Henry Pashby v. Albert Delia
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4516
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- NC amended its PCS program in 2010, creating IHCA with stricter eligibility criteria for in-home PCS (Policy 3E).
- IHCA applied to both in-home PCS and ACH PCS, with disparate eligibility standards; CMS later approved spa changes, extending deadlines.
- PCS Recipients (13 named and class members) sued DHHS, alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and SSA violations, and due process concerns about termination notices.
- District court granted preliminary injunction and certified a class; DHHS appealed on jurisdiction, class certification, and Rule 65 grounds.
- Court held a preliminary injunction appropriate but remanded for Rule 65 compliance; majority affirmed merits and public-interest analyses, while concurring judges issued separate views.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction mootness/ripe | Recipients retain live controversy despite some reinstatements. | Case moot due to rescissions and future §1915(i) transition. | Not moot; case remains live and ripe. |
| Class certification review | Class certification warranted to reflect widespread impact. | Interlocutory Rule 23(f) appeal not pursued; review limited. | Class certification properly certified; appeal not properly before us for independent review. |
| Mandatory vs prohibitory injunction and standard of review | Injunction was mandatory, requiring heightened scrutiny. | Injunction preserved status quo, not mandatory; standard less strict. | Injunction not mandatory; ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard applies. |
| Likelihood of success and Winter factors | IHCA Policy 3E violates ADA, Rehabilitation Act, SSA comparability; due-process concerns moot. | Policy 3E defensible under Olmstead and budgetary/fundamental-alteration justifications. | Likely to succeed on ADA/ Rehabilitation Act and SSA comparability; due-process claim rejected; factual and legal underpinnings nuanced. |
| Rule 65 notice and security compliance | District order lacked specific injunction details and security consideration. | Order sufficiently protected interests; security not clearly addressed. | Remand required to cure Rule 65(d) specificity and Rule 65(c) security issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing and mootness framework)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (test for preliminary injunction factors)
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (integration mandate; risk of institutionalization)
- Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (1985) (due process notices for broad statutory changes)
- Simmons v. United Mortgage & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754 (4th Cir. 2011) (standing and mootness subsequent events in class actions)
- Md. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene v. CMS, 542 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008) (Chevron deference to CMS interpretations)