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.

Carpenter-Barker v. Ohio Department of Medicaid

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

February 15, 2018

CYNTHIA CARPENTER-BARKER, Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAID, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY AND FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (DOC. 67)

          Timothy S. Black, United States District Judge

         This civil action is before the Court regarding Plaintiff's motion to stay and for emergency injunction pending appeal (Doc. 67), Defendant's memorandum in opposition (Doc. 74), and plaintiff's reply memorandum (Doc. 75).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Cynthia Carpenter-Barker has sued the Ohio Department of Medicaid and its director, John McCarthy (collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “ODM”) on behalf of her daughter, Megan Carpenter. Megan is a severely disabled woman in her early thirties who is unable to care for herself and whose many symptoms include intellectual disability and random seizures. Plaintiff sued to prevent ODM from reducing the 128 weekly hours of private duty nursing (“PDN”) currently being provided to Megan through Ohio's Medicaid State Plan.[1]

         In Plaintiff's amended complaint, three claims were raised against Defendants:

1) A claim alleging that Defendants' frequent and continued proposals to reduce Megan Carpenter's PDN hours, most recently in 2014, amount to a failure to provide procedural due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a.
2) A claim that Defendants' efforts to reduce Megan Carpenter's PDN hours violate the “integration mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
3) A claim that Defendants' efforts to reduce Megan Carpenter's PDN hours violate the “integration mandate” of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.

(Doc. 21, at PAGEID#: 189-94). Plaintiff's first claim was dismissed by the Court as moot on May 20, 2016. (Doc. 48, at PAGEID#: 699-701). Her final two claims were dismissed by this Court's Order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on November 20, 2017. (Doc. 65).

         Plaintiff has appealed the Court's ruling on summary judgment. (Doc. 69). On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present motion to stay and for emergency injunction pending appeal. (Doc. 67). Plaintiff requests that this Court order Defendants to refrain from reducing Megan's PDN hours until the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit can rule on Plaintiff's appeal. Defendants oppose the motion. To the parties' credit, a voluntary agreement was reached that has maintained Megan's previous level of PDN care while this Court evaluated this motion. (Doc. 73).[2]

         II. ANALYSIS

         In determining whether a stay should be granted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a), the Court considers the same four factors that are traditionally considered in evaluating the granting of a preliminary injunction. See Frisch's Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney's Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir. 1985); In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir. 1985). The factors to be considered are:

(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay.

Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir.1987); see also Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (factors are the same under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)). The Court will analyze each factor in turn.

         A. Likelihood of success on the merits

         In its Order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court dismissed the following two claims raised ...


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.