Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

293 F.3d 472 (2002)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
293 F.3d 472 (2002)

  • Written by Jody Stuart, JD

Facts

Under the Medicaid Act (act), a state Medicaid plan must include the provision of early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT) services. The Child Health Management Services program (child program) was provided under the Arkansas State Medicaid Plan (state plan) as part of the EPSDT mandate. The child program provided early-intervention services to Medicaid-eligible children between the ages of six months and six years and was designed to help children who had chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional conditions prepare for school. The child program provided diagnostic and evaluation services, therapies, and other treatments, including early-intervention day-treatment services. Early-intervention day treatment was a daycare program run by medical and early-childhood specialists that was designed to help ameliorate each child’s condition. In 2001, Arkansas announced its intention to cut the early-intervention day-treatment services from the child program due to a budget shortfall. These services were not available elsewhere in the state plan. Subsequently, Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc., a provider of services in the child program, and other child-program providers, along with the parents of three recipients of child-program services (plaintiffs) filed suit in federal district court against the Arkansas Department of Human Services (department) (defendant) to prevent the proposed cutbacks, asserting that the cutbacks would violate the EPSDT mandate. The evidence presented at trial established that the early-intervention day-treatment services helped achieve the maximum reduction of the children’s physical and mental disabilities and restoration of their best possible functional level. The district court enjoined the cutbacks in the child program. The department appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Heaney, J.)

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 747,000 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 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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 747,000 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
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 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