Federal Court Settlement – Case Of First Impression In Illinois
In 2004, our office filed a declaratory judgment suit against the Illinois Department of Public Aid and Illinois Department of Human Services in the United States District Court of Illinois, Northern District, Eastern Division. This occurred in Case No. 03 C 4047, Weismann, etc. v. Maram, etc., et al. Plaintiff’s complaint stated that federal law groups guardianship costs under the "remedial cost" category, payable under a Medicaid recipient's income, or patient paid amount (similar to the issue raised and ultimately dispositive in the Rudow case in Massachusetts (Rudow v. Commissioner of the Division of Medicaid Asst., 707 N.E. 2d 33q (1999). On July 2, 2004, a minute order was issued by the presiding judge, Judge Milton Shadur, based on a settlement reached between Plaintiff, a Medicaid recipient with MS who resides in a nursing home, and Defendants, Illinois Department of Public Aid and Illinois Department of Human Services. The parties agreed that Plaintiff will dismiss her complaint for declaratory judgment and attorney’s fees under Section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act in return for Defendants paying a medical expert for “expert fees” incurred in evaluating whether Plaintiff has sufficient competency to be restored and have her guardianship be vacated and dismissed. Plaintiff was given three weeks to either have the order formally entered or to reinstate our case (not connected with the state court restoration case) were part of the settlement. This has similarities to the case handled by John Ford (as counsel) and Martha Ramsey (as guardian) in Massachusetts. Naturally, this is just a first step, but we are pleased that this much progress has been made. Thanks go out to New York NAELA member Rene Reixach, and Massachusetts NAELA members, John Ford, and Martha Ramsey, for assisting us with different facets of the preparation and research connected to getting this far.
This has repercussions throughout the state, since frequently indigent persons have been denied access to the courts either in establishing guardianships for their protection, or ending or modifying those guardianships if their disabilities have ameliorated over time. Interestingly, the State said at the July 2 hearing that they always have paid such expenses under the “medical expert” provisions of DHS policy.