C.S. et al v. Saiki et al

Filing 11

ORDER: Granting Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 3 ). Signed on 4/19/2017 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION C.S. ex rel. K.C.; K.C. ex rel L.C.; T.B. ex rel. C.B.; B.B. ex rel C.B.; T.C. ex rel L.C., on their own behalf and on the behalf of all those similarly situated, Case No. 6:17-cv-00564-MC PROf8813t) ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff, v. CLYDE SAIKI, in his official capacity as Director of Department of Human Services, State of Oregon; and LILIA TENINTY, in her official capacity as the Director of the Office of Developmental Disabilities Services, Oregon Department of Human Services, Defendants. The Court, having reviewed the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and the stipulations of the parties, orders that the motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED as follows: Page 1 - PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION For every person with an intellectual or developmental disability who received in-home attendant care services through the Oregon Office of Developmental Disability Services as a result of an assessment using the ANA-C or CNA-C assessment tool and who experienced or will experience prior to the effective date of this Order a decrease in authorized hours of in-home attendant care services as a result of an assessment using the ANA-Dor CNA-D assessment tool, Defendants will, pending trial or modification or vacation of this Order by the Court, prospectively restore all hours of service previously authorized using the ANA-C or CNA-C assessment no later than June 15, 2017. Defendants shall notify the above-referenced persons that their hours of in-home attendant care services are restored as provided above. The defendants may use the ANA-C or CNA-C to evaluate people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, but may not reduce inhome attendant care services to a person receiving those services below the status quo level of care: that level designated in the most recent ANA-C or CNA-C as ofNovember 1, 2016. The defendants, their agents, and their contractors may not issue notifications of planned action reducing those services below the status quo level described above, and any pending notifications of planned action proposing such reductions shall be rescinded. The defendants may at any time move to vacate or amend this Order to the extent provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law. This order is entered without prejudice to the defendants' ability to oppose the motion for class certification. The defendants shall take immediate steps to allow continuing services at the status quo level described above to 1) each of the named plaintiffs and 2) any affected person described above who has a pending administrative appeal or exceptions request relating to in-home attendant care services on the date this order is entered. Immediate steps means that the Page 2 - PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION defendants shall expedite the issuance of appropriate administrative orders and adjustments to ensure those levels of service are restored as soon as possible, and in no case later than May 15, 2017. DATED: lf/ 1q/1-:::r\ - L--- HONORABLE JUDGE MCSHANE U. S. District Court Judge IT IS SO STIPULATED: DATED April __ll_, 2017. s/ Christina L. Beatty-Walters CHRISTINA L. BEATTY-WALTERS #981634 SCOTT J. KAPLAN #913350 Senior Assistant Attorneys General Trial Attorneys Tel (971) 673-1880/Fax (971) 673-5000 Tina.Beatty Walters@doj.state.or. us Scott.Kap lan@doj.state.or. us Of Attorneys for Defendants DATED April __ll_, 2017. s/ Kathleen L. Wilde KATHLEEN L. WILDE #971053 THOMAS STENSON #152894 GORDON MAGELLA #152673 Tel (503) 243-2081 Fax(503)243-1738 kwilde@droregon.org tstenson@droregon.org gmagella@droregon.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Page 3 - PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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?