646 F.3d 717
10th Cir.2011Background
- Cohon participates in New Mexico's Mi Via Waiver, a home- and community-based Medicaid program.
- Her initial budget request, based on an IBA of $59,449, is partially approved and partially denied.
- Lovelace, a contract assessor, and state agencies administer and adjudicate budget requests under Mi Via.
- Cohon challenges alleged discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and constitutional due process and equal protection claims.
- District court dismisses federal claims; state-law/administrative claims are remanded; Cohon appeals only the federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cohon's federal claims are reviewable on final order despite state-court proceedings. | Cohon seeks federal review of administration, not just budget outcomes. | Remand to state court divests federal court of finality; need for final order analysis. | Jurisdiction exists; final-order review applicable notwithstanding state court proceedings. |
| Whether Cohon is collaterally estopped from raising discrimination claims. | Administrative decision resolved discrimination issues. | Discrimination issues were decided in the administrative process. | No collateral estoppel; discrimination wasn't actually litigated or necessarily decided in admin proceedings. |
| Whether Cohon states a claim under Section 504/ADA based on Mi Via budgeting. | The 59,449 IBA and safety-based overrides discriminate against severe disabilities. | Budgeting framework is permissible; access to services may vary by need and is not inherently discriminatory. | No plausible claim; structure permits meaningful access and rational basis; no denial of benefits solely by reason of disability. |
| Whether Cohon states a due process claim based on notice, regulation compliance, and prioritization. | Notice was inadequate; regulations were not followed; she wasn't allowed input in prioritization. | Notice was sufficient; actions consistent with regulations; prioritization is administratively reasonable. | No substantive or procedural due process violation; allegations fail to show arbitrary or biased action. |
| Whether Cohon raises a viable equal protection claim under the NM/US Constitutions. | Severely disabled are disparately treated compared to less disabled participants. | Rational-basis review applies; expanded funding for safety-related needs does not violate equal protection. | Claim fails under rational-basis review; disparate treatment justified by safety-focused eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1985) (meaningful access to benefits; facially neutral limits may affect disabled differently)
- Patton v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235 (4th Cir. 1996) (non-discrimination principles; non-entitlement to identical benefits)
- United States v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (Supreme Court 1986) (collateral estoppel applicability in state and federal contexts)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2009) (judicial discretion in complex proceedings; review standards)
- Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1985) (Medicaid §504 balancing of objectives and practical program administration)
- Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1988) (limits on benefits under disability statutes; not required to extend to all categories)
- Ackley v. Corp. of State of Ariz., 98 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 1996) (differing levels of disability funding do not by themselves prove discrimination)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (non-discrimination where some disability groups receive benefits others do not)
- Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Authority, 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003) (Olmstead considerations when not institutionalized)