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
Tinder v. Ill. Dep't of Pub. Aid
805 N.E.2d 677 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55593
Description
Medicaid-Eligible Disabled Persons with Cerebral Palsy Are Developmentally Disabled Under Illinois Law and Eligible for Residential Treatment Program
Abstract
The Illinois Appellate Court held that under Illinois law
Medicaid-eligible disabled persons with cerebral palsy were
“developmentally disabled” and eligible for a
residential treatment program even if they did not have a mental
impairment. Plaintiff had cerebral palsy. He applied for and was
denied admission into a Community Integrated Living Arrangement, a
residential treatment program promoting independent living and open
to the Medicaid-eligible developmentally disabled. The Illinois
Department of Human Services found him not “developmentally
disabled” because he did not have a significant mental
impairment and would not benefit from “active
treatment” provided in the living arrangement. The Illinois
Department of Public Aid upheld the denial as did the circuit court
upon administrative review. On plaintiff’s appeal, the
Department of Public Aid argued that plaintiff was not eligible for
the living arrangement because only those who could benefit from
“active treatment” were eligible and only
developmentally disabled individuals with significant mental
impairments were candidates for “active treatment.” The
appellate court reversed the lower court. The appellate court held
that Illinois law did not limit eligibility for the living
arrangement to those who could benefit from “active
treatment”; the only requirement for admission was a
developmental disability; under both Illinois statute and
regulation, “developmentally disabled” included,
without qualification, those suffering from cerebral palsy; and
plaintiff was eligible for the living arrangement.
