Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 32

UNiTED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WilLIAM LONG, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, and LOUISE SEYMOUR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DR. ANDREW AGWUNOBI, in his official capacity as Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, DOUGLAS BEACH, in his official capacity as Secretary, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, and CHARLIE CRIST, in his official capacity as Governor, State of Florida,
Defendants.

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a statewide class action brought on behalf of Florida residents who currently, or at any time during this litigation, are Medicaid eligible adults with disabilities; are unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility that receives Medicaid
OffiCE Of CLER,t!US OlSTRICTC•. !loRTiU:Rl'l OlST. flA. TALLAHt\SSEC. fLA.

ftLEO

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 32
funds; desire to reside in the community instead of a nursing facility; and could reside in the community with appropriate services. Class members are being unnecessarily institutionalized because of Defendants' failure to cover services and support in appropriate, integrated community settings.
JURISDICTION 2. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (Section 504).
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1342. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
VENUE
4. Venue lies in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b), and in the Tallahassee Division, because the Defendants officially reside there. N.D. Fla. R. 3.2(A).
NAMED PLAINTIFFS 5. Named Plaintiff WILLIAM LONG is a thirty-four year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonvilie, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
2

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 32
6. Named Plaintiff CHARLES TODD LEE is a sixty-six year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Plant City, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for and receives Medicaid, which covers ail or part of the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
7. Named Plaintiff RODNEY PETERSON is a sixty year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
8. Named Plaintiff JOHN BOYD is a forty-nine year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers aii or part of the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
9. Named Plaintiff CLAYTON GRIFFIN is a fifty-four year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible lor Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
10. Named Plaintiff MARGARET WASHINGTON is a seventy-four year old woman who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. She is a person with a disability. She is eligible for Medicaid,
3

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 32
which covers all or part of the nursing facility's services. She wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
11. Named Plaintiff LOUISE SEYMOUR is a sixty-four year old woman who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. She is a person with a disability. She is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility's services. She wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
DEFENDANTS
12. Defendant DR. ANDREW AGWUNOBI is Secretary of Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and is sued in his official capacity. AHCA is the chief health policy and planning entity for the state and is responsible
lor administering Florida's Medicaid Program. § 20.42(3), Fla. Stat (2006). AHCA
is the "single state agency" that operates Florida' Medicaid program, see 42 U.S.C.
§ 1396a(a)(5), and is the state agency responsible for administering Florida's nursing home and community-based long-term care system for people with disabilities. Secretary Agwumobi is responsible for the oversight, supervision and control of AHCA and its divisions, and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that l\HCA's services for people with disabilities are provided in conformance with federal law.
i 3. Defendant DOUGLAS BEACH is Secretary of Florida's Department of Elder Affairs (DOEA), and is sued in his official capacity. DOEA is the primary state agency responsible for administering human services programs for the elderly and developing policy recommendations lor long-term care. § 430.03, Fla. Stat. (2007).
4

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 32
It recommends legislative budget requests for programs and services for the state's elderly population. !d. Among other duties, DOEA prepares, submits to the
Governor and the Legislature, and monitors implementation of a master pian for policies and programs in Florida that relate to aging. § 430.04, Fla. Stat. (2007). DOEA funds a community care service system the primary purpose of which is the prevention of unnecessary institutionalization of functionally impaired elderly
persons through the provision of community-based core services. § 430.204, Fla.
Stat. (2007}. 14. Defendant CHARLIE CRIST is the Governor and chief executive
officer of the State of Florida. He is responsible for directing, supervising and controlling the executive departments of state government. Governor Crist Is ultimately responsible for ensuring that Florida operates its long-term care system for people with disabilities in conformance with federal law. He is sued in his official capacity and only for prospective injunctive relief.
i 5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under color of state law and knew or should have known of the policies, practices, acts and conditions alleged herein.
CLASS ACTION AlLEGATIONS 16. Pursuantto Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a} and (b)(2), the Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a!l other persons similarly situated. 17. The proposed class consists of:
Florida residents who currently, or at any time during this litigation: (1) are Medicaid eligible adults with
5

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 6 of 32
disabilities; (2) reside in a nursing facility that receives Medicaid funds; and (3) would reside in the community with appropriate community-based services. 18. Numerosity: The Plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that administers the Medicaid program, nearly 8,500 nursing facility Medicaid residents in Florida have said they would rather live in the communitjl. Joinder is also impracticable because class members lack the knowledge and financial means to maintain individual actions. 19. Commonality: There are questions of law or fact that are common to all Named Plaintiffs, as well as to ali putative class members, including: a. Whether Defendants violate the "integration mandate" ofthe ADA and Section 504 by requiring Named Plaintiffs and class members to be confined to nursing facilities in order to receive long-term care services, rather than providing those services in appropriate settings in Plaintiffs' homes and communities; and b. whether Defendants fail to inform and provide Named Plaintiffs and class members with meaningful choice of community-based long-term care alternatives to nursing facilities. 20. Typicality: The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole in that the Named plaintiffs and class members currently are unnecessarily confined to Medicaid-funded nursing facilities and desire to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
6

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 7 of 32
21. Adequate representation: The Named Plaintiffs will fairly represent and adequately protect the Interests of members of the class as a whole. The Named Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to those of other class members. By filing this action, the Named Plaintiffs have displayed an interest in vindicating their rights, as well as the claims of others who are similarly situated. The relief sought by the Named Plaintiffs wi!l inure to the benefit of members of the class generally. The Named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are skiiled and knowledgeable about civil rights litigation, disability discrimination, Medicaid law, practice and procedure in the federal courts and the prosecution and management of class action litigation.
22. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Although the specific disabilities of the class members vary, they share a common need for Medicaid
services. A class action is superior to individual lawsuits for resolving this
controversy. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Named Plaintiffs' Allegations William long
23. Named Plaintiff WILLIAM LONG is a thirty-four-year-old man who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for and receives Medicaid for the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live independently in the community
7

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 8 of 32
with appropriate health care and personal care services. 24. In 2000, he became a quadriplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair
for mobility. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Long does not require extensive nursing care or oversight. For example, he requires assistance transferring from bed, dressing, toileting, showering, and meal preparation.
25. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Long receives in the nursing facility. 26. Many persons who have quadriplegia and who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Mr. Long reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-term care services. 27. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Mr. Long receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Long's. 28. Any health care services Mr. Long requires could also be pmvided In the community. 29. The Defendants cover personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Mr. Long. 30. Before moving to the nursing facility, Mr. Long was employed and worked laying underground utilities for nearly nine years. 31. He has several children, including a ten year old daughter and a six year old son, both of whom visit him in the nursing facility only once a month. 32. At the nursing facility, Mr. Long must share a room with another adult and accordingly has little personal privacy or any space to call his own.
8

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 9 of 32
33. Like other residents of the nursing facility, Mr. Long is confined to his room afier the nursing facility staff transfers him to bed at whatever time they decide they are ready to transfer him. Watching television in common areas and walking in the halls after that time is impossible.
34. Mr. Long must shower only when the staff provide for it and he is offered a shower only twice a week.
35. Although Mr. Long has requested community-based long-term care services, to his knowledge no one at the nursing facility has followed up on his requests.
36. Mr. Long wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health. care and personal care services.
37. Mr. Long is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
38. Residing in the community in own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs.
39. Defendants have offered Mr. Long Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. Charles Todd Lee
40. Named Plaintiff CHARLES TODD LEE is a sixty-six year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Plant City, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligibie for and receives Medicaid, which covers the nursing facility's services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
9

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 10 of 32
41. In 2003, he became paralyzed on one side as a result of suffering two strokes. From the hospital, Mr. Lee was discharged directly to a nursing home without being offered to live in the community with appropriate servies.
42. He uses a manual wheelchair for mobility. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Lee does not require extensive nursing care or oversight. For example, he requires assistance transferring from bed, dressing, toi!eting, and showering, but brushes his own teeth and draws with his right hand.
43. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Lee receives in the nursing facility. 44. Many persons who are similarly paralyzed and who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Mr. Lee reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-term care services. 45. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Mr. Lee receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Lee's. 46. Any health care services Mr. Lee requires could also be provided in the community. 47. Mr. Lee's treating physician agrees that he can reside in the community with appropriate community-based services. 48. The Defendants provide personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Mr. Lee. 49. Before his strokes, Mr. Lee worked for nearly 40 years as a professional photographer, including for LIFE and Rolling Stone magazines.
10

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 11 of 32

50.

has several adult children, who visit him on weekends.

5 i. At the nursing facility, Mr. Lee must share a room with another adult

and accordingly has little personal privacy or any space to call his own.

52. Mr. Lee draws and takes paratransit services once a week to swim

with a friend in a community pool.

53. Other than swimming at a community pool, he rarely leaves the

nursing facility.

54. Mr. Lee must shower only when the staff provide for it, and he is

offered a shower only once or twice a week.

55. Mr. Lee has requested community-based long-term care services and

has applied for these services. He and his family have been told he was placed on

Defendants' waiting list for community-based Medicaid services.

56. Defendants have offered Mr. Lee Medicaid-funded personal care and

health care services only in a nursing facility setting.

57. Mr. lee wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate

health care and personal care services.

58. Mr. lee is capable of living in the community with appropriate health

care and personal care services. He wishes to reside with one of his daughters,

who has agreed that he could live with her and her husband, both of whom work and

cannot stay at home with him to provide these services.

59. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most

integrated setting appropriate to his needs. in the nursing facility, Mr. Lee must

reside with only older frail persons and other persons with disabilities. He wants to

11

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 12 of 32
reside with younger people and with nondisabled persons. Rodney Peterson
60. Named Plaintiff RODNEY PETERSON is a sixty year old man who currently Is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
61. Mr. Peterson is a person with a disability due to both severe seizures and ruptured discs in his spinal cord.
62. As a result of his disability, he cannot walk without a wheelchair, which he has used since 1997.
63. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Peterson can take his medications, toilet, and feed himself without assistance.
64. He is permitted to shower only three times a week and at the specific times the nursing facility staff require.
65. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Peterson receives in the nursing facility.
66. Many persons like Mr. Peterson who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Mr. Peterson reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-term care services.
67. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Mr. Peterson receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Peterson's.
68. Any health care services Mr. Peterson requires could also be provided in the community.
69. The Defendants cover personal care and hea!th care services in the 12

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 13 of 32
community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Mr. Peterson.
70. Before moving to the nursing facility, Mr. Peterson was employed and worked as a manager of a restaurant, drove a taxicab, and was in sales. Although Mr. Peterson has requested community-based services, to his knowledge no one at the nursing facility has followed up on his requests.
71. Mr. Peterson wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
72. He is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
73. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs.
74. Defendants have offered Mr. Peterson Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. John Boyd
75. Named Plaintiff JOHN BOYD is forty-nine-year old man who is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He has resided there since 1999.
76. Mr. Boyd is a person with a disability. He has been a quadriplegic since he was fourteen years old when he fell off a wall and was paralyzed. He uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility.
77. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Boyd receives in the nursing facility. 78. Despite his disability, Ms. Boyd does not require extensive nursing

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 14 of 32

care or oversight.

example, he requires assistance transferring from bed,

dressing, toileting, showering, and meal preparation, and turning at night to prevent

bed sores.

79. These personal care services he receives in the nursing facility could

be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities.

80. Any health care services Mr. Boyd requires could also be provided in

the community.

81. Persons who have quadriplegia and who have the same or similar

daily living activity imparments and needs as Mr. Boyd are capable of residing in the

community and in their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-

term care services.

82. Defendants provide funding in the community for services similar to

what the nursing facility provides to Mr. Boyd only for a very limited number of

people.

83. In order for Mr. Boyd to receive the personal care and health care

services he needs, Defendants have conditioned them on his being in a nursing

facility.

84. Mr. Boyd has worked for a number of years tor Red Lobster, where he

answered their 800 telephone inquiries.

