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-