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
Ladd v. Thomas
No. 3:94cv1184(JBA) (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 1997). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51567
Description
Agency’s Failure to Notify Medicaid Recipients of Decisions on Their Requests for Prior Approval of Durable Medical Equipment Violates Federal Law
Abstract
The district court has granted plaintiff Medicaid recipients
declaratory relief in this class action alleging that the
Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS) procedures for
prior approval of Medicaid coverage of durable medical equipment
violate due process requirements of federal Medicaid law. The court
held that DSS’s failure to send notices of denials to
recipients when vendors fail to respond to "pink-slip"
requests for further information violated the Medicaid Act’s
requirement that requests for medical assistance be acted on with
reasonable promptness. Pink slips are sent only to vendors; when a
vendor fails to respond to a pink slip, DSS simply never acts on
the prior authorization request and never gives notice of hearing
rights. The court ordered further discovery and a hearing on the
issue of what constitutes "reasonable promptness." The
court also held that DSS’s failure to notify recipients that
a request for prior approval had been approved in modified form
(i.e., regarding the type of equipment or the time period) and to
notify recipients of the denial of oral requests by vendors for
prior authorization violated the Medicaid Act’s due process
requirements. However, the court held that DSS was not required to
give notice of its approval of coverage for durable medical
equipment. It also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that they
should have the option of submitting a request for prior
authorization to DSS without going through a vendor.