85. Mr. Boyd currently attends the Florida Community College four times

a week, where he studies computer program and where he will obtain an associate's

degree in 2008. He has studied JAVA, Oracle SOL, college algebra, and business

data processing among other courses. After college, he would like to work as a

14

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 15 of 32
computer programer. 86. With adaptive equipment, Mr. Boyd types on his computer, uses the
Internet and can brush his teeth. 87. Mr. Boyd seeks to live in the community, preferably with a friend and
caretaker, and with periodic nursing services. 88. Mr. Boyd is capable of living in the community with appropriate
supports and services. 89. Residing in the community or in his own apartment or house is the
most integrated setting appropriate to his needs. 90. Defendants have offered Mr. Boyd Medicaid-funded personal care and
health care services only in a nursing facility setting, Clavton l. Griffin
91. Named Plaintiff CLAYTON L GRIFFIN is a fifty-four-year-old man who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida.
92. Mr. Griffin is a person with a disability. 93. In 2004, he had a stroke which paralyzed his left side. 94. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Griffin receives in the nursing facility. 95. Currently, he uses a manual wheelchairfor mobility with difficulty and has requested a motorized wheelchair, but has not received one. 96. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Griffin transfers out of bed on his own. 97. Mr. Griffin does not require extensive nursing care or oversight. 98. He feeds himself but does requires assistance showering, dressing
15

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 16 of 32
and toileting. 99. Mr. Griffin requires personal care only in the morning and at night. 100. The personal care services Mr. Griffin receives in the nursing facility
could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Griffin's.
101. Any health care services Mr. Griffin requires could also be provided in the community.
102. Persons like Mr. Griffin who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs are capable of residing in the community and their own apartments, with the appropriate community-based long-term care services
103. Mr. Griffin has worked since he was 12 years old. 104. Before his stroke, Mr. Griffin received a certificate in electronics. He was employed as a copier technician, worked with mailing and folding machines, as well as general labor in power plants. 105. Mr. Griffin attends church and goes to Wai-Mart and Winn Dixie. 106. Mr. Griffin has told various personnel at the nursing facility that he wants to leave and reside in the community. 107. No one has ever informed him about any Medicaid long-term care services in the community. To his knowledge, no one at the nursing facility has followed up on his requests. 108. Defendants have never offered Mr. Griffin community-based Medicaidfunded personal care and health care services similar to those he currently receives in the nursing facility.
16

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 17 of 32
109. Mr. Griffin wishes to live independently in the community with periodic nursing services and other appropriate personal care supports.
110. With appropriate personal care and health care services, Mr. Griffin is capable of living in the community, which is the most integrated setting. Margaret Washington
111. Named Plaintiff MARGARET WASHINGTON is a seventy-four year old woman who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
112. Ms. Washington is a person with a disability who receives dialysis three times a week.
113. As a result of her disability, she has difficulty walking and uses a a wheelchair for mobility.
i 14. Ms. Washington needs personal care services to assist her with personal hygiene.
i 15. She is able to get into and out of bed by herself. 116. Medicaid covers the services Ms. Washington receives in the nursing facility. 117. Many persons like Mr. Washington who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Ms. Washington are capable of residing in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate long-term communitybased services. 118. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Ms. Washington receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many
17

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 18 of 32
persons with disabilities similar to Ms. Washington's. 119. Any health care services Ms. Washington requires could also be
provided in the community. 120. The Defendants cover persona! care and health care services in the
community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Ms. Washington.
121. Before moving to the nursing facility, Ms. Washington has worked since she was seventeen years old. She has worked making flower arrangements, a laundry presser, and a housekeeper.
122. Ms. Washington wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
123. She is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
124. Residing in the community In his own apartment or house is for her the most integrated setting appropriate to her needs.
125. Defendants have offered Ms. Washington Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. Louise Seymour
126. Named Plaintiff LOUISE SEYMOUR is a sixty-four year old woman who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
127. Ms. Seymour is disabled due to a severe heart problem which necessity surgery and a pacemaker.
128. As a result of her disability and her operation, she could not walk 18

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 19 of 32
without a wheelchair. 129. Despite her disabilities, Ms. Seymour can without assistance take her
medications, perform most personal hygiene and feed herself. 130. Medicaid covers the services Ms. Seymour receives in the nursing
facility. 131. Many persons like Ms. Seymour who have the same or similar daily
living activity impairments and needs as Ms. Seymour reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate long-term community-based services.
132. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Ms. Seymour receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Ms. Seymour's.
133. Any health care services Ms. Seymour requires could also be provided in the community.
134. The Defendants cover personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Ms. Seymour.
135. Ms. Seymour attends Florida Community College and is earning a certificate in special education. She goes to college twice a week.
136. Between 1986 and when she had her heart operation in 2000, Ms. Seymour worked as both a housekeeper and a home-health aide.
137. Although Ms. Seymour has requested community-based services, to her knowledge no one at the nursing facility has followed up on her requests.
138. Ms. Seymour wishes to live independently in the community with 19

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 20 of 32
appropriate health care and personal care services. 139. She is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care
and personal care services. 140. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most
integrated setting appropriate to her needs. 141 . Defendants have offered Ms. Seymour Medicaid-funded personal care
and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. The State-Federal Medicaid Program
142. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that covers medical services to low-income persons pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396v.
143. Florida participates in the Medicaid program and receives 57 cents in federal reimbursement for every dollar it spends on Medicaid services.
144. States are not required to participate in Medicaid, but if they do, they must comply with the requirements of Title XIX and its implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS"). States which participate must further submit to HHS a state Medicaid plan that fulfills the requirements of Title XIX. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a).
145. One of the primary purposes of Medicaid is "to furnish ... rehabilitation and other services to help families and individuals attain or retain capability for independence and self care ...." 42 U.S.C. § 1396. Each participating State's Medicaid plan must contain reasonable standards to determine the extent of services needed to obtain these objectives. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a}(17).
20

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 21 of 32
146. Individuals are eligible for Medicaid if they are either "categorically needy" or "medically needy." Individuals who, for example, receive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"} benefits are deemed "categorically needy."
147. Coverage of certain services is mandatory under Title XIX for all
persons considered "categorically needy." 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i) (incorporating42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a}(1 )-(5), (17), (21 )). "Mandatory" services include services in a skilled nursing facility. /d.
148. States must also cover home health services for "any individual who, under the state plan, is entitled to nursing facility services." 42 U.S.C.
§ 1396a(a)(1 O)(D}. Coverage for home health services must include, among other
things, durable medical equipment, supplies and appliances suitable for use in the
home. 42 C.F.R. § 440.70(b).
149. Medicaid also allows states to provide for coverage of in-home and community services, including private-duty nursing, home and community care for functionally disabled elderly individuals, personal care services, and any other
medical and remedial care recognized under state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a).
Once a state elects to cover an optional service, it becomes part of the state's
Medicaid pian and is subject to the requirements of Title XIX. 42 U.S.C. §
1396a(a)(1 ).
150. Additionalfy, Medicaid allows states to waive certain requirements in
order to enable people with disabilities to avoid institutionalization and receive long-
term care services in the community. 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c). These programs are
known as Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) "waivers." 21

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 22 of 32
Florida' Medicaid long-Term Care Svstem for People with Disabilities 151. Through its Medicaid program, Florida covers nursing facility services
for Medicaid-eligible people with disabilities who qualify for long-term care. 1 Defendants provide for coverage of these services through contracts
with privately owned and operated nursing facilities, many of which are for-profit businesses.
153. Defendants also provide for coverage of in-home and community services to persons who would otherwise qualify for nursing facility services. These services are also funded under Medicaid, either as home health services or through a HCBS waiver program.
i 54. Defendants have also chosen to include a number of optional categories of services, including personal care services.
155. With the support of these community-based supports and services, people with disabilities are able to live independently with community-based supports and services.
156. For some people with disabilities served in the community, Defendants contract with private home health agencies to provide in-home community long-term care. Other people with disabilities served in the community hire their own care givers and attendants, whose wages are paid by Defendants.
157. The cost of these Medicaid-funded community programs is far below the average annual nursing home cost
158. Currently, Florida's Medicaid average nursing home annual expenditure is approximately$ 65,072 per year per person.
22

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 23 of 32

159. Despite the fact that many, perhaps most, seniors and people with

disabilities prefer to live in the community, Defendants have allocated the vast

majority of Florida's Medicaid long-term care funding - approximately 87% - to

nursing facility services- tenth-highest rate the nation.

remaining i 3%

goes for community-based services. The national average expenditure on nursing

facility services in 2006 was approximately 70% of the total long-term care

expenditures.

160. For people with physical disabilities, Florida's per person spending for

nursing facilities is nearly thirteen times that for home and community-based care.

In FY 2006, of Florida's total$ 2.7 billion in expenditures for Medicaid long-term care

serJices for the aged and disabled (i.e., both institutional and community-based

services), Florida spent approximately $ 2.4 billion Medicaid dollars on nursing

facilities and only $ 346 million on community-based services.

161. Since 1999, Florida has increased its Medicaid expenditures on

nursing facility services by more than $ 994 million, but only increased Medicaid

expenditures for community-based services by$ i 70 million.

i 62. As a result, Medicaid-funded community-based long care services are

unavailable to many who need and want them, effectively compelling

institutionalization of people with disabilities,

163. Once Medicaid-eligible individuals are admitted to nursing facilities,

they must turn over most of their assets and income, including Supplemental

Security Income from Social Security, to the state and nursing facility. Residents

receive an allowance of approximately$ 30.00 per month.

23

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 24 of 32
164. As a result, residents are often unable to continue paying rent or mortgages and accordingly lose the home they had before entering the nursing facility. Residents also lack resources to obtain community services and housing or: their own.
165. They often cannot afford even basic transportation costs to leave the facility, whether to pursue community services or for any other purpose.
166. Nursing facilities are not real homes or even home-like, but rather are segregated institutions housing large numbers of unrelated persons, both elderly and non-elderly, in congregate settings, where residents must share bedrooms, bathrooms and living spaces with strangers.
167. Nursing facility residents are, for the most part, neither integrated into nor part of the communities in which they live.
168. Residents have limited access to the community and it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to participate in community activities such as government, churches or clubs.
169. Nursing facility residents are often denied meaningful access to employment opportunities by virtue of the congregate environments in which they live and the limited supports that are provided to them.
170. Many nursing facilities resemble hospitals. They have nurses' stations and often have locked doors, curfews and, at times, guards posted to monitor persons entering and leaving the facility.
171. There is little, if any, privacy for nursing facility residents who share rooms and bathrooms with up to five residents whom they did not know previously
24

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 25 of 32
and with whom they did not choose to live. In some facilities, entire wards share bathrooms and shower facilities. Medications are often dispensed publicly, with residents waiting in line.
172. Nursing facility residents often lack their own telephones, and are often restricted in the use of the nursing facility telephones.
173. Nursing facilities offer few places for residents to gather or safeguard their personal belongings. Many residents report that their personal property has been stolen or damaged.
174. Nursing facility residents have little, if any, choice on what to eat, when to eat, or with whom to eat.
175. Defendants administer their Medicaid program in a manner that perpetuates the segregation of persons with disabilities. These methods of administration arbitrarily limit access to integrated, community support services by persons with disabilities in nursing facilities. Specifically, limitations on the availability of Medicaid-funded, community-based services results from:
a. the lack of information provided to persons in nursing facilities about community-based services, including waivers;
b. the failure to provide nursing facility residents with a meaningful choice of community as well as institutional services;
c. the failure to offer meaningful access to community-based services; d. decisions and actions that intentionally limit the number and
availability of community-based long-term care Medicaid services; and e. inadequacies in the funding of community-based Medicaid funded
25

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 26 of 32
services that Defendants are authorized to cover for Medicaid-eligible individuals. Residents' Desire and Ability to live in the Community 176. CMS publishes quarterly data on nursing facility residents. This data, called the "Minimum Data Sef' ("MDS"), is collected by nursing facilities and sent to
each state's Medicaid single state agency, which then sends it to CMS. See 42
C.F.R. § 483.20{c). 177. The MDS reports that in 2007 in Florida 26.2% of nursing facility
residents have expressed or indicated to their nursing facility that they want to live in the community instead of a nursing facility. About half of these residents are Medicaid-eligible.
178. The percentage of nursing facility residents who have expressed or indicated that they want to reside in the community Instead of a nursing facility has consistently increased for four years. In 2003, it was 23.9%; 24.7% in 2004; 25.2%in 2005; and 26% in 2006.
179. Many nursing facility residents could be served safely and appropriately in the community if long-term care and services were available there. When appropriate supports and services have been provided, persons with disabilities, of all ages and multiple levels of disability, have successfully moved into or remained in the community in order to live more independently.
26

