The Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Kerry Delaney
28
| NY | Apr 21, 2022Background
- A 16-year-old with complex developmental disabilities was held in a general hospital emergency room for weeks because OPWDD-approved community habilitation or respite placements/providers were unavailable.
- Mental Hygiene Legal Service filed a CPLR articles 70 and 78 special proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking discharge, a safe discharge plan, and judicial relief against OPWDD/DOH for failure to provide Medicaid-funded services.
- While litigation was pending the child received an unconditional placement at a residential school; petitioner did not press habeas relief or challenge that ultimate placement.
- The Appellate Division found the case moot but reached the merits under the mootness-exception and rejected petitioner’s claims.
- During the appeal to the Court of Appeals OPWDD implemented the CSIDD crisis program (joined with NYSTART) and represented it is now statewide; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot and declined to apply the mootness-exception.
- Justice Rivera dissented, arguing the mootness-exception should apply and that petitioner alleged viable claims under the Mental Hygiene Law, the Medicaid Act (reasonable-promptness), and the ADA (integration and methods-of-administration claims), requiring remand for factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / mootness-exception | Case concerns substantial, systemic denial of services likely to recur and evade review; exception should apply. | New programs (CSIDD/NYSTART) materially altered services; appeal is moot so dismissal appropriate. | Appeal dismissed as moot; Court declined to invoke the exception because OPWDD implemented new crisis services statewide during appeal. |
| Availability of mandamus vs article 78/Mental Hygiene Law duties | MHLS: OPWDD acknowledged petitioner’s entitlement to services but failed to provide them; state action review (arbitrary/capricious) is available. | OPWDD: delivery model and provider selection are discretionary policy choices not subject to mandamus. | Court (per dissent) would treat mandamus as unavailable for discretionary placement decisions but allow an article 78 challenge to arbitrary and capricious failure to provide approved services; majority did not reach merits. |
| Medicaid Act: private right to enforce "reasonable promptness" | Petitioner: reasonable-promptness provision creates an individualized, enforceable right to timely Medicaid services. | State: Armstrong suggests no implied private right in many Medicaid provisions; enforcement is for federal oversight, not private suits. | Dissent concluded Blessing/Gonzaga factors support an implied private right for timely provision and that Armstrong does not categorically foreclose such a claim; majority did not reach the issue. |
| ADA: integration mandate and methods-of-administration (28 CFR 35.130) | Petitioner: OPWDD’s delivery model produces disparate effect—children are segregated in ERs awaiting services—violating Olmstead and ADA administration rules. | State: The ADA does not require creation of new services or altering delivery model; any disparity is due to provider scarcity, a non-discrimination policy choice. | Dissent: Plaintiff plausibly pleaded Olmstead and disparate-effect ADA claims that require factual development; majority did not reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707 (mootness doctrine and exception framework)
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (ADA integration mandate prohibits unjustified institutional isolation)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (three-factor test for implied private rights under spending statutes)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (statutory rights must be unambiguously conferred to be enforceable under §1983)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (limits on implying private rights under Medicaid provisions)
- Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (pleading standard; liberal construction on motions to dismiss)
- Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231 (2d Cir.) (state must administer covered benefits in a nondiscriminatory manner under ADA)
- Radaszewski v. Maram, 383 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (Olmstead does not necessarily require creation of new services; fundamental-alteration defense borne by state)