Cohon Ex Rel. Bass v. NEW MEXICO DEPT. OF HEALTH
646 F.3d 717
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cohon sought Mi Via Waiver funding in New Mexico; she qualified for an initial IBA of $59,449 and requested additional funding.
- Lovelace and state agencies partially approved Cohon's budget; many items exceeding the IBA were denied or deferred.
- An administrative hearing found some requests met Mi Via criteria but noted discretionary disapproval rights by the department, and the later agency decision restricted approvals to safety-related items when over the IBA.
- Cohon filed a federal complaint alleging violations of ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act §504, plus constitutional due process and equal protection claims.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim and remanded state-law claims to state court; Cohon appeals the federal dismissal.
- The court analyzes finality, collateral estoppel, and the merits of Cohon’s statutory and constitutional claims, with Lovelace treated as a non-major party to the federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is reviewable final judgment | Cohon argues finality despite ongoing state proceedings. | District court properly concluded finality under 1367(c) permitted review of federal claims. | Yes; district court’s final judgment reviewable despite state-court proceedings. |
| Collateral estoppel on discrimination claims | Issues were decided in administrative proceedings and should estop Cohon. | Discrimination issues were not litigated or necessarily determined in the administrative proceeding. | No; no collateral estoppel as to discrimination claims. |
| Statutory claims under ADA Title II and §504 | Mi Via budget determinations and safety limitations discriminate based on disability severity. | Budget allotment is a starting point; safety-based limits are permissible and not discriminatory. | Dismissed; Cohon failed to state a plausible discrimination claim under either Act. |
| Constitutional equal protection and due process | Safety-based budget constraints and prioritization deprive Cohon of self-direction and equal protection. | Rational-basis review supports the program's structure; no fundamental rights or suspect class involved. | Equal protection and due process claims dismissed; rational-basis approach applied. |
| Lovelace as a proper party to federal claims | Lovelace discriminates and should be liable under federal statutes. | Lovelace’s status as a party remains unresolved for this appeal; arguments not reached on merits. | Not addressed on the merits; federal claims against Lovelace affirmed as dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (meaningful access under §504; balancing access with program integrity)
- Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (state discretion in Medicaid planning; avoid uniform across-the-board mandates)
- Townsend v. Quasim, 328 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 2003) (Olmstead control over location of services; not necessarily institutionalization)
- Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (unjustified isolation of disabled individuals in institutions)
- Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986) (federal courts give state agency findings preclusive effect when entitled in state courts)