UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United

BACKGROUND. this Agreement. 1 Due to privacy concerns, pseudonyms are used in place of Mother Smith s and Abraham Smith s legal names in

Case 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 11 Filed 06/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv SI Document 240 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

State of Wyoming. Department of Health

Case 1:16-cv JDB Document 33 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

208.4 Inquiry Panel Review. applicant has established that he or she possesses the character and fitness necessary to practice law in

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Case 5:11-cv cr Document 115 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) Case No.: CV PHX-DAE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or

GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the

(1) Adult shall mean any person who is nineteen years of age or older or who is or has been married;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

INDEPENDENT SALES ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT

DATA USE AGREEMENT RECITALS

CHAPTER 10 - INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER 10A - WORKERS' COMPENSATION RULES SECTION ADMINISTRATION

KALISPEL TRIBE OF INDIANS

EEOC and Darmo et al. v. Pinnacle Nissan, Inc. et al.

Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT): Summaries of Procedures & Services

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United

Case 7:15-cv AT-LMS Document 129 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 8

BYLAWS Midwest Kidney Network

Due Process Grievance and Appeal

Emergency Medicaid for Non-Qualified Immigrants Medical Coverage and Services for Immigrants

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES FOR RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY, INC. FIXED PRICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. Recitals:

WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff

Eligibility Assistance for Reimbursement for Emergency Medical Services: A Step-by-Step Guide for Hospitals

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

Case 2:17-cv DGC Document 36-1 Filed 06/04/18 Page 1 of 20 EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL REPORT. Meeting Date: May 10, Public Works and Community Services

It is hereby STIPULATED by and between all parties to the within action that disclosure shall proceed and be completed as follows:

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COORDINATION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR LA PAZ COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITY DETAINEES

SUPERINTENDENT HOLDINGFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

Defendant. WHEREAS, the OAG conducted an investigation of these complaints pursuant to his authority under New York Executive Law 63( 12);

SAMPLE PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE BROKER SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE AIRPORT AND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CONSENT DECREE. I. Background

Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE RECITALS

- 1 - Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 8 of 156

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEV ADA. consented to the entry of this Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction (the "Decree"), without

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Monk's Inc., d/b/a International House of Pancakes, Defendant.

Couser v. DISH One Satellite, LLC United States District Court for the Central District of California Case No. 5:15-cv-2218-CBM-DTB

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Associated Home Health Care of Palm Beach.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

Case 1:18-cv ER Document 72 Filed 12/27/18 Page 1 of 12

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE

Case 1:16-cv WHP Document 4-1 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 10 NO. 1:16-CV-6544

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Civil Mental Health Proceedings: Understanding the Process

- 79th Session (2017) Assembly Bill No. 440 Assemblyman Yeager

is to establish a mechanism for meaningful community participation in the enforcement of any

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

Case4:14-cv YGR Document104-2 Filed08/20/15 Page2 of 7

CAUSE NO STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff

Litigation ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONS GENERAL PROCEDURES & PRACTICE. continued on page 2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 1:19-cv Document 3 Filed 01/16/19 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No.

Case 1:18-cv AJN Document 6 Filed 09/29/18 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:11-cv NLH -AMD Document 61 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

2016 PREMIER ACADEMY COACH INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

FSMCode2014Tit51Chap01

TITLE 51 LABOR CHAPTERS. 1 Protection of Resident Workers ( ) SUBCHAPTERS. I General Provisions ( ) II Application of Chapter ( )

EEOC v. Lawry's Retaurants, Inc,, d/b/a Lawry's The Prime Rib, Five Crowns, and Tam O'Shanter Inn

United States of America v. City of Lubbock, Texas

AGREEMENT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES RECITALS. B. The District owns and operates Hospital in, Washington (the "Hospital");

United States of America v. The City of Belen, New Mexico

NO Attorney for Judgment Creditor: Audrey Udashen 23 Assistant Attorney General

Case 4:17-cv ALM Document 26 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 543

Corrective Action/Fair Hearing Plan. For. The Medical Staff of Indiana University Blackford Hospital Hartford City, IN 47348

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Civil Action No.: [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE. Press Release.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MONTANA UNIFORM DISTRICT COURT RULES

Case 4:05-cv TSL-LRA Document 224 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LOCAL RULES CASE MANAGEMENT IN CIVIL CASES

FINAL JUDGMENT OF INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST STALKING (AFTER NOTICE)

Supportive Decision Making Alternatives to Article 17A Guardianship

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ORDER. WHEREAS, the en bane court has held public hearings upon this Petition in Carson City and Las Vegas; and

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. v. Majesty Maintenance, Inc.

