PANITCH v. VELEZ et al, No. 1:2014cv07126 - Document 33 (D.N.J. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the parties provide the Court, in writing, within ten days with answers to the following questions with support for each response, etc. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 4/2/15. (js)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PANITCH v. VELEZ et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW J ERSEY MINDI PANITCH, by her legal guardian, Kenneth N. Panitch, M.D., v. Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 14-7126 : J ENNIFER VELEZ, Com m issioner, New J ersey Departm ent of Hum an Services, in her official and individual capacities, et al., Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER : : This m atter is before the Court on its own m otion and subsequent Order to Show Cause why this case should or should not be dism issed for lack of federal subject m atter jurisdiction [29]. Also before the Court is Defendants’ m otion to dism iss the Com plaint [22] and Plaintiff’s second m otion for an Order to Show Cause why a prelim inary injunction should not issue [26] and related m otion for an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not order expedited lim ited discovery [27]. In order for the Court to m ake a properly inform ed decision regarding these m otions, m ore inform ation is needed from the parties, as set forth here. Factual Background & Procedural History On or about March 26, 20 14, Plaintiff Mindi Panitch, by her brother and legal guardian Kenneth N. Panitch, applied for eligibility for the services of New J ersey’s Departm ent of Hum an Services, Division of Developm ental Disabilities (“DDD”). 1 At that tim e, Plaintiff resided in Wisconsin. Therefore, on May 19, 20 14, the DDD den ied 1 An individual m ust be determ ined eligible for services under this chapter before the Division can provide services. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-2.1(a). It is the Division’s policy to fund services in the State of New J ersey. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-2.1(k). Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s application because she did not reside in New J ersey. By letter dated J une 11, 20 14, Plaintiff filed a State adm in istrative appeal, form ally contesting DDD’s denial of her eligibility. On J une 13, 20 14, the DDD advised Plaintiff that it could not assum e im m ediate funding for her services while she resided in Wisconsin. By letter dated J uly 25, 20 14, the DDD acknowledged Plaintiff’s form al contest and com m enced the adm in istrative review process. On October 6, 20 14, Plaintiff withdrew the appeal to allow for an interview by DDD. On October 7, 20 14, Plaintiff arrived in New J ersey, placed by her brother at Bancroft’s J udith B. Flicker Center in Voorhees, which allegedly is accredited to accept New J ersey Medicaid recipients. She subm itted a n ew application for eligibility on October 14, 20 14. On October 16, 20 14, the DDD notified Plaintiff that it would not conduct an interview to determ ine her eligibility until her tem porary funding from Wisconsin was exhausted. By letter dated October 27, 20 14, the DDD again advised that, per N.J .A.C. 10 :46-2.2(e), Plaintiff was not eligible for services because her residential placem ent in New J ersey was funded by a public agency in another State. 2 2 (a) An in d ivid u al m u s t be a re s id e n t o f N e w Je rs e y be fo re th e D ivis io n can p ro vid e s e rvice s . It shall be the responsibility of the individual applying for eligibility, or his or her guardian, to establish residency in the State of New J ersey. Residency shall be determ ined in the following m anner: 1. An individual applying for eligibility shall be deem ed a resident of the State if he or she lives in the State as his or her prim ary residence at the tim e of application for eligibility, unless the in dividual m eets the criteria outlined in (a)2 below. If an individual has a guardian, the guardian m ust also live in the State as his or her prim ary residence at the tim e of application for eligibility, unless the guardianship determ in ation does not include residential decision-m aking by the guardian. 