SALAZAR, et al v. DC, et al

Filing 2154

MEMORANDUM OPINION to the July 12, 2016, Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Stay Entered on May 17, 2016. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 7/19/16. (CL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OSCAR SALAZAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 93-452 (GK)

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 12, 2.016, this Court issued an Order [Dkt. No. 2150]
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Modify
the Stay Entered on May 17, 2016 [Dkt. No. 2137]. In that Order,
the Court

indicated that

it would provide

its

reasons

for

its

decision within several weeks.
The reasons upon which the Court based its decision are:
1)

Initially,

Settlement Order

in Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of the
[Dkt.

No.

2093-5],

granted in part in its April 4,
Plaintiffs

requested

that

which the Court ultimately

2016 Order

Defendants

[Dkt. No.

provide

monthly

2109],

the

reporting

regarding their compliance with the terms of the Court's April 4,
2016 Order.

As the Parties know,

the Court deemed this request

unnecessarily burdensome. April 4, 2016 Order at 57 n. 17.
In Plaintiff's latest Motion to Modify the Stay Entered on
May 17,

2016

("Pls.'

Mot.

To Modify the Stay")

[Dkt. No.

2137],

the Plaintiffs not only request the same monthly reporting that
the Court had already denied,

but in addition,

now request even

broader and more detailed monthly reporting. See Text of Proposed
Order Accompanying Pls.'
that

Defendants

"report

Mot.
to

the

format,
date

Medicaid

by telephone,

of

application;

applications

(requesting

regarding

Court

performance in the prior calendar month:
disability

~1

To Modify the Stay

(a)

(whether

their

in processing nonsubmitted

in

paper

or electronically)

within 4 5 days of the

(b)

Medicaid

in

processing

renewals

and

recertifications (whether submitted in paper format, by telephone,
or electronically)

prior to the beneficiary's termination date;

(c) in processing Medicaid renewals and recertifications (whether
submitted in paper format, by telephone, or electronically) prior
to the end of the 90-day grace period following the beneficiary's
termination date;" as well as several other subject matter areas.)
Given

the

fact

that

the Court

denied the

initial

request

because it was overly burdensome, the Court is clearly not about
to grant a request that would be even more burdensome.
2) Again,
granted a

as the Parties know,

certain amount

beneficiaries as

of

relief

on April 4,

2016,

the Court

to Medicaid applicants

requested by Plaintiffs.

April

4,

and

2016 Order.

Thereafter, the Court stayed that Order in its May 17, 2016 Order
-2-

and

Memorandum

Defendants'

Opinion

[Dkt.

2134,

Nos.

2135],

accepting

claims that they would suffer "irreparable harm" if

all the relief went into effect.
In response to the pending Motion,

Defendants argued that

there was no need for the relief Plaintiffs were seeking because
the District was already providing Medicaid to any applicant or
beneficiary who met
Defendants'

the

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Opposition to Plaintiffs'

Motion to Modify the Stay

Entered on May 17, 2016 at 6 [Dkt. No. 2145].

In their Reply to

the pending Motion
have

presented

distressing,

("Pls.'

numerous

to

Reply")
examples,

directly

[Dkt.

No.

2147],

Plaintiffs

some

of

which

were

counter

statements

made

by

most
the

Government. See Pls.' Reply at 5-10.
The examples that Plaintiffs have submitted demonstrate that
there are cases in which Defendants, for whatever reason, are not
responding quickly and providing coverage in response to inquiries
about delayed processing of applications. Consequently, the Court
has granted Plaintiffs' request to modify the May 17, 2014 Stay to
provide

limited

beneficiaries
pending a

relief

who

final

identify

to

those

themselves

Medicaid
to

the

applicants
Medicaid

ruling by the Court of Appeals

Appeal of the Court's April 4, 2016 Order.
-3-

and

agency,

on Defendants'

3)
that
would

Finally,

granting
cause

the Government has failed to make any showing

this
the

specific

Government

provision

requested

irreparable

harm

by

and/or

Plaintiffs
excessive

costs. While there may be some additional work entailed in granting
Plaintiffs' request, the Court has no reason to conclude that there
would be any substantial interruption in Defendants'
proceed with the

complex work it

is

doing

to

ensure that the

requirements of the Affordable Care Act are satisfied.

July 19, 2016

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF

-4-

ability to