Procedural Due Process Notice Victory

A plaintiff class of disabled Medicaid applicants prevailed on their claim for summary judgment alleging that the state’s denial notices violated procedural due process requirements.

A plaintiff class of disabled Medicaid applicants prevailed on their claim for summary judgment alleging that the state’s denial notices violated procedural due process requirements.  Thompson v. Roob, 2006 WL 2990426 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2006).  The favorable decision was written by Sarah Evans Barker, a Reagan appointee.  While the case does not break new ground in the federal rights arena, it is nevertheless heartening to see the court protecting applicants’ entitlement to due process.

 

The court held that the plaintiffs had a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on the taking of property without due process of law.  The court stated that under Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), plaintiffs needed to show that they had an unambiguously conferred federal right.  The court held that plaintiffs had shown a right to a protected property interest in the receipt of benefits.

 

The court explained that state law articulated specific and objective criteria for Medicaid, with no discretion on the part of the administrative agency, and therefore plaintiffs had an entitlement to Medicaid benefits if they met the state’s criteria.  The court held that even though the plaintiffs were applicants, not beneficiaries, they had a protected property interest in the receipt of benefits and therefore could proceed under section 1983.

 

On the merits, the court held that there was a high likelihood that the state’s notices would be misunderstood, since the notices contained both the correct and incorrect eligibility standards, with the incorrect standard in large font and the correct standard in small fine print.  The court held that the notices violated plaintiffs’ due process rights as a matter of law, and granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion regarding constitutional due process.  The court held that there was an issue of material fact as to whether the state actually applied the correct standard, and therefore the court denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion regarding whether the state’s determinations of ineligibility violated federal law.