Hariece Lewis, Etc. v. Bert Shulimson

Eighth Circuit

Hariece Lewis, Etc. v. Bert Shulimson

534 F.2d 794

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1976

Docket75-1735

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 534 F.2d 794 (Hariece Lewis, Etc. v. Bert Shulimson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hariece Lewis, Etc. v. Bert Shulimson, 534 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the Division of Family Services [formerly the Division of Welfare] of the State of Missouri from a determination by the District Court, Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin presiding, that where under Missouri’s January 1, 1972, medical assistance plan the state was required by § 208.151, R.S.Mo.1969, to provide medical assistance to persons eligible for general relief, and appellee and members of her class presently qualify under the January 1, 1972, Missouri general relief eligibility requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A) and § 1396a(f) require appellants to provide medical assistance to members of appellee’s class.

Appellant also alleges that the District Court, in ordering appellants to promptly notify all members of appellee’s class who were denied medical assistance in violation of the District Court order, thereby required the State of Missouri to expend its public funds to satisfy a liability to private parties, in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court did not, however, require Missouri to make any retroactive payments to appellee and members of her class. It is clear that the type of notification expenses involved here are the necessary result of compliance with a decree which by its terms is prospective in nature. Such “ancillary effect” on the state treasury is permissible under Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662.

After a careful review of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, the court affirms the judgment of the District Court on the basis of its Memorandum Opinion and our comments above. Lewis v. Shulimson, 400 F.Supp. 807 (E.D.Mo.1975).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the Division of Family Services [formerly the Division of Welfare] of the State of Missouri from a determination by the District Court, Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin presiding, that where under Missouri’s January 1, 1972, medical assistance plan the state was required by § 208.151, R.S.Mo.1969, to provide medical assistance to persons eligible for general relief, and appellee and members of her class presently qualify under the January 1, 1972, Missouri general relief eligibility requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A) and § 1396a(f) require appellants to provide medical assistance to members of appellee’s class.

Appellant also alleges that the District Court, in ordering appellants to promptly notify all members of appellee’s class who were denied medical assistance in violation of the District Court order, thereby required the State of Missouri to expend its public funds to satisfy a liability to private parties, in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court did not, however, require Missouri to make any retroactive payments to appellee and members of her class. It is clear that the type of notification expenses involved here are the necessary result of compliance with a decree which by its terms is prospective in nature. Such “ancillary effect” on the state treasury is permissible under Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662.

After a careful review of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, the court affirms the judgment of the District Court on the basis of its Memorandum Opinion and our comments above. Lewis v. Shulimson, 400 F.Supp. 807 (E.D.Mo.1975).

Affirmed.

Robert Fanty v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare and Helene Wohlgemuth, Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Eloise Randle, in No. 76-1968 v. Helene Wohlgemuth, Individually and as Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Health and Welfare Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in No. 76-1969

551 F.2d 2 (Third Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 F.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hariece-lewis-etc-v-bert-shulimson-ca8-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack