303 F.R.D. 120
D.D.C.2014Background
- Olmstead action in DC federal court, plaintiffs allege DC Medicaid long‑term care practices unjustifiably segregate physically disabled individuals in nursing facilities.
- Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of nursing facility residents who are “stuck” in facilities due to lack of an effective transition system.
- The District moved to dismiss; the court denied dismissal and granted class certification with some definition tweaks.
- Key transition mechanisms include Money Follows the Person (MFP), Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Waiver (EPD), and personal care assistance under the State Plan, with noted waitlists and capacity issues.
- The District publicly released Olmstead Plans and established the ADRC transitional team; CMS criticized the pace of transitions and required improvements.
- Data on transitions/discharges is inconsistent and incomplete, complicating measurement of progress, though the court acknowledged ongoing deficiencies and potential systemic relief seeks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). | Plaintiffs argue a uniform system‑wide deficiency injures the class. | District contends the class is not definite/ascertainable and may be overbroad. | Yes; the court certifies the class under Rule 23(b)(2) with a narrowed definition. |
| Commonality and typicality under Wal‑Mart and DL in an Olmstead context. | Plaintiffs assert common questions about system deficiencies apply to all. | District argues heterogeneity and individualized issues undermine commonality/typicality. | Common questions about the District’s transition system suffice to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) and (a)(3). |
| Adequacy of representation. | Named plaintiffs adequately represent the class and counsel are capable. | Potential concerns about knowledge/uniqueness of certain plaintiffs and reliance on specific defenses. | Adequacy established; no insufficiency found in representation or counsel. |
| Standing and scope of injunctive relief. | Injunctive relief targeting the system as a whole is appropriate to remedy ongoing violations. | Systemic relief may outstrip individual claims and raise standing concerns. | Standing to pursue systemic relief is present; Rule 23(b)(2) supports injunctive relief aimed at the class. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) ( Rule 23(b)(2) class requires indivisible relief; widespread common questions can justify class.)
- DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (post‑Wal‑Mart analysis of commonality in Olmstead/IDEA contexts; used to assess uniform policy.)
- Kenneth R. v. Hassan, 293 F.R.D. 254 (D.N.H. 2013) (common questions about systemic deficiencies in community‑based services; supports Wal‑Mart framework.)
- Lane v. Kitzhaber, 283 F.R.D. 587 (D. Or. 2012) (recognizes commonality where state-wide system‑level practices affect all class members.)
- Pashby v. Cansler, 279 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.C. 2011) (certification discussions on systemic claims; supports ascertainability standards for certain classes.)