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
Dahl v. Goodno
No. C9-04-007537 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Ramsey County Filed February 4, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55837
Description
Medicaid Beneficiaries Allege that Minnesota State Agency Violates Medicaid Act by Denying Services to Those Unable to Pay Copayment
Abstract
Plaintiff Medicaid beneficiaries with severe mental and physical
disabilities and nonprofit mental health advocates seek to enjoin
defendant Minnesota commissioner of human services from
implementing copayment policies denying them medical care.
Plaintiffs allege that in September 2003 the Minnesota Department
of Human Services issued instructions to medical providers to deny
care or services to Medical Assistance recipients who were unable
to pay their copayments if the providers routinely refused service
to people with unpaid bills and to providers to tell the recipients
in advance if the providers were stopping services. The department
also sent recipients notice of its new copayment policies but the
notice did not instruct them on how to claim an inability to pay a
copayment. One plaintiff who spends most of his Supplemental
Security Insurance income on room and board takes several
medications daily. Two pharmacies have refused or threatened to
stop refilling his prescriptions due to unpaid copayments. Several
plaintiffs have delayed or gone without medical treatment due to
their inability to pay copayments. In their amended class action
complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendant’s policy of
allowing medical service providers to deny services to persons who
have unpaid copayment debt violates the Medicaid Act (42 U.S.C.
1396o(e)) and state laws and is preempted by the supremacy clause
of the U.S. Constitution.