NKF-CNSW RULES AND REGULATIONS. (As Reviewed 2017)

Coldwell Banker Residential Referral Network

Transcription:

1 1 1 1 FATIMA PADILLA, by and through her mother; MARIA GUEVARA; ROSA LOPEZ; MARCELINO GRIJALVA- LOPEZ; GUILLERMO LUJAN; DORA MORALES; and JOSE DAVID CASSANOVA, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, ANTHONY RODGERS, Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, and MICHAEL LEAVITT, Secretary of Health and Human Services, in their official capacities, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CIV 0 TUC FRZ CONSENT DECREE Plaintiffs filed this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons with End Stage Renal Disease. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Rodgers changed the definition of emergency medical services under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System ( AHCCCS program to exclude coverage for kidney dialysis treatments/services and to require a sudden onset for coverage in violation of the federal Medicaid Act. Specifically, Defendant Rodgers changed the AHCCCS policies in the Provider Manual and in administrative rule R--. In addition, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Rodgers eliminated the ability of providers to receive prior authorization for kidney dialysis services. Finally, Plaintiffs alleged Defendant Rodgers failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for a pre-termination hearing

1 1 1 1 of kidney dialysis services in violation of U.S.C.. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification. A provisional class was certified on September, 0, and modified on October, 0. The class was defined as: The class shall consist of all persons who are or will be eligible for federal emergency medical services under the AHCCCS Title XIX program, whose end-stage renal disease meets the definition of emergency medical condition set forth in U.S.C. 1 b(v( and for whom their physicians have prescribed outpatient hemio-dialysis treatments three times weekly. The class includes all those individuals who, pursuant to AHCCCS s Title XIX extended services program, had been receiving outpatient dialysis prior to November 1, 01, and for whom treatment has been continued pursuant to S.B. 0. In Court Orders entered on June, September, and October, 0, a preliminary injunction for the class was granted that prohibited Defendant Rodgers from limiting access to dialysis to Plaintiffs and the provisional class and required AHCCCS to provide coverage of medically necessary outpatient dialysis treatment as an emergency medical service. Pursuant to the Court s Order of June, 0, Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was named as a Defendant in this action in an amended complaint filed on July, 0. Subsequently, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss him as a Defendant which was granted on November, 0. On June, 0, this Court reinstated Defendant Thompson as a named defendant in this action to ensure that the preliminary injunction provisions were abided to by Defendant Thompson. The Plaintiffs and Defendant Rodgers have agreed to resolve this matter without further proceedings. The parties have agreed that upon the entry of this Consent Decree, the parties will submit a stipulation to dismiss Defendant Michael Leavitt as successor to Defendant Tommy Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services as a party. The parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and waive their right to a hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. - -

1 1 1 1 The Court, after reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, the pleadings in this case and any comments from the class members, finds: 1. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the class is defined as previously certified on October, 0.. This settlement requires AHCCCS to provide coverage for medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis as an emergency medical service and for the notice and an opportunity to be heard for AHCCCS denials and termination of coverage service for outpatient kidney dialysis.. The parties provided notice to the class of this settlement by January 1, 0, and a fair hearing was held on February, 0.. There were no written or oral objections to this decree.. This settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Rule (e(1 (C of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. This Consent Decree resolves all the claims of Plaintiffs and the class against Defendant Rodgers arising out of this lawsuit.. This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns. DEFENDANT RODGERS ACTIONS. Defendant Rodgers, his officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with him, for the duration of the decree, are permanently enjoined from: A. Failing to provide coverage for medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis treatment as an emergency medical service under Medicaid ( emergency medical services for persons with End Stage Renal Disease. By this injunction, AHCCCS returns to the policies it utilized prior to October 01. B. Failing to provide for prior authorization for coverage for medically - -

1 1 1 1 actions: necessary outpatient kidney dialysis services based upon a physician s monthly certification of the following: I am the treating physician for [member s name], who has been diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD. It is my opinion that in the absence of the following dialysis treatments per week, the patient s ESRD would reasonably be expected to result in: Placing the patient s health in serious jeopardy; Serious impairment of bodily function; or Serious dysfunction of a bodily organ or part. It is my medical opinion that requires dialysis treatments per week. Signature Date C. Failing to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for a pretermination hearing pursuant to U.S.C. 1 (a and C.F.R. 1.0 et seq., when AHCCCS terminates coverage of outpatient kidney dialysis treatment as an emergency medical service for any member of the class. D. Failing to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to U.S.C. 1 (a and C.F.R. 1.0 et seq., on any claim for outpatient kidney dialysis services that is denied as an emergency medical service.. To effectuate the above provisions, Defendant Rodgers shall take the following (A (B Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall change sections of the AHCCCS policy manuals to affirmatively state that medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis services are provided as an emergency medical service. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall change the administrative rule R-- to affirmatively state that medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis services are provided as an - -