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 27 of 32
COUNT1 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 180. Paragraphs i through 179 are incorporated by reference. 181. Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § i 2132. 182. Each Named Plaintiff and class member is a "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA in that they (1) have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities: and (2) meetthe essential eligibility requirements for long-term care under Florida' Medicaid program 183. Defendants are public agency directors responsible for operation of a public entity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 (1 )(A) & (B). 184. Regulations implementing Title II ofthe ADA require that a public entity administer its services, programs and activities in "the most integrated setting appropriate" to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d}. 185. The ADA's implementing regulations further provide that "a public entity may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or other methods of administration: (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability; [or] (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the entity's program with respect to individuals with disabilities
27

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 28 of 32
" 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).
186. Defendants have required that Named Plaintiffs and class members
be confined unnecessarily in institutions, i.e., nursing facilities, rather than permit
them to reside in the community in order to obtain long-term care services in violation of the ADA's integration mandate.
i 87. Further, Defendants have utilized criteria and methods of administration that subject Plaintiffs and class members to discrimination on the basis of disability, including unnecessary institutionalization, by (i) failing to assess properly the services and supports that would enable Named Plaintiffs and class members to live in the community, (2} failing to inform Named Plaintiffs and class members, upon admission and thereafter, of community long-term care options, and (3) allocating resources for institutional long-term care contrary to the desires and needs of people with disabilities.
188. Defendants' actions are in violation of Title II of the ADA. COUNT II
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 189. Paragraphs 1 through 179 are incorporated by reference. 190. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states that "[n]o otherwise qualified person with disabilities shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
28

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 29 of 32
i 91. Defendants direct state agencies that receive federal financial assistance.
192. Each Named Plaintiff and class member is a "qualified person with disabilities" within the meaning of Section 504, because they (1) have physical and/or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; and (2) meet the essential eligibility requirements for long term care under Florida' Medicaid program and are thus "qualified."
193. Regulations implementing Section 504 require that a public entity administer its services, programs and activities in "the most integrated setting appropriate" to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d).
194. Section 504's regulations prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from:
utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration ... (i) [t]hat have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap [or] (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's program with respect to handicapped persons. 45 C.F.R. § 84.4{b)(4); 28 C.F.R. § 41.5i(b)(3)(1). 195. Defendants have required that Named Plaintiffs and class members be confined unnecessarily in institutions, i.e., nursing facilities, rather than the community in order to obtain long-term care services, in violation of Section 504's integration mandate. 196. Further, Defendants have utilized criteria and methods of
29

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 30 of 32

administration that subject Named Plaintiffs and class members to discrimination on

the basis of disability, including unnecessary institutionaiization, by (1) failing to

assess properly the services and supports that wou!d enable Named Plaintiffs and

class members to live in the community, (2) failing to inform Named Plaintiffs and

class members, upon admission and thereafter, of community long-term care

options, and (3) allocating resources for institutional long-term care contrary to the

desires and needs of people with disabilities.

197. Defendants' actions are in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs and class members respectfully requesttha!

this Court:

a. Certify this action as a class action.

b. Declare that Defendants' failure to provide Named Plaintiffs and class

members with sertices in the most integrated setting appropriate to

their needs violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

Section .504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

c. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to:

i.

inform Named Plaintiffs and class members that they may be

eligible for publicly-funded community services and that they

have the choice of such services; and

ii. ensure coverage of, as appropriate, long-term care services

and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate for

30

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 31 of 32

Named Plaintiffs and class members and refrain from providing unnecessary and unwanted long-term care only in institutional settings. d. Award Named Plaintiffs and class members their reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs. e. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated:

~V..t...iJ..-'---jf I I

Respectfully submittef.
1 utLt~.W0~
Siegel, Fla~r No. 511617

Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. 1229 NW 121h Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 271-8890 Fax: (352) 271·8347
Stephen Gold, Pa. Bar No. 09880 stevegoldada@ cs.com 125 S. 9th Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 (215) 627-7100, ext 227 Fax: (215) 627-3183
Stacy Canan, D.C. Bar No. 370533
Bruce Vignery, D.C. Bar No. 297911
AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E Street, NW
31

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 1 Filed 01/15/08 Page 32 of 32 Washington, DC 20049 (202} 434-2060 Fax: (202) 434-6424 Sarah Somers, N.C. Bar No. 33165 somers@ heaithlaw.org National Health Law Program 211 N. Columbia St., Second Floor Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 968-6771 ext. 103 Fax: (919) 968-8855
32

 
 Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM LONG, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L. GRIFFIN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, and LOUISE SEYMOUR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 4:08-cv-26-RH-WCS

DR. ANDREW AGWUNOBI, in his official capacity as Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and DOUGLAS BEACH, in his official capacity as Secretary, Florida Department of Elder Affairs,

Defendants. _________________________________/

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a statewide class action brought on behalf of Florida residents

who currently, or at any time during this litigation, are Medicaid eligible adults with

disabilities; are unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility that receives Medicaid

funds; desire to reside in the community instead of a nursing facility; and could

reside in the community with appropriate services. Class members are being

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 34
unnecessarily institutionalized because of Defendants’ failure to cover services and support in appropriate, integrated community settings.
JURISDICTION 2. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (Section 504). 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1342. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants have acted under color of state law.
VENUE 4. Venue lies in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and in the Tallahassee Division, because the Defendants officially reside there. N.D. Fla. R. 3.2(A).
NAMED PLAINTIFFS 5. Named Plaintiff WILLIAM LONG is a thirty-four year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
2

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 34
6. Named Plaintiff CHARLES TODD LEE is a sixty-six year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Plant City, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for and receives Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
7. Named Plaintiff RODNEY PETERSON is a sixty year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
8. Named Plaintiff JOHN BOYD is a forty-nine year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
9. Named Plaintiff CLAYTON L. GRIFFIN is a fifty-four year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
10. Named Plaintiff MARGARET WASHINGTON is a seventy-four year old woman who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in
3

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 4 of 34
Jacksonville, Florida. She is a person with a disability. She is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. She wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
11. Named Plaintiff LOUISE SEYMOUR is a sixty-four year old woman who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. She is a person with a disability. She is eligible for Medicaid, which covers all or part of the nursing facility’s services. She wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
DEFENDANTS 12. Defendant DR. ANDREW AGWUNOBI is Secretary of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and is sued in his official capacity. AHCA is the chief health policy and planning entity for the state and is responsible for administering Florida’s Medicaid Program. § 20.42(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). AHCA is the “single state agency” that operates Florida’ Medicaid program, see 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(5), and is the state agency responsible for administering Florida’s nursing home and community-based long-term care system for people with disabilities. Secretary Agwumobi is responsible for the oversight, supervision and control of AHCA and its divisions, and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that AHCA’s services for people with disabilities are provided in conformance with federal law. 13. Defendant DOUGLAS BEACH is Secretary of Florida’s Department of Elder Affairs (DOEA), and is sued in his official capacity. DOEA is the primary
4

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 5 of 34
state agency responsible for administering human services programs for the elderly and developing policy recommendations for long-term care. § 430.03, Fla. Stat. (2007). It recommends legislative budget requests for programs and services for the state’s elderly population. Id. Among other duties, DOEA prepares, submits to the Governor and the Legislature, and monitors implementation of a master plan for policies and programs in Florida that relate to aging. § 430.04, Fla. Stat. (2007). DOEA funds a community care service system the primary purpose of which is the prevention of unnecessary institutionalization of functionally impaired elderly persons through the provision of community-based core services. § 430.204, Fla. Stat. (2007).
14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under color of state law and knew or should have known of the policies, practices, acts and conditions alleged herein.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 15. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), the Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. 16. The proposed class consists of:
Florida residents who currently, or at any time during this litigation: (1) are Medicaid eligible adults with disabilities; (2) reside in a nursing facility that receives Medicaid funds; and (3) would reside in the community with appropriate community-based services. 17. Numerosity: The Plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
5

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 6 of 34
Services (CMS), the federal agency that administers the Medicaid program, nearly 8,500 nursing facility Medicaid residents in Florida have said they would rather live in the community. Joinder is also impracticable because class members lack the knowledge and financial means to maintain individual actions.
18. Commonality: There are questions of law or fact that are common to all Named Plaintiffs, as well as to all putative class members, including:
a. Whether Defendants violate the “integration mandate” of the ADA and Section 504 by requiring Named Plaintiffs and class members to be confined to nursing facilities in order to receive long-term care services, rather than providing those services in appropriate settings in Plaintiffs’ homes and communities; and
b. whether Defendants fail to inform and provide Named Plaintiffs and class members with meaningful choice of community-based long-term care alternatives to nursing facilities.
19. Typicality: The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole in that the Named plaintiffs and class members currently are unnecessarily confined to Medicaid-funded nursing facilities and desire to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
20. Adequate representation: The Named Plaintiffs will fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of members of the class as a whole. The Named Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to those of other class members. By filing this action, the Named Plaintiffs have displayed an interest in
6

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 7 of 34
vindicating their rights, as well as the claims of others who are similarly situated. The relief sought by the Named Plaintiffs will inure to the benefit of members of the class generally. The Named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are skilled and knowledgeable about civil rights litigation, disability discrimination, Medicaid law, practice and procedure in the federal courts and the prosecution and management of class action litigation.
21. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Although the specific disabilities of the class members vary, they share a common need for Medicaid services. A class action is superior to individual lawsuits for resolving this controversy.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Named Plaintiffs’ Allegations William Long 22. Named Plaintiff WILLIAM LONG is a thirty-four-year-old man who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for and receives Medicaid for the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services. 23. In 2000, he became a quadriplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Long does not require extensive nursing
7

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 8 of 34
care or oversight. For example, he requires assistance transferring from bed, dressing, toileting, showering, and meal preparation.
24. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Long receives in the nursing facility. 25. Many persons who have quadriplegia and who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Mr. Long reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-term care services. 26. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Mr. Long receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Long’s. 27. Any health care services Mr. Long requires could also be provided in the community. 28. The Defendants cover personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Mr. Long. 29. Before moving to the nursing facility, Mr. Long was employed and worked laying underground utilities for nearly nine years. 30. He has several children, including a ten year old daughter and a six year old son, both of whom visit him in the nursing facility only once a month. 31. At the nursing facility, Mr. Long must share a room with another adult and accordingly has little personal privacy or any space to call his own. 32. Like other residents of the nursing facility, Mr. Long is confined to his room after the nursing facility staff transfers him to bed at whatever time they decide
8

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 9 of 34
they are ready to transfer him. Watching television in common areas and walking in the halls after that time is impossible.
33. Mr. Long must shower only when the staff provide for it and he is offered a shower only twice a week.
34. Although Mr. Long has requested community-based long-term care services, to his knowledge no one at the nursing facility has followed up on his requests.
35. Mr. Long wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
36. Mr. Long is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
37. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs.
38. Defendants have offered Mr. Long Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. Charles Todd Lee
39. Named Plaintiff CHARLES TODD LEE is a sixty-six year old man who is currently unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Plant City, Florida. He is a person with a disability. He is eligible for and receives Medicaid, which covers the nursing facility’s services. He wishes to live in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
9

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 10 of 34
40. In 2003, he became paralyzed on one side as a result of suffering two strokes. From the hospital, Mr. Lee was discharged directly to a nursing home without being offered to live in the community with appropriate servies.
41. He uses a manual wheelchair for mobility. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Lee does not require extensive nursing care or oversight. For example, he requires assistance transferring from bed, dressing, toileting, and showering, but brushes his own teeth and draws with his right hand.
42. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Lee receives in the nursing facility. 43. Many persons who are similarly paralyzed and who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Mr. Lee reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-term care services. 44. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Mr. Lee receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Lee’s. 45. Any health care services Mr. Lee requires could also be provided in the community. 46. Mr. Lee’s treating physician agrees that he can reside in the community with appropriate community-based services. 47. The Defendants provide personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Mr. Lee.
10

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 11 of 34
48. Before his strokes, Mr. Lee worked for nearly 40 years as a professional photographer, including for LIFE and Rolling Stone magazines.
49. He has several adult children, who visit him on weekends. 50. At the nursing facility, Mr. Lee must share a room with another adult and accordingly has little personal privacy or any space to call his own. 51. Mr. Lee draws and takes paratransit services once a week to swim with a friend in a community pool. 52. Other than swimming at a community pool, he rarely leaves the nursing facility. 53. Mr. Lee must shower only when the staff provide for it, and he is offered a shower only once or twice a week. 54. Mr. Lee has requested community-based long-term care services and has applied for these services. He and his family have been told he was placed on Defendants’ waiting list for community-based Medicaid services. 55. Defendants have offered Mr. Lee Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. 56. Mr. Lee wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services. 57. Mr. Lee is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services. He wishes to reside with one of his daughters, who has agreed that he could live with her and her husband, both of whom work and cannot stay at home with him to provide these services.
11

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 12 of 34
58. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs. In the nursing facility, Mr. Lee must reside with only older frail persons and other persons with disabilities. He wants to reside with younger people and with nondisabled persons. Rodney Peterson
59. Named Plaintiff RODNEY PETERSON is a sixty year old man who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
60. Mr. Peterson is a person with a disability due to both severe seizures and ruptured discs in his spinal cord.
61. As a result of his disability, he cannot walk without a wheelchair, which he has used since 1997.
62. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Peterson can take his medications, toilet, and feed himself without assistance.
63. He is permitted to shower only three times a week and at the specific times the nursing facility staff require.
64. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Peterson receives in the nursing facility.
65. Many persons like Mr. Peterson who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Mr. Peterson reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate community-based long-term care services.
12

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 13 of 34
66. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Mr. Peterson receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Peterson’s.
67. Any health care services Mr. Peterson requires could also be provided in the community.
68. The Defendants cover personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Mr. Peterson.
69. Before moving to the nursing facility, Mr. Peterson was employed and worked as a manager of a restaurant, drove a taxicab, and was in sales. Although Mr. Peterson has requested community-based services, to his knowledge no one at the nursing facility has followed up on his requests.
70. Mr. Peterson wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
71. He is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
72. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs.
73. Defendants have offered Mr. Peterson Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting.
13

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 14 of 34
John Boyd 74. Named Plaintiff JOHN BOYD is forty-nine-year old man who is
unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. He has resided there since 1999.
75. Mr. Boyd is a person with a disability. He has been a quadriplegic since he was fourteen years old when he fell off a wall and was paralyzed. He uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility.
76. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Boyd receives in the nursing facility. 77. Despite his disability, Ms. Boyd does not require extensive nursing care or oversight. For example, he requires assistance transferring from bed, dressing, toileting, showering, and meal preparation, and turning at night to prevent bed sores. 78. These personal care services he receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities. 79. Any health care services Mr. Boyd requires could also be provided in the community. 80. Persons who have quadriplegia and who have the same or similar daily living activity imparments and needs as Mr. Boyd are capable of residing in the community and in their own apartments, with appropriate community-based longterm care services.
14

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 15 of 34
81. Defendants provide funding in the community for services similar to what the nursing facility provides to Mr. Boyd only for a very limited number of people.
82. In order for Mr. Boyd to receive the personal care and health care services he needs, Defendants have conditioned them on his being in a nursing facility.
83. Mr. Boyd has worked for a number of years for Red Lobster, where he answered their 800 telephone inquiries.
84. Mr. Boyd currently attends the Florida Community College four times a week, where he studies computer program and where he will obtain an associate’s degree in 2008. He has studied JAVA, Oracle SQL, college algebra, and business data processing among other courses. After college, he would like to work as a computer programer.
85. With adaptive equipment, Mr. Boyd types on his computer, uses the Internet and can brush his teeth.
86. Mr. Boyd seeks to live in the community, preferably with a friend and caretaker, and with periodic nursing services.
87. Mr. Boyd is capable of living in the community with appropriate supports and services.
88. Residing in the community or in his own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs.
15

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 16 of 34
89. Defendants have offered Mr. Boyd Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. Clayton L. Griffin
90. Named Plaintiff CLAYTON L GRIFFIN is a fifty-four-year-old man who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida.
91. Mr. Griffin is a person with a disability. 92. In 2004, he had a stroke which paralyzed his left side. 93. Medicaid covers the services Mr. Griffin receives in the nursing facility. 94. Currently, he uses a manual wheelchair for mobility with difficulty and has requested a motorized wheelchair, but has not received one. 95. Despite his disabilities, Mr. Griffin transfers out of bed on his own. 96. Mr. Griffin does not require extensive nursing care or oversight. 97. He feeds himself but does requires assistance showering, dressing and toileting. 98. Mr. Griffin requires personal care only in the morning and at night. 99. The personal care services Mr. Griffin receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Mr. Griffin’s. 100. Any health care services Mr. Griffin requires could also be provided in the community.
16

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 17 of 34
101. Persons like Mr. Griffin who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs are capable of residing in the community and their own apartments, with the appropriate community-based long-term care services
102. Mr. Griffin has worked since he was 12 years old. 103. Before his stroke, Mr. Griffin received a certificate in electronics. He was employed as a copier technician, worked with mailing and folding machines, as well as general labor in power plants. 104. Mr. Griffin attends church and goes to Wal-Mart and Winn Dixie. 105. Mr. Griffin has told various personnel at the nursing facility that he wants to leave and reside in the community. 106. No one has ever informed him about any Medicaid long-term care services in the community. To his knowledge, no one at the nursing facility has followed up on his requests. 107. Defendants have never offered Mr. Griffin community-based Medicaidfunded personal care and health care services similar to those he currently receives in the nursing facility. 108. Mr. Griffin wishes to live independently in the community with periodic nursing services and other appropriate personal care supports. 109. With appropriate personal care and health care services, Mr. Griffin is capable of living in the community, which is the most integrated setting.
17

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 18 of 34
Margaret Washington 110. Named Plaintiff MARGARET WASHINGTON is a seventy-four year
old woman who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
111. Ms. Washington is a person with a disability who receives dialysis three times a week.
112. As a result of her disability, she has difficulty walking and uses a a wheelchair for mobility.
113. Ms. Washington needs personal care services to assist her with personal hygiene.
114. She is able to get into and out of bed by herself. 115. Medicaid covers the services Ms. Washington receives in the nursing facility. 116. Many persons like Mr. Washington who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Ms. Washington are capable of residing in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate long-term communitybased services. 117. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Ms. Washington receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Ms. Washington’s. 118. Any health care services Ms. Washington requires could also be provided in the community.
18

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 19 of 34
119. The Defendants cover personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Ms. Washington.
120. Before moving to the nursing facility, Ms. Washington has worked since she was seventeen years old. She has worked making flower arrangements, a laundry presser, and a housekeeper.
121. Ms. Washington wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
122. She is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
123. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is for her the most integrated setting appropriate to her needs.
124. Defendants have offered Ms. Washington Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting. Louise Seymour
125. Named Plaintiff LOUISE SEYMOUR is a sixty-four year old woman who currently is unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility in Jacksonville, Florida.
126. Ms. Seymour is disabled due to a severe heart problem which necessity surgery and a pacemaker.
127. As a result of her disability and her operation, she could not walk without a wheelchair.
19

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 20 of 34
128. Despite her disabilities, Ms. Seymour can without assistance take her medications, perform most personal hygiene and feed herself.
129. Medicaid covers the services Ms. Seymour receives in the nursing facility.
130. Many persons like Ms. Seymour who have the same or similar daily living activity impairments and needs as Ms. Seymour reside in the community and their own apartments, with appropriate long-term community-based services.
131. The Medicaid-funded personal care services Ms. Seymour receives in the nursing facility could be provided in the community, as they are for many persons with disabilities similar to Ms. Seymour’s.
132. Any health care services Ms. Seymour requires could also be provided in the community.
133. The Defendants cover personal care and health care services in the community for only a very limited number of people situated similarly to Ms. Seymour.
134. Ms. Seymour attends Florida Community College and is earning a certificate in special education. She goes to college twice a week.
135. Between 1986 and when she had her heart operation in 2000, Ms. Seymour worked as both a housekeeper and a home-health aide.
136. Although Ms. Seymour has requested community-based services, to her knowledge no one at the nursing facility has followed up on her requests.
20

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 21 of 34
137. Ms. Seymour wishes to live independently in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
138. She is capable of living in the community with appropriate health care and personal care services.
139. Residing in the community in his own apartment or house is the most integrated setting appropriate to her needs.
140. Defendants have offered Ms. Seymour Medicaid-funded personal care and health care services only in a nursing facility setting.
The State-Federal Medicaid Program 141. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that covers medical services to low-income persons pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396v. 142. Florida participates in the Medicaid program and receives 57 cents in federal reimbursement for every dollar it spends on Medicaid services. 143. States are not required to participate in Medicaid, but if they do, they must comply with the requirements of Title XIX and its implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”). States which participate must further submit to HHS a state Medicaid plan that fulfills the requirements of Title XIX. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a). 144. One of the primary purposes of Medicaid is “to furnish … rehabilitation and other services to help families and individuals attain or retain capability for independence and self care ….” 42 U.S.C. § 1396. Each participating State’s
21

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 22 of 34
Medicaid plan must contain reasonable standards to determine the extent of services needed to obtain these objectives. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17).
145. Individuals are eligible for Medicaid if they are either “categorically needy” or “medically needy.” Individuals who, for example, receive Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits are deemed “categorically needy.”
146. Coverage of certain services is mandatory under Title XIX for all persons considered “categorically needy.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i) (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(1)-(5), (17), (21)). “Mandatory” services include services in a skilled nursing facility. Id.
147. States must also cover home health services for “any individual who, under the state plan, is entitled to nursing facility services.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(D). Coverage for home health services must include, among other things, durable medical equipment, supplies and appliances suitable for use in the home. 42 C.F.R. § 440.70(b).
148. Medicaid also allows states to provide for coverage of in-home and community services, including private-duty nursing, home and community care for functionally disabled elderly individuals, personal care services, and any other medical and remedial care recognized under state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a). Once a state elects to cover an optional service, it becomes part of the state’s Medicaid plan and is subject to the requirements of Title XIX. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(1).
22

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 23 of 34
149. Additionally, Medicaid allows states to waive certain requirements in order to enable people with disabilities to avoid institutionalization and receive longterm care services in the community. 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c). These programs are known as Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) “waivers.”
Florida’ Medicaid Long-Term Care System for People with Disabilities 150. Through its Medicaid program, Florida covers nursing facility services
for Medicaid-eligible people with disabilities who qualify for long-term care. 151. Defendants provide for coverage of these services through contracts
with privately owned and operated nursing facilities, many of which are for-profit businesses.
152. Defendants also provide for coverage of in-home and community services to persons who would otherwise qualify for nursing facility services. These services are also funded under Medicaid, either as home health services or through a HCBS waiver program.
153. Defendants have also chosen to include a number of optional categories of services, including personal care services.
154. With the support of these community-based supports and services, people with disabilities are able to live independently with community-based supports and services.
155. For some people with disabilities served in the community, Defendants contract with private home health agencies to provide in-home community long-term
23

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 24 of 34
care. Other people with disabilities served in the community hire their own care givers and attendants, whose wages are paid by Defendants.
156. The cost of these Medicaid-funded community programs is far below the average annual nursing home cost.
157. Currently, Florida’s Medicaid average nursing home annual expenditure is approximately $ 65,072 per year per person.
158. Despite the fact that many, perhaps most, seniors and people with disabilities prefer to live in the community, Defendants have allocated the vast majority of Florida’s Medicaid long-term care funding – approximately 87% – to nursing facility services – the tenth-highest rate in the nation. The remaining 13% goes for community-based services. The national average expenditure on nursing facility services in 2006 was approximately 70% of the total long-term care expenditures.
159. For people with physical disabilities, Florida’s per person spending for nursing facilities is nearly thirteen times that for home and community-based care. In FY 2006, of Florida’s total $ 2.7 billion in expenditures for Medicaid long-term care services for the aged and disabled (i.e., both institutional and communitybased services), Florida spent approximately $ 2.4 billion Medicaid dollars on nursing facilities and only $ 346 million on community-based services.
160. Since 1999, Florida has increased its Medicaid expenditures on nursing facility services by more than $ 994 million, but only increased Medicaid expenditures for community-based services by $ 170 million.
24

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 25 of 34
161. As a result, Medicaid-funded community-based long care services are unavailable to many who need and want them, effectively compelling institutionalization of people with disabilities.
162. Once Medicaid-eligible individuals are admitted to nursing facilities, they must turn over most of their assets and income, including Supplemental Security Income from Social Security, to the state and nursing facility. Residents receive an allowance of approximately $ 30.00 per month.
163. As a result, residents are often unable to continue paying rent or mortgages and accordingly lose the home they had before entering the nursing facility. Residents also lack resources to obtain community services and housing on their own.
164. They often cannot afford even basic transportation costs to leave the facility, whether to pursue community services or for any other purpose.
165. Nursing facilities are not real homes or even home-like, but rather are segregated institutions housing large numbers of unrelated persons, both elderly and non-elderly, in congregate settings, where residents must share bedrooms, bathrooms and living spaces with strangers.
166. Nursing facility residents are, for the most part, neither integrated into nor part of the communities in which they live.
167. Residents have limited access to the community and it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to participate in community activities such as government, churches or clubs.
25

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 26 of 34
168. Nursing facility residents are often denied meaningful access to employment opportunities by virtue of the congregate environments in which they live and the limited supports that are provided to them.
169. Many nursing facilities resemble hospitals. They have nurses’ stations and often have locked doors, curfews and, at times, guards posted to monitor persons entering and leaving the facility.
170. There is little, if any, privacy for nursing facility residents who share rooms and bathrooms with up to five residents whom they did not know previously and with whom they did not choose to live. In some facilities, entire wards share bathrooms and shower facilities. Medications are often dispensed publicly, with residents waiting in line.
171. Nursing facility residents often lack their own telephones, and are often restricted in the use of the nursing facility telephones.
172. Nursing facilities offer few places for residents to gather or safeguard their personal belongings. Many residents report that their personal property has been stolen or damaged.
173. Nursing facility residents have little, if any, choice on what to eat, when to eat, or with whom to eat.
174. Defendants administer their Medicaid program in a manner that perpetuates the segregation of persons with disabilities. These methods of administration arbitrarily limit access to integrated, community support services by
26

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 27 of 34
persons with disabilities in nursing facilities. Specifically, limitations on the availability of Medicaid-funded, community-based services results from:
a. the lack of information provided to persons in nursing facilities about community-based services, including waivers;
b. the failure to provide nursing facility residents with a meaningful choice of community as well as institutional services;
c. the failure to offer meaningful access to community-based services; d. decisions and actions that intentionally limit the number and
availability of community-based long-term care Medicaid services; and e. inadequacies in the funding of community-based Medicaid funded
services that Defendants are authorized to cover for Medicaid-eligible individuals. Residents’ Desire and Ability to Live in the Community 175. CMS publishes quarterly data on nursing facility residents. This data, called the “Minimum Data Set” (“MDS”), is collected by nursing facilities and sent to each state’s Medicaid single state agency, which then sends it to CMS. See 42 C.F.R. § 483.20(c). 176. The MDS reports that in 2007 in Florida 26.2% of nursing facility residents have expressed or indicated to their nursing facility that they want to live in the community instead of a nursing facility. About half of these residents are Medicaid-eligible.
27

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 28 of 34
177. The percentage of nursing facility residents who have expressed or indicated that they want to reside in the community instead of a nursing facility has consistently increased for four years. In 2003, it was 23.9%; 24.7% in 2004; 25.2%in 2005; and 26% in 2006.
178. Many nursing facility residents could be served safely and appropriately in the community if long-term care and services were available there. When appropriate supports and services have been provided, persons with disabilities, of all ages and multiple levels of disability, have successfully moved into or remained in the community in order to live more independently.
COUNT 1 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 179. Paragraphs 1 through 178 are incorporated by reference. 180. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 181. Each Named Plaintiff and class member is a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA in that they (1) have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; and (2) meet the essential eligibility requirements for long-term care under Florida’ Medicaid program 182. Defendants are public agency directors responsible for operation of a public entity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(1)(A) & (B).
28

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 29 of 34
183. Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA require that a public entity administer its services, programs and activities in “the most integrated setting appropriate” to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).
184. The ADA’s implementing regulations further provide that “a public entity may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or other methods of administration: (i) that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability; [or] (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the entity’s program with respect to individuals with disabilities ….” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3).
185. Defendants have required that Named Plaintiffs and class members be confined unnecessarily in institutions, i.e., nursing facilities, rather than permit them to reside in the community in order to obtain long-term care services in violation of the ADA’s integration mandate.
186. Further, Defendants have utilized criteria and methods of administration that subject Plaintiffs and class members to discrimination on the basis of disability, including unnecessary institutionalization, by (1) failing to assess properly the services and supports that would enable Named Plaintiffs and class members to live in the community, (2) failing to inform Named Plaintiffs and class members, upon admission and thereafter, of community long-term care options, and
29

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 30 of 34
(3) allocating resources for institutional long-term care contrary to the desires and needs of people with disabilities.
187. Defendants’ actions are in violation of Title II of the ADA. COUNT II
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 188. Paragraphs 1 through 178 are incorporated by reference. 189. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states that “[n]o otherwise qualified person with disabilities shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 190. Defendants direct state agencies that receive federal financial assistance. 191. Each Named Plaintiff and class member is a “qualified person with disabilities” within the meaning of Section 504, because they (1) have physical and/or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities; and (2) meet the essential eligibility requirements for long term care under Florida’ Medicaid program and are thus “qualified.” 192. Regulations implementing Section 504 require that a public entity administer its services, programs and activities in “the most integrated setting appropriate” to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d).
30

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 31 of 34
193. Section 504’s regulations prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from:
utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration ... (i) [t]hat have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap [or] (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient’s program with respect to handicapped persons. 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4); 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3)(I). 194. Defendants have required that Named Plaintiffs and class members be confined unnecessarily in institutions, i.e., nursing facilities, rather than the community in order to obtain long-term care services, in violation of Section 504’s integration mandate. 195. Further, Defendants have utilized criteria and methods of administration that subject Named Plaintiffs and class members to discrimination on the basis of disability, including unnecessary institutionalization, by (1) failing to assess properly the services and supports that would enable Named Plaintiffs and class members to live in the community, (2) failing to inform Named Plaintiffs and class members, upon admission and thereafter, of community long-term care options, and (3) allocating resources for institutional long-term care contrary to the desires and needs of people with disabilities. 196. Defendants’ actions are in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
31

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 32 of 34
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs and class members respectfully request that this Court: a. Certify this action as a class action. b. Declare that Defendants’ failure to provide Named Plaintiffs and class
members with services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. c. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to: i. inform Named Plaintiffs and class members that they may be
eligible for publicly-funded community services and that they have the choice of such services; and ii. ensure coverage of, as appropriate, long-term care services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate for Named Plaintiffs and class members and refrain from providing unnecessary and unwanted long-term care only in institutional settings. d. Award Named Plaintiffs and class members their reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs. e. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
32

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 33 of 34
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Jodi Siegel__________________ Jodi Siegel, Fla. Bar No. 511617 jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org Neil Chonin, Fla. Bar No. 13428 neil.chonin@southernlegal.org Gabriela Ruiz, Fla. Bar No. 0046844 gabriela.ruiz@southernlegal.org Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. 1229 NW 12th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 271-8890 Fax: (352) 271-8347
Stephen F. Gold, Pa. Bar No. 09880 stevegoldada@cs.com 125 S. 9th Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 (215) 627-7100, ext 227 Fax: (215) 627-3183
Stacy Canan, D.C. Bar No. 370533 scanan@aarp.org Bruce Vignery, D.C. Bar No. 297911 bvignery@aarp.org AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 (202) 434-2060 Fax: (202) 434-6424
Sarah Somers, N.C. Bar No. 33165 somers@healthlaw.org National Health Law Program 211 N. Columbia St., Second Floor Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 968-6771 ext. 103 Fax: (919) 968-8855
33

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 13 Filed 02/19/08 Page 34 of 34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was furnished by CM/ECF transmission to GEORGE WAAS, Special Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, PL-01 The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 this 19th day of February, 2008.
By: /s/ Jodi Siegel ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
34

 
 Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 68 Filed 06/07/08 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Page 1 of 6

WILLIAM LONG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. HOLLY BENSON, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFERRING RULING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION

The plaintiffs in this action are Medicaid-supported residents of nursing facilities who allege that they could reside and receive appropriate care in the community. They further assert that defendant state officials have subjected them to unjustified discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to assess properly the services that would enable them to live in the community, by not informing them about these services, and by not supporting these services generally. This conduct, allege plaintiffs, violates the anti-discrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and regulations that require that “a public entity shall

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 68 Filed 06/07/08 Page 2 of 6
Page 2 of 6
administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting
appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities,” 28 C.F.R. §
35.130(d). The defendants have moved to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have moved
to certify class of similarly situated individuals in Florida. Oral argument was held
on these pending motions and a ruling announced that is confirmed by this written
order.
The Supreme Court recently set forth the standard governing motions to
dismiss:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d. 929 (2007) (slip op., at 7-8) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957)). In addition, when ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Bell Atlantic Corp., supra, at __, 127 S. Ct. 1965 (slip op., at 8-9) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n.1, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974)).
Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The
requirement that in ruling on a motion to dismiss the complaint’s allegations be
accepted as true applies “even if [the allegations are] doubtful in fact.” Bell
Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965.
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 68 Filed 06/07/08 Page 3 of 6

The dispositive case here is Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring

Page 3 of 6

527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999). There the Supreme

Court held that “under Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide

community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities when the State’s

treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected

persons do not oppose such treatment, and the placement can be reasonably

accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the

needs of others with mental disabilities.” 527 U.S. at 607.

The defendants argue that Olmstead does not control the case at bar because

the plaintiffs have not alleged that state treatment professionals have determined

that community placement is appropriate. Part of the plaintiffs’ allegation,

however, is that defendants have failed to assess properly, and that community

placements would be determined appropriate as required by Olmstead if proper

assessments were performed. The defendants read the complaint’s allegation that

the defendants “fail[ed] to assess properly” to mean that they assessed, but did so

improperly, thus framing the question as a challenge to the state’s medical

decisions. Leaving aside the question of what substantive result would follow if

this is what is ultimately proven, it is clear that the allegation itself could more

plainly be read to include an assertion that the defendants failed to assess at all.

The plaintiffs further rely on regulations requiring that a “recipient [of

Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 68 Filed 06/07/08 Page 4 of 6
Page 4 of 6
federal financial assistance] may not, directly or through contractual or other
arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration . . . that have the effect
of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of
handicap.” 45 C.F.R. § 84.4(b)(4); 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(3). State officials cannot
avoid the obligations of the ADA as interpreted by Olmstead by denying the
provision of proper assessments. Thus the complaint states a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
This is so notwithstanding the defendants’ related arguments that
regulations cited by the plaintiffs are beyond the scope of congressionally
delegated authority, such that Title II itself does not require placement of the
plaintiffs in the “most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).1 That argument is contrary to the ultimate holding of Olmstead.2
The defendants made an ore tenus motion for interlocutory appeal following
1 Following notification to the United States Attorney General of the a challenge to a federal regulation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a), the government filed a statement of interest and appeared as an amicus at oral argument to attend to its interests in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517.
2 To be sure, Olmstead did not explicitly address the validity of the regulations. In the words of the Court, “We recite these regulations with the caveat that we do not here determine their validity. While the parties differ on the proper construction and enforcement of the regulations, we do not understand petitioners to challenge the regulatory formulations themselves as outside the congressional authorization.” 527 U.S. at 592.
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 68 Filed 06/07/08 Page 5 of 6
Page 5 of 6
the court’s indication at oral argument that the motion would be denied. As a matter of discretion, I decline to certify the issue for immediate appeal.
The defendants have requested further discovery on the issue of class certification, raising significant questions as to whether the plaintiffs themselves could meet any proposed definition of the class. A ruling on the motion for class certification will be deferred pending further discovery, but general discovery should proceed.
For these reasons and others set forth on the record of the hearing of May 29, 2008,
IT IS ORDERED: 1. The defendants’ motion to dismiss (document 26) is DENIED. 2. The defendants’ ore tenus motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is DENIED. 3. A ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion to certify class is deferred pending further discovery. The defendants may file a supplemental response to the plaintiffs’ motion to certify class by July 29, 2008. As of that date, the court will
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 68 Filed 06/07/08 Page 6 of 6
Page 6 of 6
take the matter under advisement and may set a hearing or enter a ruling without a hearing.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2008. s/Robert L. Hinkle Chief United States District Judge
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Page 1 of 7

WILLIAM LONG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. HOLLY BENSON, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS

In Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a state violates the Americans with Disabilities Act if it unnecessarily isolates disabled individuals in institutions as a condition of providing them public assistance. Isolation is unnecessary, for this purpose, if a state could provide the same assistance as effectively and efficiently in the community without fundamentally altering its public assistance program. Lower courts of course have followed Olmstead. See, e.g., Radaszewski v. Maram, 383 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2004); Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003).

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 7
Page 2 of 7
In this action seven named plaintiffs assert that the State of Florida, through the defendant Secretary, is operating its Medicaid program in violation of the Olmstead principle by providing assistance to many disabled individuals only in nursing homes even though they could be treated as effectively—and less expensively—in the community. The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. The named plaintiffs have moved for class certification. I grant the motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), a class action may be maintained if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” so long the requirements of Rule 23(a) also are satisfied. Here the Secretary has refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class. This is a classic Rule 23(b)(2) class action.
I find that the requirements of Rule 23(a) also are satisfied. First, under Rule 23(a)(1), class treatment is appropriate only if “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” The record indicates that there are probably more than 8,500 Medicaid beneficiaries in nursing homes in Florida who would prefer to live in the community. If the plaintiffs prevail on the merits, it is likely that appropriate injunctive relief will extend to a significant portion, if not
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 7
Page 3 of 7
most, of these 8,500 individuals. The number of affected individuals is easily enough to make class treatment appropriate.
Under Rule 23(a)(2), class treatment is appropriate only if “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” There are common questions in the case at bar. Common issues include, for example, the issues of what Olmstead requires, and whether providing assistance in the community rather than in nursing homes would require a fundamental alteration of the Florida Medicaid program. There of course may be individual issues also, but Rule 23(a)(2) requires only that there be common issues, not that there be no individual issues. And while the common issues predominate in the case at bar, this is not essential; in a Rule 23(b)(2) class, unlike in a Rule 23(b)(3) class, there is no requirement that common issues predominate.
Under Rule 23(a)(3), class treatment is appropriate only if “the claims . . . of the representative parties are typical of the claims . . . of the class.” Here the named plaintiffs are individuals who were confined in nursing homes when the lawsuit was filed but assert they could be treated as effectively and efficiently in the community. Each named plaintiff’s precise medical circumstances are of course unique; no two individuals are ever medically identical in all respects. But the claims of the named plaintiffs are very much typical of the claims of class members generally.
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 4 of 7

Under Rule 23(a)(4), class treatment is appropriate only if “the

Page 4 of 7

representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”

This standard is easily satisfied here. For all this record reflects, these named

plaintiffs have every reason to represent the class zealously and are motivated to do

so. They are represented by attorneys well able to carry the load.

That leaves for consideration at this time the appropriate definition of the

class. The plaintiffs say the class should include Medicaid-eligible adults who

reside in nursing homes that receive Medicaid funding and would reside in the

community with appropriate community-based services. The Secretary says the

class should be limited to individuals who she or her employees have determined

could appropriately be treated in the community.

The Secretary’s proposed class definition will not do. If, as the plaintiffs

assert, the ADA gives a disabled individual for whom a state provides Medicaid

assistance in an institution the right to receive assistance for appropriate care in the

community, then the Secretary cannot deny the right simply by refusing to

acknowledge that the individual could receive appropriate care in the community.

Otherwise the right would, or at least could, become wholly illusory.

This does not mean, though, that if the plaintiffs prevail on the merits, the

Secretary will have to provide Medicaid assistance in the community to any current

nursing home resident who wishes to move out. To the contrary, the feasibility of

Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 5 of 7
Page 5 of 7
providing appropriate care in the community will remain a consideration, and the Secretary will not be compelled to fundamentally alter the state’s Medicaid program. The plaintiffs seem to acknowledge this.
Drawing the line between those who will or will not be eligible for community-based assistance is an issue properly reserved for the merits, not one properly decided in the context of class certification. If the Secretary prevails on the merits, the line she has drawn will be upheld. If the plaintiffs prevail, appropriate injunctive relief will require the Secretary to provide assistance for appropriate care in the community, but only to the extent she can do so without fundamentally altering the state Medicaid program. The class should consist of those individuals who “could and would reside in the community with appropriate community-based services.” For this purpose, “appropriate” community-based services means those that are both appropriate to the individual’s circumstances and can be provided without a fundamental alteration of the state program. If, as the case progresses, a more precise definition becomes feasible and appropriate, the rules of course provide for an amendment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B).
Finally, a word is in order about an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision that the Secretary says requires a more limited class definition. In Brown v. Bush, No. 99-11544 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2000), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed a class certification order that had been drafted by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and adopted
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 6 of 7
Page 6 of 7
verbatim by the district court. The order was deficient in many respects. One was that it adopted an overly broad and imprecise class definition that by its terms included individuals far outside the sweep of the named plaintiffs’ substantive claims. The definition also overlapped with the class definition in four other class actions that were pending before the same district judge. Not surprisingly, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the class certification order. The Eleventh Circuit drafted its own class definition that was narrower than that adopted by this order. But that was a different case with different issues; the circumstances there were much different than those here. And as an unpublished opinion, Brown of course is not binding, even in this court. Nothing in Brown suggests that the definition adopted by this order is impermissible.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (document 22) is GRANTED. The named plaintiffs are designated as representatives of a class consisting of any Florida Medicaid-eligible adult who, at any time while this litigation has been pending, has resided in a nursing home that receives Medicaid funding, and who could and would reside in the community with appropriate community-based services. Attorneys Bruce Vignery, Gariela Magda Ruiz, Jodi Lynn Siegel, Neil Chonin, Sarah Somers, Stacy Jane Canan, and Stephen F. Gold are designated as
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 136 Filed 10/14/08 Page 7 of 7

class counsel.

Page 7 of 7

SO ORDERED on October 14, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle Chief United States District Judge

Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 336 Filed 01/19/11 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Page 1 of 2

WILLIAM LONG et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ELIZABETH DUDEK et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a state violates the Americans with Disabilities Act if it unnecessarily isolates disabled individuals in institutions as a condition of providing them public assistance. Isolation is unnecessary, for this purpose, if a state could provide the same assistance as effectively and efficiently in the community without fundamentally altering its public assistance program. Lower courts of course have followed Olmstead. See, e.g., Radaszewski v. Maram, 383 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2004); Fisher v. Okla. Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003).

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 336 Filed 01/19/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
In this class action, the plaintiffs assert that the State of Florida is operating its Medicaid program in violation of the Olmstead principle by providing assistance to many disabled individuals only in nursing homes even though they could be treated as effectively—and less expensively—in the community. Each side has moved for summary judgment. But each relies on facts that are disputed. The contested factual issues must be resolved at trial.
No purpose would be served by explaining this ruling at greater length. The trial is imminent, and a full ruling will be entered based on the evidence presented at the trial.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The summary-judgment motions, ECF Nos. 313 and 314, are DENIED. SO ORDERED on January 19, 2011.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Page 1 of 8

WILLIAM LONG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. HOLLY BENSON, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The plaintiff Clayton Griffin has moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant Holly Benson, as Secretary of the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, to provide Medicaid benefits to which Mr. Griffin claims he is entitled. I grant the motion.
I. Facts In 2004, at the age of 51, Mr. Griffin suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on the left side. He is confined to a wheelchair and needs assistance to get in and out of bed, to shower, to dress, and to use the bathroom. When this lawsuit was filed, Mr. Griffin was living in a nursing home. The

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 8
Page 2 of 8
cost of the nursing home was covered by the state’s Medicaid program. Mr. Griffin had applied for and been determined eligible for a Medicaid waiver program. Under the waiver program, an individual receives services in the community rather than in an institution. This is what Mr. Griffin preferred. But the state has a long waiting list for the waiver program; no slot was available for Mr. Griffin.
On June 14, 2008, Mr. Griffin moved out of the nursing home and began living by himself in an apartment complex despite the unavailability of Medicaid benefits. A certified nursing assistant goes to his apartment for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening to assist Mr. Griffin with activities of daily living. He has a visiting nurse and visiting physician who provide needed medical care. Mr. Griffin spends time in his apartment but also goes out into the community using public transportation. He has friends and relatives in the apartment complex. Mr. Griffin’s quality of life—at least in his opinion—is substantially better than it was in the nursing home.
Mr. Griffin’s income is limited to $996 per month in social security disability benefits. The cost of his certified nursing assistant is $52 per day. This is a small fraction—less than a third—of the cost of the nursing home but still much more than Mr. Griffin can pay. He has survived financially since moving out because he received limited Medicare benefits and support from friends and
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 3 of 8
Page 3 of 8
family, but the Medicare benefits have expired and his friends and family cannot carry the expense. He has moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the state to provide Medicaid coverage for the certified nursing assistant.
II. Preliminary Injunction Standards Entry of a preliminary injunction is governed by a well established fourfactor test, under which the moving party must establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that he or she will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536 (11th Cir. 1983).
III. Likelihood of Success on the Merits In Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1999), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a state violates the Americans with Disabilities Act if it unnecessarily isolates disabled individuals in institutions as a condition of providing them public assistance. Isolation is unnecessary, for this purpose, if a state could provide the same assistance as effectively and efficiently in the community without fundamentally altering its public assistance program. Lower courts of course have followed Olmstead. See,
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 4 of 8
Page 4 of 8
e.g., Radaszewski v. Maram, 383 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2004); Fisher v. Oklahoma Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003).
In this action the plaintiffs assert that the State of Florida, through the defendant Secretary, is operating its Medicaid program in violation of the Olmstead principle by providing assistance to many disabled individuals only in nursing homes even though they could be treated as effectively—and less expensively—in the community.
While the issue is not free of doubt, I conclude that Mr. Griffin, at least, is likely to prevail on this claim. The Secretary says that Mr. Griffin cannot receive the care he needs in the community, but for purposes of the preliminary-injunction motion, my finding of fact is to the contrary. The finding draws support not only from expert testimony but from two additional considerations. First, Mr. Griffin has in fact been receiving the care he needs in the community. The Secretary’s argument that it cannot be done thus falls flat. And second, common sense and experience suggest there is nothing that can be done for Mr. Griffin in the nursing home that cannot also be done in his apartment complex. Indeed, this is true of most if not all services provided in nursing homes for most if not all patients.
The real issue thus is not whether care can be provided in the community or even the quality of that care, but how the care can reasonably and economically be delivered. For Mr. Griffin standing alone, the issue is easy. He has found
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 5 of 8
Page 5 of 8
providers, and the cost to the Medicaid program will be some $3,700 less per month than the cost of providing the same services in the nursing home. The same undoubtedly would be true for many other nursing home residents.
There are two other categories of Medicaid beneficiaries, however, who render the issue much more difficult. First, there undoubtedly are some nursing home residents who could receive care in the community only at considerably higher expense. The Secretary notes, correctly, that she must treat all comers fairly; she cannot provide special accommodations to Mr. Griffin that will not be provided to others in the same circumstances. Lines can be drawn based on feasibility and expense, but doing so imposes administrative burdens. At some point, adding administrative burdens can fundamentally alter a program.
Second, and more significantly, there are undoubtedly individuals with disabilities who pay for their own services because they wish to live in the community; these individuals thus forego Medicaid benefits that are available only to nursing home residents. Indeed, for a short period, Mr. Griffin was such an individual. If the state must provide benefits to all such individuals, the cost may be substantial, thus fundamentally altering the program.
So the ultimate outcome of this litigation remains in doubt. Likelihood of success, for preliminary injunction purposes, is an early prediction. On balance, the best early prediction is that Mr. Griffin will prevail.
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 6 of 8

IV. Irreparable Harm

Page 6 of 8

If a preliminary injunction is not issued, Mr. Griffin will run out of money

and will have to move back into the nursing home. This will inflict an enormous

psychological blow. Also, because of the very substantial difference in Mr.

Griffin’s perceived quality of life in the apartment as compared to the nursing

home, each day he is required to live in the nursing home will be an irreparable

harm. And if Mr. Griffin gives up his apartment, which is in an accessible and

subsidized complex for persons with disabilities, he may not get it back, even if he

ultimately prevails in this litigation. In short, if a preliminary injunction is not

issued, Mr. Griffin will suffer irreparable injury.

V. Balance of Hardships

Entry of a preliminary injunction will cause the Secretary no harm at all. To

the contrary, she will save some $3,700 per month while the litigation goes

forward by providing Mr. Griffin assistance in the community rather than in the

nursing home. And in any event, the harm to Mr. Griffin if an injunction is not

issued will be much greater than any harm to the Secretary from its issuance.

VI. Public Interest

The public interest favors issuance of the preliminary injunction. Mr.

Griffin will remain in the community rather than be isolated in the nursing home.

This is what Congress intended when it adopted the Americans with Disabilities

Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 7 of 8
Page 7 of 8
Act. If, as it ultimately turns out, treating individuals like Mr. Griffin in the community would require a fundamental alteration of the Medicaid program, so that the Secretary prevails in this litigation, little harm will have been done. To the contrary, Mr. Griffin’s life will have been better, at least for a time, and the Medicaid program will have saved some money.
It is true, as the Secretary says, that benefits ought not be provided just to those who bring lawsuits or file motions for preliminary injunctions. But neither should benefits that appear to be warranted be delayed while the lawsuit goes forward. Some unevenness is an inevitable result of the uncertainty inherent in litigation of this type. The public interest supports entry of the injunction.
VII. Security Finally, the Secretary has agreed that because of his indigency, Mr. Griffin ought not be required to post security as a condition of the preliminary injunction. At least two circuits have approved dispensing with security for indigent plaintiffs who are otherwise entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. See Pharmaceutical Society, Inc. v. Dep’t of Social Services, 50 F.3d 1168, 1174 (2d Cir. 1995) (waiving the bond requirement for indigent plaintiffs suing to enforce the public interest arising out of comprehensive federal health and welfare statutes); Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 220 (3d Cir. 1991) (upholding waiver of the bond requirement where suit was brought to enforce compliance with the Medicaid Act).
Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH -WCS Document 135 Filed 10/14/08 Page 8 of 8

VIII. Conclusion

Page 8 of 8

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The plaintiff Clayton Griffin’s motion for a preliminary injunction

(document 123) is GRANTED. The defendant Holly Benson, in her capacity as

Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, is ordered to

provide Medicaid benefits to Mr. Griffin—while he resides in the

community—covering (a) four hours of personal attendant care per day, (b)

isolated emergency personal attendant care, and (c) the same outside medical care

that would be covered if Mr. Griffin remained in a nursing home.

SO ORDERED on October 14, 2008, nunc pro tunc September 30, 2008.

s/Robert L. Hinkle Chief United States District Judge

Case No: 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

 
 Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 24
Page 1 of 24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CHARLES TODD LEE et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

ELIZABETH DUDEK et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF GRIFFIN, DISMISSING THE OTHER NAMED PLAINTIFFS’
CLAIMS AS MOOT, AND DECERTIFYING THE CLASS

