Center for Personal Assistance Services University of California, San Francisco  
Jump over persistant main navigation to the sub navigationHome (press control H in some browsers)Formal and Informal PAS (press control F in some browsers)Home and Community PAS (press control C in some browsers)PAS Workforce (press control W in some browsers)Workplace PAS (press control O in some browsers)PAS Users (press control U in some browsers)  
Jump over the changing body navigation to the persistant top navigation

Printer-friendly page

State Information > Texas Olmstead Decision Information> Texas Olmstead and Olmstead Related Cases

Texas Olmstead and Olmstead Related Cases map of Texas

As of January 2005

The Center for PAS has tracked 6 Olmstead related cases in Texas.

This information is extracted from the "Olmstead and Olmstead-Related Lawsuits" table in the "Introduction to Olmstead Lawsuits and Olmstead Plans" report published on the center for PAS website.

Frew et al v. Hawkins et al

Date filed: 1993
Case status: Closed (Feb 20047)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : TX13,16
Case Summary & Links to Further Details iii:
Summary Case alleging the state was not meeting obligations to furnish EPDST services to children. State entered into a voluntary consent decree (1996) but in 1998 plaintiffs returned to court arguing the state was not adhering to the decree. Progress Supreme Court ruled the consent decree must be enforced. Further details [http://www.nsclc.org/news/04/feb/sctexasmedicaid_frew.htm]

Doe & Doe v. Hall

Date filed: 1998
Case status: Closed (1999)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : TX22
Case Summary & Links to Further Details iii:
Summary Case alleging the lack of minimally adequate crisis intervention services had lead to the state incarcerating individuals while they await transportation to mental health services. Progress Complaint upheld.

Charles M. v. Hale

Date filed: 1998
Case status: Closed
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : TX32
Case Summary & Links to Further Details iii:
Summary Case challenges state policy of denying Medicaid community services to anyone whose needs exceed 95% cost of nursing home care, rather than providing 95% of services. Progress Settlement (waiver obtained).

Alberto N et al. v. Don A. Gilbert

Date filed: 1999
Case status: Closed (2002)
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : TX42
Case Summary & Links to Further Details iii:
Summary Case alleged state Medicaid denies children medically necessary EPDST services & puts them at risk of institutionalization. Progress Settlement (state to change policices, provide EPDST services & infromation).

Private Providers Association of Texas v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission et al

Date filed: Jan. 2002
Case status: Open
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f): Related
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : TX53
Case Summary & Links to Further Details iii:
Summary Class action brought (by providers of services in County Court) when the state failed to change its ICF/MR and HCBSc waiver payment determination system so that it could periodically update (rebase) its payments to take into account changes in the cost of furnishing services. Payments were adversely affected & non-state payments were different to state operated services' payments.

McCarthy et al v. Hawkins et al

Date filed: Sep. 2002
Case status: Open
Primary Target group:
Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f): Olmstead
Reference (on the Olmstead & Olmstead-related Lawsuits table) : TX63
Case Summary & Links to Further Details iii:
Summary Class action (brought by Arc of Texas & individuals living with their families or in ICF/MRs) asking for expansion of HCBSc waiver. District Court held that States are authorized to limit waiver participation & individuals cannot assert an enforceable right to services once the limit is reached but it upheld the plaintiffs ADA motions (noting a fundamental alteration defense might be a barrier to the plaintiffs). Progress Ongoing. Further details [http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/briefs/mccarthy.pdf]

Select from Map
Button: Map of the 50 US states. Choose another state for page.
OR
Select from List