2. When an in dividual applying for eligibility is residing in an out-of-State residential placem ent at the tim e of application for eligibility, she or he shall in dicate on the application that it is their intention to return to New J ersey to receive in-State services no later than six m onths after eligibility has been established. If the individual does not return to New J ersey within six m onths of the determ ination of eligibility, the individual will not have m et the residency requirem ent, and eligibility will be rescin ded. If the individual is not yet 21 years of age, the individual will have no m ore than six m onths after their 21st birthday to return to New J ersey or the individual will not have m et the residency requirem ent and eligibility will be rescinded. (b) If an individual 21 years of age or older has already been determ ined functionally eligible for services an d is residing in an out-of-State placem ent, the individual shall return to New J ersey within six m onths of notification from the Division or the individual will no longer m eet the residency requirem ent and eligibility will be rescin ded. An in dividual whose eligibility is rescin ded under this section m ay reapply at any tim e if she or he returns to New J ersey and is living in the State as his or her prim ary residence. 1. If the individual's out-of-State residential placem ent is being funded by the Division, the individual m ay choose to either return to his or her fam ily hom e in New J ersey and receive in-hom e supports, or shall be offered an in-State residential placem ent. 2. If the individual's out-of-State residential placem ent is not being funded by the Division, but the individual m eets the em ergency criteria listed in N.J .A.C. 10 :46B, the individual shall be offered in-State em ergency services. (c) Exceptions to (a)2 and (b) above m ay be m ade with the authorization of the Assistant Com m issioner in one of the following two circum stances only: 1. The Division has been unable to m ake an offer of placem ent within the six-m onth tim efram e, and the individual and his or her guardian are fully cooperating and m aking substantial and docum ented good faith efforts to further the goal of locating in-State services. Substantial and docum ented good faith efforts include, but are not lim ited to: attending all transitional and planning m eetin gs, participating in in-State program visits, com pleting all n ecessary waiver and other paperwork, and responding to all Division requests for inform ation in a tim ely m anner; or 2. The individual's services are reim bursed by Medicaid under the Com m unity Care Waiver (CCW) and health and safety can be assured despite the individual not residing in the State. (d) If an individual who has a guardian is adm itted to services, and the guardian m oves out-of-State, the individual m ay rem ain in Division services. Additionally, the guardian is free to request a discharge from services or an interstate transfer. (e) If a n y in d ivid u al is re ce ivin g s e rvice s fu n d e d to tally o r p artially by a p u blic o r p rivate age n cy in an o th e r s tate , th a t in d ivid u al s h all n o t be co n s id e re d a re s id e n t o f N e w Je rs e y. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-2.2 (em phasis added). On Novem ber 13, 20 14, Kenneth N. Panitch on behalf of his sister, Mindi Pan itch, filed the Com plaint with this Court. Count I asserts Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Am endm ent: “Defendants’ process for determ inin g Plaintiff’s eligibility for Medicaid services discrim inatorily burdens her fundam ental right to interstate travel on the basis of disability and wealth.” Count II is for Violation of the Privileges and Im m unities Clause of Article IV: “Defendants’ exclusion from eligibility for Medicaid services persons with disabilities who are dom iciled in NJ but receiving funding from an agency in a State where they were previously dom iciled treats such persons as non-residents of NJ who cannot apply for services and are ineligible to be placed on waiting list for services.” Count III alleges Violation of the Privileges and Im m unities Clause of the 14th Am endm ent: “Defendants’ exclusion from eligibility for Medicaid services persons with disabilities who are dom iciled in NJ but receiving funding from an agency in a State where they were previously dom iciled treats such persons as non-residents of NJ who cannot apply for services and are ineligible to be placed on waiting list for services.” Count IV of the Com plaint asserts a Violation of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396-1396v, the Medicaid Act, and im plem enting regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 483.40 0 et seq. by: “a) Failing to provide services for which she is eligible with reasonable prom ptness, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8)” and “b) Failing to provide her with m andatory services and designated optional services, including services in an ICF/ ID [Institutional Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities], 3 to 3 “Interm ediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual or Developm ental Disabilities (ICF/ ID-DD)” m eans an institution (or distinct part thereof) for individuals with intellectual or developm ental disabilities. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. ICF/ ID is available only for individuals in need of, and receiving, active treatm ent (AT) services. AT refers which she is entitled as a categorically needy recipient of Medicaid services, in an am ount, duration and scope that is no less than that available to other categorically needy recipients, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10 )(B)(I)(ii) and 42 C.F.R. § 440 .240 .” Count V alleges Violation of the ADA, 29 U.S.C. §1210 1, by discrim inatorily failing to provide services, and Count VI asserts a Violation of Section 50 4 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 794. On Novem ber 24, 20 14, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause why a prelim inary injunction should not issue ordering Defendants to continue funding Plaintiff’s residential placem ent [11]. Argum ent was heard on Decem ber 8 , 20 14 and the m otion was den ied [18 ]. At that tim e, Defendants argued that Plaintiff attem pted to enjoin the enforcem en t of a New J ersey agency rule, N.J .A.C. 10 :46-2.2, designed to prioritize the allocation of lim ited funds to eligible developm entally disabled New J ersey residents (per a waiting list). Sim ilarly situated in dividuals wait years for the sam e services, according to the defense. The DDD m aintains a waiting list for access to the hom e an d com m unity-based waiver 4 , which is a prerequisite for access to out-of-hom e to aggressive, con sistent im plem entation of a program of specialized and generic training, treatm ent and health services. AT does not include services to m aintain generally indepen dent clients who are able to function with little supervision and who do not require a continuous program of habilitation services. http:/ / www.m edicaid.gov/ m edicaid-chip-program -inform ation/ by-topics/ deliverysystem s/ institutional-care/ interm ediate-care-facilities-for-individuals-with-m entalretardation-icfm r.htm l. 4 “Waiver” m eans a Medicaid waiver authorized by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), pursuant to a program in which states request perm ission from CMS to provide a broad array of services, excluding room and board, that are not otherwise covered under the Medicaid program . These services are designed to support an individual in the in dividual's hom e and com m unity, thereby preserving the residential placem ents. J ones Cert., ¶ 4. In Novem ber 20 14, approxim ately 6,220 individuals were on the waitlist. J ones Cert., ¶ 4. On Decem ber 10 , 20 14, Defendants filed a letter with the Court indicating that the DDD was willing to accept Plaintiff’s application for eligibility and for em ergen cy services, 5 and hold such in abeyance until Plaintiff’s out-of-State funding term in ated on Decem ber 22, 20 14. On Decem ber 12, 20 14, Bancroft advised Plaintiff’s brother of its intent to discharge Plaintiff from the Flicker Center in 30 days. On Decem ber 22, 20 14, Plaintiff’s brother applied for em ergency services and for Plaintiff’s acceptance into the Com m unity Care Waiver Program . 6 individual's independence an d bonds to fam ily and friends, at a cost that is not higher than institutional care. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. “Waiver services” m eans the services available in the authorized Medicaid waiver program in which an individual is enrolled. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. 5 The Division of Developm ental Disabilities, Departm ent of Hum an Services intends this chapter to establish standards and criteria for the placem ent of eligible persons, pursuant to N.J . Stat. Ann. § 30 :4– 25.6. Placem ents are m ade in accordance with N.J .A.C. 10 :46C except when there is the need for an em ergen cy service or em ergency placem ent. . . . Each individual's abilities, needs and preferences are different. Division staff shall consider the circum stances of each individual in light of his or her unique situation in m aking placem ent decisions. Division staff shall exercise reasonable professional judgem ent in m aking such decisions. N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.1. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all eligible individuals. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to persons involved in the Self– Determ in ation Process. Residential placem ent will be offered to individuals placed on the Division’s Priority Waiting List, as described at N.J .A.C. 10 :46– 1.4 unless they m eet the criteria of N.J .A.C. 10 :46B– 3.3, “em ergencies,” 4.2, “private institutions,” or 4.3, “private out-of-State placem ents.” N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.2. 