1 1 1 1 (C (D (E (F (G emergency medical service. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall post a notice on the AHCCCS website of the terms of this Consent Decree, including information about how persons may contact Plaintiffs counsel if they are having any problems obtaining medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis treatment as an emergency medical service. This notice shall remain on the website for the duration of the decree. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall send a notice to all Plaintiffs and class members who are presently receiving dialysis treatment for end-stage renal disease, notifying them of the terms of this Consent Decree and include information about how the class members may contact Plaintiffs counsel if they are having any problems obtaining medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis treatment. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall send a notice to all hospitals, dialysis clinics, nephrologists, and internists notifying them of the terms of this Consent Decree and include information about how they may contact Plaintiffs counsel if they are having problems obtaining medically necessary outpatient kidney dialysis treatment for a client as an emergency medical service. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall provide notice of this Consent Decree and include information about how persons may contact Plaintiffs counsel if they have questions concerning the Consent Decree in the quarterly publication Claims Clue sent to all providers. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall notify his employees and agents (including staff at the Arizona Department of Economic Security of the terms of this Consent Decree and of the - -

1 1 1 1 actions in paragraphs (a - (c above. (H Defendant shall provide each of the documents identified in paragraphs (a - (f above to Plaintiffs counsel for review and approval within days of entry of this decree. TRAINING. Defendant shall provide training to his employees and agents, including staff at the Arizona Department of Economic Security on the terms of this Consent Decree within 0 days of entry of this decree. Staff to be trained shall include intake and eligibility workers, supervisors and quality review staff. REPORTING/MONITORING. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, and every four ( months thereafter, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs counsel an affidavit by Defendant Rodgers stating that the actions required in paragraph four ( of this decree are still in effect. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS. Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs counsel are entitled to attorneys fees and costs.. Within 0 days of entry of this decree, Plaintiffs counsel shall submit a request for attorneys fees and costs to Defendant Rodgers. If the parties are unable to agree to an award of attorneys fees and costs for Plaintiffs, then Plaintiffs shall file a bill of costs and motion for attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Local Rules.1 and.. In response to the motion for attorneys fees, Defendant Rodgers could not challenge Plaintiffs entitlement to fees and costs, but only the amount of the request. Plaintiffs time to file the bill of costs and motion for attorneys fees shall be extended to 0 days after Plaintiffs submit their written request to Defendant Rodgers. Plaintiffs shall have an additional 0 days to submit their Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees and all supporting documentation. LIMITATIONS. No provision of this decree shall infringe upon any applicant s right to seek relief - -

1 1 1 1 against Defendant in the appropriate forum for an alleged violation of the Medicaid Act not addressed in this decree. ENFORCEMENT. The provisions of this decree shall remain in effect for the duration of this decree unless there is a change in the federal Medicaid statute that directly affects the Federal Emergency Services program under Title XIX. If Defendant believes that a change in the federal Medicaid statute directly affects the terms of this decree, Defendant shall give Plaintiffs counsel notice of the change within 0 days of when Defendant found out about the change. The notice shall include the following: a. The federal change in law; b. When Defendant was informed of the change; c. The manner in which Defendant believes the change affects the terms of the decree; and d. The basis of Defendant s conclusion in paragraph c. Plaintiffs shall have 0 days from receipt of the notice to either advise Defendant that Plaintiffs agree with Defendant s interpretation or that they disagree and will file a motion in court to request judicial intervention or interpretation.. At least 0 days prior to filing a motion for enforcement or contempt of this Consent Decree based upon a claimed violation by Defendant, Plaintiffs shall provide written notice to Defendant of the nature and specifics of the claimed violation in order to give Defendant an opportunity to cure the alleged violation(s. JURISDICTION 1. The duration of this decree is twenty-four months from the date the Consent Decree is filed with the Court. 1. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for twenty-four months and any additional time period necessary for any enforcement and contempt action commenced before the expiration of the twenty-four month period, during which Plaintiffs may petition this Court for compliance with the decree. - -

1. Notwithstanding any provisions in this decree, including but not limited to paragraph concerning attorneys fees and costs and paragraph 1 concerning the twentyfour month period of this decree, there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Consent Decree and Entry of Judgment by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule (b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. The failure of Defendant to implement or otherwise execute any of the agreed upon terms of this decree shall constitute a violation of the order of this Court and shall be fully enforceable by this Court.. The parties agree to entry of this Consent Decree, subject to final approval by the Court. DATED this day of 0. 1 1 1 1 APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO: WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Frank R. Zapata United States District Court Judge JOHNSTON LAW OFFICES PLC By /s/ Ellen Sue Katz for By /s/ Ellen Sue Katz for Sally Hart Logan Johnston East Speedway Boulevard One North 1 st Street, Suite 0 Tucson, Arizona Phoenix, Arizona 00 By /s/ Ellen Sue Katz Ellen Sue Katz East McDowell, Suite Phoenix, Arizona 00 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant Rodgers - -