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
Rodde v. Bonta
357 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55598
Description
Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction Against County’s Closure of Rehabilitative Care Facility and Finding of Plaintiffs’ Likely Success on ADA Claim
Abstract
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary
injunction barring Los Angeles County from proceeding with plans to
close Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, a county
hospital dedicated primarily to providing inpatient and outpatient
rehabilitative care to people with disabilities. The Ninth Circuit
ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of
their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Shortly after consolidating clinical services for severe
disabilities at Rancho, defendants proposed to close the facility
to reduce health care spending. Plaintiff class of current and
future Medicaid recipients who lived in the county, had
disabilities, and needed Rancho’s rehabilitative services
sued. The district court found that if Rancho closed, plaintiffs
would be unable to obtain substitute care elsewhere and that
closure would violate federal law. On defendants’ appeal, the
Ninth Circuit found defendant county’s reliance on
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985),
“unpersuasive.” The Ninth Circuit said that
Alexander, which upheld a state’s reduction in
inpatient days covered by Medicaid, was distinguishable because the
reduction applied to all patients. “Eliminating entirely the
only hospital … that focuses on the needs of disabled
individuals … and that provides services disproportionately
required by the disabled” was not facially neutral, the Ninth
Circuit said. Defendants’ planned cuts specifically targeted
services for the disabled, an approach prohibited by the ADA. While
defendant’s interest in balancing its health care budget was
strong, plaintiffs’ evidence suggested that closing Rancho
would likely increase costs because plaintiffs would have to be
treated somewhere.