6 Pursuant to N.J . Stat. Ann. § 30 :4– 25.9, the applicant shall apply for and m aintain all current and future benefits for which he or she m ay be eligible, including, but not lim ited to, Medicare, Medicaid, any other State or Federal benefits, and any third-party support pursuant to statute, rule, court order, or contract. The Division offers services funded through Medicaid and Medicaid waivers. In order for the Division to provide waiver services to an individual, the individual m ust be eligible for the waiver, the On Decem ber 23, 20 14, the DDD acknowledged receipt of the Decem ber 22 application and request for em ergency fundin g at the Flicker Center. Bassion Cert., Ex. A & B. That sam e date, Defendants filed a Motion to Dism iss the Com plaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) [22]. On J anuary 12, 20 15, the DDD advised Plaintiff that she was eligible for DDD services and covered by Medicaid, Bassion Cert., Ex. C, but also advised of the waiting list for com m unity care waiver services, 7 id. Finally, on J anuary 30 , 20 15, the DDD denied Plaintiff’s request for an em ergen cy placem ent 8 because she was not hom eless; service provided m ust be a waiver service, and the setting in which the service is provided m ust m eet waiver requirem ents. The individual, guardian, or representativepayee, as applicable, m ust apply for the appropriate waiver and com ply with all the requirem ents of eligibility for these benefits. The individual, guardian, or representative-payee is also responsible for m aintaining eligibility for those benefits. Medicaid eligibility is determ ined by and through the appropriate eligibility agency. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.1(b). The availability of services shall be lim ited to the Division's funding in a given fiscal year. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.1(d). 7 If the applicant is determ ined eligible, Division staff shall notify the applicant, in writing, within 10 working days of the determ ination and such notice shall include inform ation regarding the service(s) deem ed m ost suitable by the intake worker or the intake team . 1. If the m ost appropriate service as determ ined by the intake worker or the intake team is not im m ediately available, the Division shall provide an alternate service. 2. The Division m ay also place the eligible individual's nam e on the Com m unity Care Waiver Waiting List in accordance with N.J .A.C. 10 :46C and/ or any other applicable waiting lists. N o th in g in th is p aragrap h e n title s an in d ivid u a l d e te rm in e d e ligible fo r s e rvice s to im m e d iate e n ro llm e n t o n th e Co m m u n ity Care W a ive r o r an y o th e r s e rvice fo r w h ich th e re m ay be a w aitin g lis t. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-4.2(c) (em phasis added). 8 The Division of Developm ental Disabilities, Departm ent of Hum an Services intends this chapter to establish standards and criteria for the placem ent of eligible persons, pursuant to N.J . Stat. Ann. § 30 :4– 25.6. Placem ents are m ade in accordance with although Bancroft provided notice of intent to discharge Plaintiff on J anuary 12, she continued to reside there. “In addition, without m inim izing the concerns [raised by Plaintiff’s brother], the Division can provide supports in [his] hom e setting that would m itigate the presence of im m inent peril.” The DDD also inform ed Plaintiff’s brother of the process to appeal that decision. Bassion Cert., Ex. D; Secon d Panitch Decl., Ex. 9. 9 N.J .A.C. 10 :46C except when there is the need for an em ergen cy service or em ergen cy placem ent. . . . Each individual's abilities, needs and preferences are different. Division staff shall consider the circum stances of each individual in light of his or her unique situation in m aking placem ent decisions. Division staff shall exercise reasonable professional judgem en t in m aking such decisions. N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.1. Residential placem ent will be offered to individuals placed on the Division’s Priority Waiting List, as described at N.J .A.C. 10 :46– 1.4 unless they m eet the criteria of N.J .A.C. 10 :46B– 3.3, “em ergencies,” 4.2, “private institutions,” or 4.3, “private out-of-State placem ents.” N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.2. 9 “Em ergen cy” m eans that the eligible person is hom eless or in im m inent peril. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. “Em ergen cy services” m eans a supervised apartm ent operated by an agency with whom the Division specifically contracts to provide services for up to 60 days when the Division determ ines that an em ergency exists. Services provided in clude safety, stabilization and assessm ent prior to a long-term placem ent or return to the form er living arrangem ent. Em ergency services are not considered a residential placem ent as defined in this rule. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. “Funded vacancy” m eans a residential placem ent opportunity with a provider agency that is presently funded through a contract with the Division which becom es available when an in dividual receiving services m oves from that placem ent. