Davis v. Shah
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
821 F.3d 231 (2016)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
The State of New York (state) (defendant) had a Medicaid plan that provided insurance coverage for its recipients’ medical services, including orthopedic footwear and compression stockings. The state amended its Medicaid plan and restricted coverage for orthopedic footwear and compression stockings to recipients suffering from a specific list of conditions. Harry Davis and several other Medicaid recipients (recipients) (plaintiffs) had disabilities that medically required the use of orthopedic footwear and compression stockings. The required footwear and stockings helped the disabled recipients with mobility and prevented the development of more serious conditions, many of which could have led to hospitalization. However, the recipients’ conditions were not on the state’s amended coverage list and did not qualify for Medicaid coverage. Seeking to stop enforcement of the Medicaid amendments, the recipients filed suit against Nirav Shah (defendant), the commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. The recipients argued that the state’s coverage restrictions violated the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the recipients, and the state appealed to the Second Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
