Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Future Care Consultants, LLC v. Connolly

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 26, 2018

FUTURE CARE CONSULTANTS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH CONNOLLY and MEGHAN DAVEY, in their official capacities only, Defendants.

          Sb2, Inc. John Pendergast, Esq. Katie Z. Van Lake, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Office of the Attorney General, State of New Jersey By: Marc D. McNally, Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

          OPINION

          BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Future Care Consultants, LLC, which operates a nursing home, brings this civil rights suit seeking to recover Medicaid benefits purportedly on behalf of its former resident, Delia Sarlo, who passed away four years before the initiation of this suit. Defendants Elizabeth Connolly, Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services, and Meghan Davey, Director of the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, allegedly administer the Medicaid program on behalf of the State of New Jersey. They are sued in their official capacities only. Defendants presently move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that Plaintiff Future Care lacks prudential standing to sue for Delia Sarlo's asserted injuries.[1] For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be granted.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On May 13, 2011, Delia Sarlo, 87 years old at the time, was admitted to Plaintiff Future Care's long-term residential “compassionate care” facility. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 9) A few months later, the Camden County Probate Court adjudged Delia Sarlo incapacitated and appointed Nicholas Sarlo as her guardian. (Plaintiff's Ex. B, Camden County Superior Court Probate Part Judgment of August 15, 2011)

         The Amended Complaint next alleges, “[t]he Plaintiff applied for Medicaid benefits on November 17, 2011 with the Camden County Board of Social Services.” (Amend. Compl. ¶ 14)[2]The application was denied on January 28, 2013.[3] (Id. at ¶ 17) On February 15, 2013, Delia Sarlo passed away. (Id. at ¶ 10)

         On March 4, 2014, the appeal of the denial of Delia Sarlo's application for Medicaid benefits ended with the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services' adoption of the initial denial decision. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 27)

         On April 18, 2016-- three years after Delia Sarlo died, and two years after the Medicaid appeal had concluded-- the New Jersey Superior Court Chancery Division entered a “Judgment Appointing Medicaid Authorized Representative” which ordered “that Sam Stern of Future Care Consultants, LLC shall serve as Medicaid Authorized Representative for Ms. [Delia] Sarlo and take such actions as necessary to pursue the Medicaid eligibility of Delia Sarlo.” (Plaintiff's Ex. A) Future Care, purportedly “as agent and/or authorized representative of Delia Sarlo” (Amend. Compl., caption), filed this suit on April 13, 2017.

         Future Care asserts that the denial of Medicaid benefits was erroneous and that the process from which the denial resulted violated Delia Sarlo's Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the United States Constitution, as well as her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The Amended Complaint asserts seven counts: (1) “declaratory judgment relief”; (2) “violation of the federal Medicaid Act's medical assistance and nursing facility services mandate” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) “violation of the federal Medicaid Act's reasonable promptness requirement” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) “violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act”; (5) “violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973”; (6) “violation of Due Process and Equal Protection (42 U.S.C. § 1983)”; and (7) “temporary and permanent injunction.”

         In the Amended Complaint's “Requests for Relief” section, Future Care asks the Court to:

109. Issue a Declaratory Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs [sic], requiring Defendant to adhere to the requirements of the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act;
110. Declare unlawful the Defendants' failure to arrange for medical assistance and nursing facility services to Plaintiff [sic];
111. Issue Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief enjoining the Defendants from subjecting Plaintiff [sic] to practices that violate their [sic] rights under the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act;
112. Issue Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to arrange for medical assistance and nursing facility services to Plaintiff [sic];
113. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and,
114. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate, including, but not limited to, compensatory and punitive ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.