Benjamin H. v. Ohl

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22469 (1999)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Benjamin H. v. Ohl

United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22469 (1999)

  • Written by Jody Stuart, JD


Medicaid was a joint federal and state program to provide medical care for certain individuals. Federal and state governments shared the costs of the program, with the federal government contributing a greater portion of the funds. States were not required to participate in Medicaid. Under Medicaid, West Virginia offered a program that provided intermediate-care-facility services for developmentally disabled individuals (facility program). An intermediate-care facility was a residential institution for providing health services to developmentally disabled individuals. The Home and Community-Based Waiver program (waiver program) was an alternative to the facility program and served individuals who were eligible to receive services under the facility program. The waiver program provided the facility-program level of services in homes instead of intermediate-care facilities, permitting individuals to avoid residing in institutions. Providing services through the waiver program cost much less than providing the services in an institution. Benjamin H. and four other individuals (collectively, applicants) (plaintiffs) were developmentally disabled, applied for the waiver program, and were placed on waiting lists for periods ranging from one to eight years. The applicants were eligible for the facility program and thus were entitled to participate in the waiver program. The services that the state was providing to the waitlisted applicants were insufficient to meet the level of services required for facility-program-eligible individuals. The applicants filed suit against the head of the state agency responsible for implementing West Virginia’s Medicaid plan (state) (defendant). The applicants asserted that the state was improperly denying Medicaid benefits and moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the state to provide all eligible individuals with waiver-program services. If granted, the injunction would entail a substantial cost to the state. The state provided testimony that additional state funding would be available to support no more than 25 new slots per year in the waiver program.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership