UNITED

, . JUANA RODRIGUEZ. by her son loci next fri~nd, WILFREOO RODRIGUEZ, AMEUA RUSSO,MARY WEINBLAD, by Iw:r dlullhter and nexl friend; SUSAN DOWNES; CHRlSTOS

'" GOUVATOS:aI1d StDONIE BENNETI; ind ividui lly atld on bt""lfohll Olh .... sim il':"l)' .

, ,

situated,

_Ind­

RUV]M ASELROD,

, ItHtn'tI!O'~.Pfa;mi/)- 'PfHlic'f!-C,ou"APfMI/{m/.

",--;r-' _ _ r · .. ·.....,.. .,. .."~- "" .-,-

OfFICE OF THE WESTC1tEsTER couNTt ATIOItNEY At;.t.om.y for ec-t •• icner, ..... tch .. tu c:i:>ozBty Deputaent ot Social a.rric:..' --10iI JOUeIwo.liu ' ptU .... BW.ld1"!1 '

." ."""'" .... York 1"01 , <';-.-",'" . "

, ,

,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

,

97-9152 [97 - 917 fi(CON) , 97-!Il7B (CON) ,

97 - 9186 (CON), 9 7-9:2 0 6 (CON). 97-9204 (XAP) 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEC01"D CIRCUIT

JUANA RODRIGUEZ. b>' ~~r son and "m !moo. WILFREOO RODRIGUEZ, AMELIA RUSSO,MARY WEINBLAD. b~ he, d.u~~ ter IOd I >e:~t friend; SUSAN DOWNES; CHRISTOS GOUV,. TOS:.ond 51 OON[E BENN;: , r. ~.;.I; ... .I":';J and on boII.l f or.n OIhcrl ,;",;lfIrly ,;, ... led.

l'/aimijJ<·A(Jptllu.-CroJ.-.4ppfll",,,-,. -...

RUVIM ASELII.OD. "!I~rl'tIl("~.I'I"jlfliff·A~lIrr·Cro.n·Apptll""l.

_lIgIintl· BARBARA OEBUONO, Comnlis~ioocrofth~ New YorL: Slate [)op8l1ment ofHuhh •• 1\II BRIAN WING. Act;nA Comm;Hion..-oflhe New V.".k Slale ~POrllne1\l ofSoci.1 s.,n' io:n.,

Ikfr1ldan's_Appell_J-Cm ... A~II«I. -and.

CITY OF NEW YORK, COMMISSIONER Of THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT Of SOCIAL SERVICES. COMMISSIO};ER OF SUfFOLK COUNTY UEPAII.'rMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. IRENE U.PIDEZ. COMMISSIONER Of NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

REPL¥ BRIEF FOR CO:'>IMISS10 NER, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMEI\T OF SOCIAL SERVICES

STACEY DOlGIN.KMETZ Deputy CowIty Attorney

UNDA TRENT AC05TE (LT 69(6) Sr. "-d_,.nt County Anomey

OFFICEOFTItE WESTCHfSTER COUNTY ATTORNEY A~to ..... y for eo-duionu, W".tchu~.r County n.pa~t_nt of SOCial S.E'Viee& 600 Mlehaelian Of tic" aull4ing 148 ~rtln. Avwnu. \<hit. Plain • . ~" '{orlt 10'01 Cn4 1 2IS-lU'

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPLY ARGUMENT:

THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ISSUING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHEN PLAINTIFFS·APPELLEES

PAGErs)

FAILED TO MEET THE. REQUIREMENTS .... .... ,""" ", .... .. "" , .. . ... 1

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ARE NOT UKEL Y TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS GIVEN THEIR ARGUMENTS REGARDING -COMPARABILlTY- ,. , .. , ... ... ....... . .4

CONCLUSION .. 6

-,-

TABLE OF CASES: PAGE(S)

v . Block, 629 F. Supp. 1574 D. N.Y. 1986) .. .... , .. . .....• ... . .. ...... , ....... , .2

Ca taDzano by Catanzano v. Dowling , 847 F . Supp. 1070 (W. O . N.Y. 1994) , aff' d 60 F.3d 11 3 {2d Cir. 1995) ... . ••... ..... ..... . ..... . ..... ....•.. 2

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v . Na tura l Resources D.f . n ... Coun ... l, Inc . , 467 U . S. 837 (1 98 4 ) ... . . • ......... 5

City of Los Angeles v. Ly ona, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) .. ... .. .. ...... . .. .. 2

Cosgrove v. S ulli van, 9 99 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1993) .... . ..... 5

Ellen S .

(S . 0 .

Schroedel 885 F .

STATUTES:

v . Rhodea, 507 F. Supp . 734 Oh io 1 981) ... . .. .. . .... . .. .•.. 2

v. Ne w York University Me d ical Cent e r . Supp. 594 (S.D .N .Y. 1995) ... .. ..... ........ . .. . . . . 2

42 U.S.CO §§l396 et seq . . ... ....... .... . .. . .. . ....... .. ..... 4

4 2 U.S.C. §U2182 et seq . .......... . ...... . . . ...... .. .. ..... 4

•

•

•

REPLY ARGUMENT

THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ISSUI NG A PREUMINARY

INJUNCTION WHEN PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS

In their Srie f, Plaintiffs -Appellees failed to specifieally

address the manner in which each social services district

• throughout the State of New York is inadequately provid ing the

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

necessary Care to Plaintiffs -Appellees and that absent a

preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs -Appellee s would suffer

irreparable harm . For example, the only information Plaintiffs-

Appel l ee s p roffe red with respect to We stchester County was that

task- based assessments were first used in Westchester County in

1990.' The r e ar .. othe r avai l able Medicaid progra ms offered by

Westchester County and other counties throughout the State of New

York which should have been con6idered before the District Court

issued a mandatory preliminary injunction . By tailing to address

these other programs, Pl~intift9 -Appellees are implicit l y a rguing

1 In fact, in an effort to r ectify this clear omission , Plaintiffs­Appellees r e f e r to t~ Hattsr of Antonia Valv~o . See Plaintiff. ­Appellees' Brief , ttnt . 44 . Howsve r , the document eubmitted by Pla intiffs-Appellsss , r egarding t he Hatter of Anton i a Valvano wa s never part of the r ecord below r egarding the preliminary injunction. Consequently, Plaintiffa-Appslleea cannot now claim that the District Court properly iuued the preliminary injunction i n the first instance when it did not conside r such inform.tion at the tims it rende red its decillion.

•

•

•

•

•

•

,

•

t l~t the personal Care Be~ices program i 8 the onl y p rQgr am

provided to Medicaid recipients. Without adequate consideration

of all the available programs offered by the var i ous social

services districts throughout the State of New York to

Plaintiffs -Appellees, Plaintiffs-Appellees have failed to prove

that they will suffer irreparable hapm absent the grant of a

mandatory preliminary injunction. Absent proof of irre parable

harm, no pre limina ry injunction may be issue d. See Catanzano by

Ca tan",&no v. Dowling, 647 F. Supp. 1070, lOBO (W.O. N .Y. 1994),

afC' d . 60 F . 3d 113 (2d Cit. 1995). In other word s. the failure

to prove a real and immediate injury or threat of injury requires

that the request for a preliminary injunction be dismissed . See

Bll.n s . v . Rhodes, S07 F. Supp. 734, 740 (S.D. Ohi o 1981 ) Bi ggs

v. Block , 629 F. Supp. IS74. IS77 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) kiting City oL

Los Ang"les v . Lyons, 461 U. S. 9S, 101 - 102, 103 s.et. 1660, 1665

(1983) . Mere conjecture that harm may Occur in any county Using

a TEA plan of care is insufficient to grant s t anding to obtain

injunctive relief. Bi ggs v . Block. 629 F. Supp. 1574, 1578

(E.O.N.Y. 1996) ; Schroedel v . Ne", York Un i versity MsdicIIl Ce"t.r,

B8S F. Supp . 594, 599-600 (S.O. N. Y. 1995). Conse que ntly, t he

District Court abus ed its discretion in issuing a pre liminary

,

i njunct ion when Pla inti ffs -Appel lees tailed to meet the

requi rements .

l

PLAI:,\.IFFS-APPELLEES ARE NOT UKEL Y TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS GIVEN THEIR ARGUMENTS REGARDING "COMPARABILITY" AND

DlSCRI~lINATION UND£R THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.

In the ir brief, Pla intiffs-Appellees argue t hat the District

Cou r t d id not abuse i t s discretio n in issuing the ma nda tory

prel imina ry injunction because Plaintiffs - Appellees are l ikely to

succeed on the meri t s. Pla intiffs - Appelle es contend tha t all of

the De fe ndant a ' actions a re in clear violation of the

'comparability" provision of the Medicaid Ac t as s e t forth i n 42

U.S.C . §1l96 (a) (10) (b).' Despite Plaintiffs - Appellees bold

ass ertions, Def enda nts a ctions are not in violation of federal

law .

The principle embodied in the 'comparability provision- of

42 USC §1396a( a ) (10) (b) is tha t all Medicaid recipients,

rega rdle ss of the c a tegory of their eligibility, are ent i tled to

equally compre hensive care. Th i s provision doe s not manda t e that

, I n their brief, Plainti f fs-Appellees ' also reference the Ame rica ns

wi th Disabilities Act, 42 u.s.c. S12182, to establish their likel i hood ot succe~~ on the merits . See PI"intiff"-Appelleell' Brie f PSI. 47. However, thi .... ection of the Ame ricans with Disabi l itie" Act i. completely irre levant to the instant matte r beca use that provision deals expre • • ly with the 'prohibition of discrimination by public accO!M\Odationll. w Sa~ Plaintiffs-Appell .. e .. ' Sri ,,! pg. 41 ; """ g" n"ra lly pappas v . B" th" . d . Hesp. A.s'n, 861 p, Supp. 616 (S.D. Oh io 1~g4 ) (whe r e indiVidual ' s claim had nothing to do with t he inability te make phy.ical use at services of place at publ ic accommodation). Consequently, no further di scussion r eg a r d ing t bis sect i on ot f ed eral law will be addres~ed in thi. Re ply Brie f.