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. “Hom eless” m eans that the person has no place to live or the person's living arrangem ent will end on a date certain within 30 days and he or she has no other living arrangem ents after that date. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. “Im m inent peril” m eans a situation which could reasonably be expected to cause serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of the individual receiving services or another person in the current living arrangem ent. Im m in ent peril does not exist if the Division can put supports into the living arrangem ent which elim inate the serious risk to the individual. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. On February 5, 20 15, Bancroft advised Plaintiff’s brother of its intent to discharge Plaintiff, but stated that the staff hoped to find her an alternative placem ent 10 within 15 to 30 days. Second Panitch Decl., Ex. 10 . That day, Plaintiff filed a second m otion for an Order to Show Cause why a prelim in ary injunction should not issue [26] “ordering Defendants to provide funding for the current placem ent, services, and supports in place for Mindi Panitch at the J udith B. Flicker Center operated by Bancroft until this case m ay be decided on the m erits.” Plaintiff also filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not order expedited lim ited discovery [27]. She seeks her DDD file to support her irreparable harm argum ent, under the theory that her DDD case worker thought her com plex case m ade her appropriate for the Flicker Center. Discussion “A State plan for m edical assistance m ust . . . provide that all individuals wishing to m ake application for m edical assistance under the plan shall have opportunity to do so, and that such assistance shall be furnished with reasonable prom ptness to all eligible individuals.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8). “A State plan for m edical assistance m ust . . . provide . . . for m aking m edical assistance available, . . . to . . . all [eligible] individuals.” 10 “Placem ent” m eans a waiver service as defin ed at N.J .A.C. 10 :46– 1.3 that provides a residence to the individual or day services that are provided out of the residen ce. N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.3. “Private institution” m eans a private residential facility for the developm entally disabled located in New J ersey which is licen sed in accordance with N.J .A.C. 10 :47, or any outof-State institutional placem ents. N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.3. “Residential placem en t funded by the Division of Developm ental Disabilities” m eans a living arrangem ent that is operated by the Division and certified by the Departm ent of Hum an Services, licensed by the Departm ent of Hum an Services under N.J .A.C. 10 :44A, 10 :44B or 10 :44C or is licensed by the Departm ent of Health and Hum an Services under N.J .A.C. 10 :47 and regulated by the Departm ent of Hum an Services. N.J .A.C. 10 :46B1.3. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10 ). “For purposes of [42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq.] . . . [t]he term ‘m edical assistance’ m eans paym ent of part or all of the cost of the following care and services . . . for individuals . . . who are [eligible:] . . . services in an interm ediate care facility for the m entally retarded” also known as an Interm ediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (“ICF/ ID”) or an institution. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(15), 1396d(d)(1). States m ay not lim it access to ICF/ ID service, or m ake it subject to waiting lists. http:/ / www.m edicaid.gov/ m edicaid-chip-program inform ation/ by-topics/ delivery-system s/ institutional-care/ interm ediate-care-facilitiesfor-individuals-with-m ental-retardation-icfm r.htm l. The provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq. cited here have been read to create rights enforceable through a private cause of action. Sabree v. Richm an, 367 F.3d 180 , 190 (3d Cir. 20 0 4) (“In requiring states which accept Medicaid funding to provide [ICF/ ID] services with reasonable prom ptness, Congress conferred specific entitlem ents on individuals in term s that could not be clearer.” (Internal quotation om itted.)). Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act allows states to “waive” requirem ents of the original Medicaid legislation and create so-called waiver program s that provide care in the hom e and in the com m unity as an alternative to institutional care. “The Secretary m ay by waiver provide that a State plan approved under this subchapter m ay include as ‘m edical assistance’ under such plan paym ent for part or all of the cost of hom e or com m unity-based services . