Salazar v. Dc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OSCAR SALAZAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 93-452 (GK)

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, in Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of the

Settlement Order [Dkt. No. 2093-5], which the Court ultimately

granted in part in its April 4, 2016 Order [Dkt. No. 2109], the

Plaintiffs requested that Defendants provide monthly 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.' Mot. To Modify the Stay ~1 (requesting

that Defendants "report to the Court regarding their

performance in the prior calendar month: (a) in processing non-

disability Medicaid applications (whether submitted in paper

format, by telephone, or electronically) within 4 5 days of the

date of application; (b) in processing Medicaid 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, as the Parties know, on April 4, 2016, the Court

granted a certain amount of relief to Medicaid applicants and

beneficiaries as requested by Plaintiffs. April 4, 2016 Order.

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

-2- and Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. Nos. 2134, 2135], accepting

Defendants' 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 the statutory and regulatory requirements.

Defendants' 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 ("Pls.' Reply") [Dkt. No. 2147], Plaintiffs

have presented numerous examples, some of which were most

distressing, to directly counter statements made by 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 relief to those Medicaid applicants and

beneficiaries who identify themselves to the Medicaid agency,

pending a final ruling by the Court of Appeals on Defendants'

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

-3- 3) Finally, the Government has failed to make any showing

that granting this specific provision requested by Plaintiffs

would cause the Government irreparable harm and/or 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' ability to

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-