Taylor v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment, 305 P.3d 729

Taylor, a disabled Medicaid recipient, receives WORK-based caregiver support under Kansas’ Working Healthy program.
WORK pays monthly amounts to eligible participants to hire caregivers, with Taylor assigning his father as his exclusive caregiver.
In 2010, Taylor’s WORK budget covered 350 hours of care at a specific monthly rate, including overtime payments.
In August 2010, Kansas Department of Health and Environment announced that overtime for caregivers would not be approved, requiring revised budgets.
Taylor submitted a reduced budget and sought exemptions for travel, but the Department rejected general relief and imposed the no-overtime rule for most participants.
Taylor sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a due process violation for failing to treat the policy as a formally adopted administrative regulation under Kansas law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to adopt the no-overtime policy as a regulation violates due process.	Taylor argues failure to follow regulation procedures creates a §1983 due process injury.	Defendants contend no due process violation arises from failure to adopt as a regulation.	No due process violation; failure to adopt as regulation does not create a constitutional claim.
Whether Taylor received adequate procedural due process for the policy’s application.	Taylor had notice and a hearing and exemptions for travel; policy itself harms him.	Notice and hearing were adequate; policy details do not yield a constitutional defect.	Procedural due process satisfied; no additional constitutional injury from nonregulatory status.
Whether the policy implicates substantive due process.	Taylor invokes protections against arbitrary state action.	No fundamental liberty interest at stake beyond established welfare rights.	Substantive due process not violated.
Whether Taylor can recover attorney fees under §1988 as the prevailing party.	Taylor obtained relief on merits of his §1983 claim.	No prevailing-party status because no constitutional violation occurred.	Taylor not a prevailing party; district court must vacate attorney-fee award on remand.

First Assembly of God v. Collier County, Fla., 20 F.3d 419 (11th Cir. 1994) (no due process claim based on defects in procedural notice)
LaBoy v. Coughlin, 822 F.2d 3 (2d Cir. 1987) (failure to file regulation with secretary of state not a due process violation)
Harris v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 817 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1987) (state-law procedural breaches do not automatically create §1983 claims)
Martin v. Blackburn, 581 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1978) (state-law procedural breaches not §1983 claims)
Memphis Light, Gas and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1983) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process for property interests in government benefits)
Village Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Authority, 296 Kan. 315 (2013) (procedural due process requires notice and meaningful hearing)
O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773 (1980) (protected property interests trigger due process protections)