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
DeSario v. Thomas
No. 396cv646 (JBA) (D. Conn. Feb. 13, 1997). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51566
Description
Agency’s Categorical Exclusion of Air Conditioners, Humidifiers, and Air Purifiers as Durable Medical Equipment Violates Medicaid Law
Abstract
The district court has granted plaintiff Medicaid recipients’
motion for a preliminary injunction in this class action
challenging the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS)
policy of limiting Medicaid coverage for durable medical equipment
to its exclusive list and categorically excluding coverage for air
conditioners, humidifiers, and air purifiers, notwithstanding that
it identifies such items as durable medical equipment. The court
held that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the
state’s fee schedule violated federal law. The court noted
that (1) DSS had no procedure for systematically, timely, or
effectively updating the list as new equipment came on the market,
and (2) DSS’s policies did not permit a recipient to
demonstrate that an item not on the list, but medically necessary,
so met the definition of durable medical equipment that it could be
added to the list or otherwise considered for prior approval. The
court held that DSS’s use of an exclusive list constituted an
unreasonable restriction on the amount, duration, and scope of a
covered service (i.e., home health service) and that DSS’s
policy of excluding coverage for specified items of durable medical
equipment improperly denied plaintiffs "meaningful
access" to a mandatory package of Medicaid services. Although
the court did not decide whether Medicaid law required coverage for
all medically necessary services within a given coverage category,
it held that states were not allowed to adopt a policy of refusing
even to consider a recipient’s potential medical need for a
particular item within an otherwise covered category of services.
The court enjoined DSS from applying the challenged policy to named
plaintiffs’ requests for durable medical equipment and
ordered DSS to reconsider them. The court also certified a class;
counsel note that they will be seeking to expand the preliminary
injunction order to include the class.
