa fegu a r ds,” a n d (3) “t h e Gover n m en t ’s in t er est , in clu din g t h e fu n ct ion in volved a n d t h e fisca l a n d a dm in ist r a t ive bu r den s t h a t t h e a ddit ion a l or su bst it u t e pr ocedu r a l r equ ir em en t wou ld en t a il.” Id. a t 335. Alt h ou gh n ot specifica lly br iefed by t h e pa r t ies, I con clu de t h a t n ot ice a n d a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g a r e n ot r equ ir ed by t h e ba la n cin g t est set ou t in Ma t h ews. H er e, t h er e is lit t le qu est ion t h a t pla in t iffs’ in t er est in r eceivin g t h e fu ll a m ou n t of ser vices t h ey h a ve been det er m in ed t o n eed is of pa r a m ou n t im por t a n ce. Bu t n ot ice a n d a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g wou ld do lit t le t o en su r e t h a t pla in t iffs a r e n ot er r on eou sly depr ived of t h ose ser vices. Beca u se pla in t iffs kn ow wh en t h ey a r e m issin g ser vices, n ot ifyin g t h em of a s m u ch wou ld be of lit t le va lu e. To t h e ext en t a h ea r in g cou ld be u sefu l in pr even t in g fu t u r e ser vice ga ps, it is u n con t est ed t h a t ben eficia r ies m a y r equ est a n d obt a in a h ea r in g if t h ey believe t h a t t h ey h a ve been “a dver sely a ffect ed” by a “depa r t m en t decision or a ct ion ,” in clu din g a n effect ive den ia l of ser vices – a n opt ion of wh ich ben eficia r ies a r e n ot ified. See, e.g., N.H . Adm in . R. H e-C 201.02(b) (defin in g “a ppea l”); Doc. 101-3 (sa m ple r igh t t o h ea r in g n ot ice). 3 3 Defen da n t s st a t e t h a t CF I pa r t icipa n t s r eceive su ch n ot ices a n n u a lly. P la in t iffs do n ot con cede t h e poin t a n d in st ea d in sist t h a t t h ey r equ ir e discover y on h ow u n ifor m ly a n d con sist en t ly su ch n ot ices a r e pr ovided. 15 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 16 of 17 F in a lly, t h e bu r den on t h e gover n m en t wou ld be sign ifica n t . E viden ce offer ed by bot h pla in t iffs a n d defen da n t s in dica t es t h a t h u n dr eds of CF I pa r t icipa n t s exper ien ce ser vice ga ps ea ch m on t h . See Doc. 80-8 a t 6; Doc. 961 a t 8. P r ovidin g h ea r in g n ot ices wh en ever a pa r t icipa n t exper ien ces a ser vice ga p wou ld im pose a su bst a n t ia l bu r den on defen da n t s t o det er m in e wh en ser vice ga ps develop so t h a t t h ey ca n n ot ify pa r t icipa n t s of t h eir r igh t t o a h ea r in g, wh ile a ddin g lit t le va lu e t o pla in t iffs. Th is bu r den is on ly exa cer ba t ed by t h e difficu lt y in det er m in in g wh en ser vice ga ps con st it u t e a n “effect ive r edu ct ion or t er m in a t ion of ser vices” su ch t h a t t h e r igh t t o n ot ice a n d a h ea r in g wou ld be t r igger ed. 4 See Doc. 112-1 a t 6-7. Accor din gly, con sider in g t h e m in im a l va lu e of pla in t iffs’ r equ est ed pr ocedu r es a n d t h e sign ifica n t gover n m en t bu r den in pr ovidin g su ch pr ocedu r es, I con clu de t h a t t h e Du e P r ocess Cla u se does n ot r equ ir e n ot ice or a n oppor t u n it y for a h ea r in g wh en pla in t iffs exper ien ce ser vice ga ps. 4 P la in t iffs em ph a size t h a t t h ey a r e n ot r equ est in g n ot ice a n d h ea r in g r igh t s wh en ever som e m in im a l a m ou n t of ser vices a r e n ot r eceived, bu t r a t h er wh en t h e ser vice ga ps a r e so sign ifica n t t h a t t h ey “con st it u t [e] a n effect ive r edu ct ion or t er m in a t ion of ser vices.” Doc. 112-1 a t 6-7. P la in t iffs do n ot expla in , h owever , t h e poin t a t wh ich t h is occu r s. 16 Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 126 Filed 03/28/23 Page 17 of 17 I V. CONCLUSION F or t h e for egoin g r ea son s, defen da n t s’ m ot ion for pa r t ia l su m m a r y ju dgm en t (Doc. 101) is gr a n t ed. SO ORDE RE D. /s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge Ma r ch 28, 2023 cc: Cou n sel of r ecor d 17

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.