SALAZAR, et al v. DC, et al
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.,
Civil Action No. 93-452 (GK)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
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,
it would provide
decision within several weeks.
The reasons upon which the Court based its decision are:
in Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of the
granted in part in its April 4,
which the Court ultimately
regarding their compliance with the terms of the Court's April 4,
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
To Modify the Stay")
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.'
performance in the prior calendar month:
To Modify the Stay
in processing nonsubmitted
within 4 5 days of the
recertifications (whether submitted in paper format, by telephone,
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.)
because it was overly burdensome, the Court is clearly not about
to grant a request that would be even more burdensome.
as the Parties know,
on April 4,
to Medicaid applicants
requested by Plaintiffs.
Thereafter, the Court stayed that Order in its May 17, 2016 Order
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
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
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
ruling by the Court of Appeals
Appeal of the Court's April 4, 2016 Order.
the Government has failed to make any showing
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
ensure that the
requirements of the Affordable Care Act are satisfied.
July 19, 2016
Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?