Wimberly v. Atlantic Dialysis Management Services, LLC
1:24-cv-09269
S.D.N.Y.Apr 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jason Wimberly, proceeding pro se, is a dialysis patient with kidney failure, receiving care funded by Medicaid via Atlantic Dialysis Management Services, LLC (Atlantic).
- Wimberly relies on Medicaid-provided free transportation to attend dialysis appointments; authorization for such transportation ("standing orders") must be entered by Atlantic per New York regulations.
- Wimberly alleges Atlantic failed to arrange or facilitate transportation, creating health risks and hardship.
- He asserts claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under federal statutes (ADA, Rehabilitation Act), state and city human rights laws, and various tort theories.
- The court considered Atlantic’s motion to dismiss, assessing whether the facts plausibly alleged discrimination or retaliation under the relevant statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to arrange Medicaid transportation is disability discrimination under ADA/Rehabilitation Act | Atlantic failed to enter required standing orders, denying access to necessary care based on disability | Standing orders are a service provided only to disabled persons, so cannot constitute actionable discrimination; no such denial occurred on basis of disability | Dismissed: No actionable discrimination, as standing orders are only for disabled, and Wimberly was not denied a benefit provided to non-disabled persons |
| Atlantic's facility is inaccessible due to lack of standing orders | Failure to enter orders effectively bars access to facility/services for disabled patients | Facility itself is accessible; ADA does not mandate provision of transportation; no legal duty for Atlantic to arrange transport | Dismissed: No requirement under ADA to provide transportation; facility access not denied |
| Intentional discrimination or animus under ADA/Rehabilitation Act | Atlantic intentionally failed to accommodate, showing discriminatory intent | No facts showing disability-based animus or intentional discrimination | Dismissed: No facts to support intent or animus attributable to disability |
| Retaliation due to requests for accommodation or legal complaints | Atlantic retaliated by staff actions/comments after Wimberly’s complaints and legal threats | No adverse action taken—only minor comments and requests, not actionable retaliation | Dismissed: No materially adverse action alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (articulates the plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (explains the requirement for non-conclusory factual allegations at the motion to dismiss stage)
- Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (sets ADA pleading requirements: disabled status, public accommodation, and discrimination)
- Powell v. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 364 F.3d 79 (federal funding triggers Rehabilitation Act obligations)
- Doe v. Pfrommer, 148 F.3d 73 (cannot challenge adequacy of services provided solely to disabled under ADA)
- Hargrave v. Vermont, 340 F.3d 27 (elements required for an ADA/Rehabilitation Act claim)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (ADA retaliation standard)
- Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., City of N.Y., 287 F.3d 138 (pleading requirements for ADA/Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims)