Rosie D. v. Romney
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
410 F. Supp. 2d 18 (2006)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
The Medicaid Act (act) required states’ Medicaid programs to provide early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment (EPSDT) services to all Medicaid-eligible children. In October 2001, Rosie D. and others (collectively Rosie D.) (plaintiffs) filed suit against various Massachusetts officials and agencies (collectively, the state) (defendant), alleging that the state had failed to comply with the EPSDT provisions in connection with Medicaid-eligible children with serious emotional disturbances. Serious emotional disturbances included medical conditions such as autism, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic-stress disorder. In December 2001, Rosie D. moved for certification of a class. The court then certified a class of all current and future Medicaid-eligible children in Massachusetts under age 21 who were eligible to receive services for serious emotional disturbances. Next, the evidence established (1) that each child with serious emotional disturbances needed a comprehensive assessment of the nature of the disability, the development of a clinical plan to address the disability, and a properly trained person to monitor and coordinate implementation of the plan; and (2) that these medical services were not being provided or were provided inadequately to thousands of class members. The evidence also established that the provision of competent, in-home support services was widely recognized as essential for children with serious emotional disturbances and that the state had failed to adequately provide these services.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ponsor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.