,

every Medicaid recipient, regardless of their medical needs,

receive the same medical care. Clearly, a program of care that

is medically and fiscally appropriate for one individual may not

be equally appropriate for another. Accordingly, Dsfendants

have, within their discre tion, properly implemented the scope of

s ervices to be provided to Medicaid recipients i n a manner which

is consistent with the Medicaid Act. Such an administrative

decision must be accorded due deference by a District Court.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc . v. Natural Resourcea De~ense, Inc . , 467

U.S. 837, 81 L.Ed . 2d 694, 104 S.Ct . 2778 (l 984) 1 Cosgrove v.

Sullivan, 999 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1993).

Notwithstanding this fact, the District Court, wi thout

cons ide ring the manne r or extent of the programs available to

"individuals similarly situated· to the Pla intiffs -Appellees in

Westchester county, substituted i ts own judgment and determined

what scope of services is medically and fiscally appropriate to

provi de tor individual s receiving personal care services. Such

action by the District Court was completely inappropriate and a

clear abuse of its discretion. Consequently, this Court should

reverse the District Court's Order insofar as it issued a

mandatory preliminary injunction against the County of

Westchester.

,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CONC LUSION

For all of the rea sons Bet forth in the Appella nts' Bri ef

and in this Reply Brief , the Westchester County Departme nt of

Social Services respectfully requests that an order be entered

reversing the Amended Opinion and Order dated AUgust 21, 1~97, of

the United states District Court for the Southern District of New

York (Scheindl in , J.) inSOf ar as i t issued a preliminary

injunction and directed the Intervenors-Defendants to include

safety monitoring as a separate t ask on their TEA forms , assess

the need for safety monitoring as a sepa rate task and calculate

any minutes a llotted for safety monitoring as part of the tota l

personal care services authori~ed for applicants and recipient~.

Date, White Plains, New York December 22, 1991

OFFICE OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNT Y A nORNEY Attorney for Defendant-Appel l an t Commissioner of the Westcheater county Department of Social Services

';'1 j L f!:i' ~LnC"5C:. LINDA M. TREN 'ACOSTE (LT 69(6) Sr. Assistant County Attorney

Of Counsel 600 Michaelian Office Building 1 48 Mart i ne Avenue White Pl ains , New York 10601 (914) 285-2839

6

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL

STATE OfNEWYORJ..: ) ) SS.:

COUNTY OF WESTCHEST ER)

MAR THA CAR TER, beinll du ly .wom. depose. and uys: I am nor a part)' 10 lhi' aclion; I om <Wor 1& )'u" of age; I reoide in VALHALLA, NEW

YORK. On Dtccmbcr n. 1991. J sen·td a copy oflhe ... ' ~hin REPLY BRIEF FOR

COMMISSIO,'t/ER, WESTCHESTER COfJIITY DE"A RTMENT OF SOCIAL SER VICES If! lhe maner of ._ifWl. #'/ til .• "d AstltVld, tI.L •. ~'Nra INB_, tI . 1. ""d C.lfUllinitnt#'r, N~ yont Cfly lHfHIfflWM' II{ SNIGI s,n-ius, It Ill .• upOn:

Lrs'/#, s.m.-., Es.,. I'arls .81~i, £1if. T,,'), &>Ik/;. £ Jq. C..mo..-o B#'I T:fflf/; ugol.~"'IC#'s H Fifi~ ,h'o~ ... , II,h FIOOT N#'", Yvk. NY f{){)()3

Don~" DolIghy/)" Esq. Q"t .... ugtJ/ S.rvlcn jor Ilw f,'lduly

117.-Ij Q ..... '" IJoMlnYJTd fk60"lri,NY IJJU

M/cltH/ Sclle<t, EMf. YiJlOfI Sd",I_. £s.'1' H#'., Y""i ug,al AnW.--o Gro.qt 00 £Iu, 591" Sirffl. Il,,, Floor H ... Y"" •. NY /0011

h_J M. H#'n#'Ir/#'" £.J4. AltonwyGt ... rolj<w,N !Mm. of N OM' YOI'i 110 Broodot'f1)' NtM' y""l, NY 10111

""/i,,, c: McC""hy, l:s'l' COI'porol;"" CounJ#'1 of I~ City of No", Y",t IOO ChllC"$trut, Roo ... ) · 113

""~". J ..... l, NY 1()(}Q7

MkloMI T. Hop/;;"s, EJ4. UrI. TmIn,~.

fkp#;im. Knpifo.d W#'iI 1001 FmMJi>lA.,.."w. Sui,. no a.-.dt.. City. NY 11530

Ba",", .. • arIM, £Sf.

S ....... IO boofon: ..... llI i.

A .. .,' .... / COI..", .-itt_y B. 158 H""tlr CIWnly COMpi#'.t V#, /.1WU' MoltlOf'Q/ Highway }f(J"JIP(J~, NY 11788-131/

Q.'f(?JfW NOTARY PUBLIC