Sixth Circuit affirms District Court's decision to uphold preliminary injunction continuing necessary ABA services for children with autism; remands case for trial
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in the Parents' League for Effective Autism Services (PLEAS) case and remanded the case for trial before the District Court Judge Graham. Appellate Judges Gibbons, Rogers and Kennedy, delivered their decision on July 29. The panel of judges unanimously agreed with Ohio Legal Rights Service's (OLRS) argument that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction which allowed continuation of funding for Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) services to children with autism. The court of appeals concluded that Judge Graham properly relied on governing law when he enjoined the Ohio Departments of Job and Family Services and Mental Health from implementing changes to their administrative rules which, if not enjoined, would have eliminated Medicaid reimbursement for medically necessary services to children with autism. The lawsuit stems from complaints OLRS received from families of children with autism in the spring of 2008.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the district court properly considered the extent to which: (1) plaintiffs have a likelihood of success in establishing that Ohio is required under the federal Medicaid statute to cover ABA therapy when medically necessary, and that the amended Ohio administrative rules would effectively cut off funding for these services; (2) plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the injunction would not cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction. Thus the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that these factors weigh in favor of granting preliminary injunctive relief, and the lower court has not "relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard."
The Court of Appeals decision does not resolve whether plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in showing a violation of plaintiffs' rights under Medicaid law, but concludes that the four factors involved in reviewing a request for preliminary injunctive relief, on balance, weighed in favor of granting plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief.
The district court has scheduled a preliminary pretrial conference for September 2, 2009 and the case will move toward trial on the merits.
For more information
To view and print PDF documents, you need to have Adobe® Reader®, a free software program, installed on your computer. Download Adobe® Reader®
Article posted July 29, 2009
