Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Villery v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
CV 95-5714 JGD (SHx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 1995). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51163
Description
Residents Voluntarily Dismiss Challenge to Proposed Cutbacks in Health Care Services in Los Angeles County
Abstract
Following an announcement that the federal government would give
more than $300 million to Los Angeles County to help with its
health care crisis, plaintiff low-income residents voluntarily
dismissed this suit challenging defendant county officials’
proposed cutbacks of $655 million in the county’s health care
system. Defendants had proposed to eliminate most outpatient care
by closing all 6 of the county’s comprehensive health care
centers and 29 of its 38 public health centers and by curtailing 75
percent of patient visits at the outpatient specialty clinics of
the 6 hospitals. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants’ plan
violated (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, which require that patients with
disabilities have equal access to county health services and that
services be provided in the most integrated setting; (2) federal
Medicaid and Medicare laws, which require certified hospitals to
arrange for follow-up treatment and care of patients after hospital
discharge; (3) the Due Process Clause, which requires that patients
have meaningful notice and a hearing before termination or
reduction of medical services; and (4) state law requiring the
county to provide health care to the poor. Counsel notes that, a
few days before the cutbacks were scheduled to begin on October 1,
1995, President Clinton announced that over $300 million in federal
funds would be made available to Los Angeles County to address the
crisis in its health care system.
Additional Information
Files
- Complaint
- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b) (6) and (7), and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant t
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) and (7), and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1
- Defendants' Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Defendants' Amended Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b) (6) and (7), and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdi
- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice