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(1). In New J ersey, “[t]he Medicaid Com m unity Care Waiver (CCW) is a program for individuals with developm ental disabilities that pays for the services and supports they need in order to live in the com m unity. Adm inistered by DDD, the CCW is funded by the state, with assistan ce from the federal governm ent’s Medicaid program . . . . Without the CCW, New J ersey could only use Medicaid funding to help provide services to these individuals if they resided in an institution. The federal governm en t allowed states to create waivers, in cluding the CCW, as a way to help individuals with specific needs avoid institutionalization and return to or rem ain in the com m unity.” http:/ / www.state.nj.us/ hum anservices/ ddd/ services/ ccw/ . However, pursuant to N.J .A.C. 10 :46C, unless an in dividual is declared to be in im m inent peril -- an em ergency -- by the DDD, he or she m ay be placed on a waiting list for determ ination of eligibility for enrollm ent on the CCW because the availability of such services is lim ited to the DDD’s funding in a given fiscal year. http:/ / www.state.nj.us/ hum anservices/ ddd/ services/ ccw/ ccwwl.htm l. Indeed, the Medicaid Act and its im plem enting regulations requires the State to cap the num ber of individuals (a “population lim it”) who receive services under the hom e and com m unity based-waiver. 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(9) refers to the waiver contain in g “a lim it on the num ber of individuals who shall receive hom e or com m unity-based services”; 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(10 ) prohibits the Secretary from capping this lim it to fewer than 20 0 individuals in a State who m ay receive services under the hom e and com m unity-based waiver. Sim ilarly, 42 C.F.R. § 441.30 3(f)(6) requires the State to indicate the num ber of individuals it intends to serve under the waiver, and states that this figure will constitute a lim it on the size of the waiver program . Accord Makin v. Hawaii, 114 F. Supp. 2d 10 17, 10 28 (D. Haw. 1999) (“while the Medicaid Act requires a state to offer feasible alternatives available under the waiver to all eligible individuals, the HOBS-MR program is not ‘available’11 under the statute when the slots available under the 11 “Available” m eans the service m ay be offered within the lim itations of funding in a given fiscal year. N.J .A.C. 10 :46B-1.3. ‘population lim it’ have been filled.”); see also Brown v. Tenn. Dep’t of Fin. & Adm in., 561 F.3d 542, 548 (6th Cir. 20 0 9) (“a waiting list for waiver services does not violate federal law because the state’s duty is to pay for services, not to ensure they are provided”). It appears that Bancroft’s Flicker Center is an approved facility under New J ersey’s CCW program , but is not an ICF/ ID. Accordingly, Defendants have argued that “Plaintiff did not request nor apply for placem ent at one of the Division’s ICF/ ID facilities. Given that [Plaintiff] continues to reside at Flicker and is not in im m inent peril, the Division den ied [her] request for em ergency funding of Flicker on J anuary 30 , 20 15.” “If dissatisfied with the Division’s decisions, [Plaintiff], like all Division clients, m ay challenge the decision exercising her State adm in istrative rem edies. Relief could be obtained from the New J ersey Superior Court. See N.J . Rules of Court 2:2-3.” Reply Br., p. 3-4. Conclusion The record is clear that Plaintiff has been found eligible for DDD services. The Court is without inform ation, however, as to what services have been requested by or offered to Plaintiff as a result. Therefore, “Benefits” m eans all current and future sources of cash an d health assistance from Federal, State, or private entities in cluding, but not lim ited to, Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, State, and Federal funds and any third-party support pursuant to State rule, order, or by contract. N.J .A.C. 10 :46-1.3. IT IS ORDERED this 2 nd day of April, 20 15 that the parties provide the Court, in writing, within ten days with answers to the following questions w ith s u p p o rt fo r e a ch re s p o n s e : -What inform ation was provided by Defendants regarding the service(s) deem ed m ost suitable by the intake worker or the intake team for Plaintiff’s care? -Is Bancroft’s Flicker Center a licensed interm ediate care facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICF/ ID)? -Has Plaintiff requested an ICF/ ID placem ent? -Has Plaintiff applied for the CCW waiting list? -Is there an unduplicated recipient slot for Plaintiff on the CCW program , given that she already is at the Flicker Center, so that she m ay not have to be placed on a waiting list? -What is the current status of Plaintiff? / s/ J oseph H. Rodriguez J OSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ U.S.D.J .
]]>
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.