Seven named plaintiffs filed this case in 2008, asserting that the State of Florida was unnecessarily requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to enter or remain in nursing homes in order to receive care they could and should have received in the community. The plaintiffs asserted that this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), a state violates the ADA if it unnecessarily isolates disabled individuals in institutions as a condition of providing them public assistance. See also
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 2 of 24
Page 2 of 24
Radaszewski ex rel. Radaszewski v. Maram, 383 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2004); Fisher v. Okla. Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003).
I certified a class and entered a preliminary injunction in favor of one named plaintiff, Clayton Griffin. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
An unrelated legislative development—a virtually limitless appropriation for transitioning Medicaid beneficiaries from nursing homes into the community—led to substantial changes in the state’s Medicaid program. At the parties’ request, I stayed the litigation for a year, while the state implemented the changes and the plaintiffs evaluated their effect on the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs were not satisfied, and the litigation resumed. Following a bench trial, I now make permanent the injunction in Mr. Griffin’s favor, dismiss as moot the claims of the other named plaintiffs, and decertify the class, on the ground that it is no longer true—as it was when the class was certified—that the case meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b).
I When they filed this lawsuit, the named plaintiffs all were Medicaid beneficiaries living in nursing homes who wished to move back into the community. They sued the Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 3 of 24
Page 3 of 24
Administration and the Secretary of the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, in their official capacities. AHCA is the agency that administers the Medicaid program in Florida. Elder Affairs has a role in implementing the program. The plaintiffs originally named the Governor as an additional defendant, but they filed an amended complaint dropping the claims against the Governor. For convenience, this order sometimes refers to AHCA, its Secretary, or both defendants together as “the state.”
II The Medicaid program is the nation’s primary effort to provide medical care for patients of limited economic means. As the Eleventh Circuit has described the program, Medicaid is a cooperative venture of the state and federal governments. A state which chooses to participate in Medicaid submits a state plan for the funding of medical services for the needy which is approved by the federal government. The federal government then subsidizes a certain portion of the financial obligations which the state has agreed to bear. A state participating in Medicaid must comply with the applicable statute, Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1396, et seq., and the applicable regulations. Harris v. James, 127 F.3d 993, 996 (11th Cir. 1997), quoting Silver v. Baggiano, 804 F.2d 1211, 1215 (11th Cir. 1986).
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 4 of 24
Page 4 of 24
Each participating state may structure its own Medicaid program as it sees fit, but only within the parameters established by the applicable federal statutes and regulations. A state plan must make nursing-home placement available to a patient who qualifies medically. In Florida, a patient qualifies for a nursing home if the patient needs 24-hour “observation and care and the constant availability of medical and nursing treatment and care,” but does not need to be in a higher-level facility such as a hospital. 59 Fla. Admin. Code 59G-4.180(3)(e). A patient who needs the level of care available in a nursing home may instead receive it in the community—and have the state pay for the needed services—only if the patient can safely live in the community and the state has received a federally-approved “waiver” allowing it to provide the care in the community instead of in a nursing home. A patient who qualifies for placement in a nursing home may choose to remain in the community, rather than entering a nursing home, but is limited to the services that have been approved under a waiver and the services generally available under the Medicaid program for a patient who does not qualify for nursing-home placement.
A waiver typically comes with conditions setting out the kind of patient who qualifies and capping the number of available slots. In addition, a waiver must be “cost neutral,” at least in the aggregate. A waiver is cost neutral in the aggregate if
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 5 of 24
Page 5 of 24
the cost that a state incurs to treat patients under the waiver, in the aggregate, does not exceed the cost the state would incur to treat the patients without the waiver.
III Clayton L. Griffin is the only one of the original seven named plaintiffs who still has a claim. In 2004, at the age of 51, Mr. Griffin suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on the left side. He is confined to a wheelchair and needs assistance to get in and out of bed, to shower, to dress, and to use the bathroom. When this lawsuit was filed, Mr. Griffin was living in a nursing home. The cost of the nursing home was covered by the state’s Medicaid program. Mr. Griffin wished to live in the community rather than in a nursing home. In order to do that, Mr. Griffin needed four hours of personal-attendant care per day, isolated emergency personal-attendant care, and the same outside medical care that would be covered if Mr. Griffin remained in a nursing home. The state refused to provide these services. On June 14, 2008, Mr. Griffin moved out of the nursing home and began living by himself in an apartment complex, despite the state’s refusal to pay for the needed services. A certified nursing assistant went to his apartment for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening to assist Mr. Griffin with activities of daily living. He had a visiting nurse and visiting physician who provided needed
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 6 of 24
Page 6 of 24
medical care. Mr. Griffin spent time in his apartment but also went out into the community using public transportation. He had friends and relatives in the apartment complex. Mr. Griffin’s quality of life—at least in his opinion—was substantially better than it had been in the nursing home.
Mr. Griffin’s income was limited to $996 per month in social-security disability benefits. The cost of his certified nursing assistant was $52 per day. This was a small fraction—less than a third—of the cost of the nursing home, but still much more than Mr. Griffin could pay. He survived financially for a time after moving out because he received limited Medicare benefits and support from friends and family, but the Medicare benefits expired and his friends and family could not carry the expense. He moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the state to provide Medicaid coverage for the certified nursing assistant.
The state opposed the motion. On October 14, 2008, I entered a preliminary injunction requiring the state to provide the needed Medicaid benefits to Mr. Griffin in the community during the litigation. The state appealed. On August 10, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit issued its mandate affirming the preliminary injunction in a narrow opinion that expressly did not decide the merits. ECF No. 300. The Eleventh Circuit held only that issuing the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 7 of 24
Page 7 of 24
Mr. Griffin has continued to live successfully in the community. The state has continued to provide Medicaid benefits and now acknowledges that Mr. Griffin is entitled to the benefits. The state opposes a permanent injunction for Mr. Griffin only on the ground that it is unnecessary—that the state will continue to provide the benefits with or without an injunction.
IV The situation is different for the six other named plaintiffs. One, Charles Todd Lee, wished to move back into the community when the lawsuit was filed but now prefers to stay in his nursing home. The reason for the change was that his daughter and grandchild—whom he wished to see more often—moved away. Another named plaintiff, John Boyd, successfully transitioned into the community while the lawsuit was pending but died before the trial. The other four named plaintiffs all died before moving back to the community.
V In 2008, when the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Florida had more approved waivers than any other state. Even so, limits on the number of available slots and on the available funding led to waiting lists. The state had an effective program to get patients into waivers before they entered long-term placements in nursing homes in the first place. But the state’s
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 8 of 24
Page 8 of 24
efforts to transition patients out of nursing homes, once they got there, by moving them into waivers at that point, were less effective. A substantial number of patients were in nursing homes, wished to return to the community, could have received services safely in the community at a lower cost than in nursing homes, but did not obtain state approval to transition to the community—sometimes because they did not even know that receiving the necessary services in the community was possible, and thus did not ask to do it. The patients remained in nursing homes.
VI The plaintiffs moved to certify a class. On October 14, 2008, I granted the motion, certifying a class consisting of any Florida Medicaid-eligible adult who, at any time during the litigation, resided in a nursing home that received Medicaid funding, and who could and would have resided in the community with appropriate community-based services. I explained:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), a class action may be maintained if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” so long the requirements of Rule 23(a) also are satisfied. Here the Secretary has refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class. This is a classic Rule 23(b)(2) class action.
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 9 of 24
Page 9 of 24
I find that the requirements of Rule 23(a) also are satisfied. First, under Rule 23(a)(1), class treatment is appropriate only if “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” The record indicates that there are probably more than 8,500 Medicaid beneficiaries in nursing homes in Florida who would prefer to live in the community. If the plaintiffs prevail on the merits, it is likely that appropriate injunctive relief will extend to a significant portion, if not most, of these 8,500 individuals. The number of affected individuals is easily enough to make class treatment appropriate.
Under Rule 23(a)(2), class treatment is appropriate only if “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” There are common questions in the case at bar. Common issues include, for example, the issues of what Olmstead requires, and whether providing assistance in the community rather than in nursing homes would require a fundamental alteration of the Florida Medicaid program. There of course may be individual issues also, but Rule 23(a)(2) requires only that there be common issues, not that there be no individual issues. And while the common issues predominate in the case at bar, this is not essential; in a Rule 23(b)(2) class, unlike in a Rule 23(b)(3) class, there is no requirement that common issues predominate.
Under Rule 23(a)(3), class treatment is appropriate only if “the claims . . . of the representative parties are typical of the claims . . . of the class.” Here the named plaintiffs are individuals who were confined in nursing homes when the lawsuit was filed but assert they could be treated as effectively and efficiently in the community. Each named plaintiff’s precise medical circumstances are of course unique; no two individuals are ever medically identical in all respects. But the claims of the named plaintiffs are very much typical of the claims of class members generally.
Under Rule 23(a)(4), class treatment is appropriate only if “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” This standard is easily satisfied here. For all this record reflects, these named plaintiffs have every reason to represent the
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 10 of 24
Page 10 of 24
class zealously and are motivated to do so. They are represented by attorneys well able to carry the load. Order Certifying Class, ECF No. 136, at 2-4 (emphasis added).
VII The italicized portions of the class-certification order were true when the order was entered. No effective transition program was underway. Many patients were unnecessarily confined to nursing homes. Mr. Griffin was typical. The other named plaintiffs apparently were, too. But the italicized portions of the order are no longer true. In January 2009, the Florida Legislature enacted an appropriations-bill proviso that allowed the transfer of funds from the state’s nursing-home appropriation to four waiver programs, so long as the funds were used for nursinghome transition. See Pls.’ Ex. 73. The general nursing-home appropriation dwarfed the funds that were specifically designated for waivers, because Florida had a large population of Medicaid beneficiaries in nursing homes who could not or did not wish to transition to the community. The proviso’s practical effect was to make unlimited funds available for transition. The responsible state officials enthusiastically embraced the proviso and the resulting opportunity to transition patients out of nursing homes. See, e.g., Tr. 1053, ECF No. 358 at 6 (Hajdukiewicz testimony). The state adopted a transition
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 11 of 24
Page 11 of 24
plan in 2009 and another—marked “draft” because of the state’s intent to continue to improve it—in 2010. The plans included extensive efforts to find patients in nursing homes who wished to return to the community, and to move them out. The goal was to return to the community 100% of the Medicaid nursing-home patients who wished to return. Id. at 1084, ECF No. 358 at 37. From the adoption of the proviso to the time of trial, the state successfully transitioned roughly 1,600 Medicaid patients back into the community.
The state would have done these things even without this lawsuit, but the lawsuit underscored the importance of the state’s efforts. To its credit, the state did not slow the transition efforts in order to mask the weakness in its earlier performance—as defendants in lawsuits sometimes do.
The change is well illustrated by the state’s treatment of Mr. Griffin. The state provided services in the community of the kind Mr. Griffin needed only under a waiver. When it refused to approve Mr. Griffin for services in the community, there were no available waiver slots, and the state had not determined that Mr. Griffin could safely transition to the community. The state did not agree then, and does not agree now, that Olmstead applied. The state noted that in Olmstead, the state’s own treatment professionals had determined that the patients could be safely treated in the community; that was not so for Mr. Griffin. And the state has
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 12 of 24
Page 12 of 24
consistently asserted that a state may and indeed must comply with the conditions applicable to a waiver, including the cap on the number of waiver participants. Thus, the state says, the ADA’s general prohibition on discrimination against the disabled—and even the Olmstead principle barring a state from unnecessarily making services available only in an institution—do not trump the Medicaid Act’s specific approval of waiver caps. The state says Olmstead is not inconsistent with its position, because in Olmstead the services could be provided without exceeding a waiver cap.
The interplay between Olmstead and waiver caps presents a nice issue. But the issue no longer has any practical significance for nursing-home patients in Florida. For Mr. Griffin and, so far as shown by this record, every other class member, the state has adequate funding and an available slot in a waiver under which the state can provide all the needed services. The plaintiffs have identified not a single Medicaid beneficiary who is in a nursing home, wishes to be in the community, and could safely transition to the community even under the plaintiffs’ own view of safety, but who, under the state’s post-proviso position, would not be approved for transition.
It thus is no longer true that the state “has refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class.” Order Certifying Class, ECF No. 136, at 2 (emphasis
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 13 of 24
Page 13 of 24
added). The state has not refused to act on any ground that applies generally to the class.
It is no longer true that “[c]ommon issues include, for example, the issues of what Olmstead requires, and whether providing assistance in the community rather than in nursing homes would require a fundamental alteration of the Florida Medicaid program.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). The state has explicitly abandoned any fundamental-alteration defense and has acknowledged that the issue is simply whether it has made mistakes, failing to transition nursing-home residents who could be served in the community. Tr. 1233-34, ECF No. 360 at 4950. To be sure, the plaintiffs seek to raise other common issues, including whether the state must affirmatively seek out nursing-home residents to advise them of the option to return to the community. But this is again an issue that makes no real difference. The state has undertaken an aggressive effort to find nursing-home residents who wish to transition, and the plaintiffs have identified not a single resident who wishes to transition but the state failed to find.
Finally, it also is no longer true that “the claims of the named plaintiffs are very much typical of the claims of class members generally.” Order Certifying Class, ECF No. 136 at 3 (emphasis added). Only one named plaintiff—Mr. Griffin—is at all typical of the class members. And to the extent he is typical, it
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 14 of 24
Page 14 of 24
cuts as much against class certification as in favor. The state no longer opposes Mr. Griffin’s ability to obtain benefits in the community. He is typical of other class members only in that for him, as for them, the availability of benefits in the community is only an individual question of what services are needed.
VIII The state’s change of position—its willingness and even eagerness to transition anyone who can appropriately transition—might well render the claims of class members moot under the voluntary-cessation doctrine. In arguing the contrary, the plaintiffs rely on cases involving private defendants. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. LaidLaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (noting that a party who asserts mootness based on the voluntary cessation of challenged conduct has a “heavy burden” to show “that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again”). The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly said, though, that the burden is lighter when the defendant is a government entity. A government entity that has discontinued challenged conduct enjoys a rebuttable presumption that the conduct will not recur. See, e.g., Bankshot Billiards, Inc. v. City of Ocala, 634 F.3d 1340, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2011) (collecting earlier cases).
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 15 of 24
Page 15 of 24
The proviso will remain in effect only if reenacted each year. Predicting the Florida legislature’s budget decisions is not an exact science. Nor have Florida officials uniformly supported the interests of Medicaid patients. But the responsible officials who testified in this case—especially Marcy Robin Hajdukiewicz and Elizabeth Yvonne Kidder—credibly set out their own dedication, and that of their employees, to transitioning nursing-home patients into the community. Transitioning patients reduces—it does not increase—the overall cost of the Medicaid program. There is no reason to anticipate a return to the approach that denied the named plaintiffs and class members the services they needed to live in the community.
In any event, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), “[a]n order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.” When, as here, the conditions that made class-certification appropriate are no longer present, a court has discretion to decertify the class. I choose to do that here. The decertification makes it unnecessary to decide whether the class claims are indeed moot under the voluntary-cessation doctrine.
IX In reaching this conclusion, I have not overlooked the flaws and weaknesses in the state’s transition efforts, including those set out in this section of this order.
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 16 of 24
Page 16 of 24
A First, AHCA enlisted other agencies in the process. One was the Florida Department of Children and Families. DCF was responsible for assessing candidates for a waiver that targeted patients with traumatic brain injuries or spinal cord injuries. This was the primary waiver used for transitioning nursing-home residents under age 60. Inexplicably, DCF screened out any patient who needed 24-hour care, was not cognitively intact, or had no friend or family member who could provide housing or support. The state admitted at trial that DCF’s approach was simply wrong. The state vowed to correct the errors. A reasonable inference is that it now has done so.
B Second, among the tools that the state used to find transition candidates was a poster intended for display in nursing homes. It was a commendable effort, intended to increase the awareness of nursing-home residents and to encourage any resident who wished to transition to come forward. Thus, for example, the poster started with an excellent heading in large, bold lettering: “Would You Like To Move Back Into Your Home or Community?” Pl. Ex. 353. The poster continued with another excellent statement: “Nursing Home Transition may allow you to live
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 17 of 24
Page 17 of 24
somewhere other than a nursing home.” But the poster continued with two sentences that, at least standing alone, might have been misleading:
You could move in with a family member or friend. You could also choose to move to an Adult Family Care Home or Assisted-Living Facility. Id. Though literally true, these sentences failed to advise a nursing-home resident that another option was to live alone in the community. Further, the poster said: “The services provided by community service agencies are not meant to provide 24 hour-a-day care.” Id. This might have been misleading, because the state, if not “community service agencies,” does provide 24-hour services to a Medicaid beneficiary who needs them, including, most commonly, 24-hour emergency-call assistance. It is undisputed that the state’s waiver programs can provide up to 24 hours of care from professionals or attendants of various kinds. The state admitted at trial that the poster—and a brochure with similar language—should have been written better. The state vowed to promptly correct the errors. A reasonable inference is that it now has done so. In addition, the poster and brochure may not have been distributed as widely as the state intended. The state had no authority to require the nursing homes— which are private—to display a poster or distribute a brochure. Even so, the poster
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 18 of 24
Page 18 of 24
and brochure were part of a broader effort to find residents who wished to transition, and there is no evidence that the state did not try to circulate the poster and brochure as broadly as possible.
C The plaintiffs also complain that the state has not always given prompt and sufficient notice to a patient whose application for a waiver was denied. A patient has a right to an administrative hearing on such a denial. But the state has sometimes been slow to give notice of that right, and its description of the reason for a denial has sometimes been vague, if not misleading. Still, the assertion has little to do with the claims in this lawsuit. The first amended complaint does not assert a due process claim. To the contrary, the named plaintiffs have consistently asserted that they had a right to bypass any administrative remedy and proceed directly in this court. A person who knows about an administrative remedy but chooses to forego it is hardly typical of a class member who does not know about the administrative remedy. And more importantly, there is no evidence that any patient who wished to pursue the administrative remedy failed to do so, for lack of prompt and sufficient notice or otherwise.
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 19 of 24
Page 19 of 24
D The plaintiffs note that the unavailability of housing is sometimes a barrier to transition. The plaintiffs say the waiver programs come up short by failing to provide housing assistance, including rent subsidies or financial assistance with things like security deposits. But the state has applied for authority to provide some of the things the plaintiffs focus on. More importantly, with one possible exception, this record includes no evidence that any named plaintiff or class member was ever denied transition—or chose not to pursue transition—because of the unavailability of housing assistance. Housing assistance is available, after all, from a variety of public and private entities, separate and apart from the Medicaid program. The one possible exception is Christopher Clabeaux. He is a 21-year-old Medicaid patient with quadriplegia. He is in a nursing home but wishes to live with his family or a friend in the community. Tr. 142, ECF No. 354 at 142. His application for a waiver apparently was approved. Id. at 143. But his mother declined his request to live with her. Mr. Clabeaux’s father agreed to take him only if the father’s house was remodeled—a whole new section added—at a cost of $80,000. The record does not establish that the changes were in fact needed. Nor does the record indicate whether Mr. Clabeaux would choose to live alone if
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 20 of 24
Page 20 of 24
offered the opportunity, or whether other public or private entities—unrelated to the Medicaid program—would provide suitable, affordable housing for Mr. Clabeaux to live alone, if he wished to do that.
Mr. Clabeaux’s attempt to transition thus raises individual issues that provide no basis for continuing this case as a class action. Even if class relief were granted precisely as the plaintiffs have requested, it would benefit Mr. Clabeaux not at all, unless further proceedings were conducted to determine whether individual relief should be granted addressing his unique circumstances.
E Finally, the state apparently has made errors, even after enactment of the proviso and the adoption of the aggressive transition effort, in failing to transition a small number of nursing-home residents. Those who qualify for transition to the community apparently include Marguerite Pace, Ruth Fiedler, David Larsen, Gary Martin, Michele McCreary, and these individuals identified only by initials: DM, MG, and CH. Those who qualify for transition to assisted-living facilities apparently include TS, MT, EC, and BS. The state approved Ms. Fiedler and apparently approved Ms. Pace shortly after the trial. The state may have approved others. Indeed, it is unclear whether, at this point, the state has failed to approve any of these. But if the state has still
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 21 of 24
Page 21 of 24
failed to approve any of these, the reason is one of two things: a circumstance not shown by this record—the state chose not to join issue on the specific circumstances of each person identified by the plaintiffs—or an isolated error.
The victim of an isolated ADA error can properly pursue either a state administrative remedy or a federal claim. See Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982) (holding that a § 1983 plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies); Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219, 1226-27 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). But an isolated error affecting a patient who is a class member is a poor reason to go forward with a class action. Instead, a patient who has fallen victim to an isolated error can best pursue the patient’s own remedy, protecting the patient’s own rights. See, e.g., Moore ex rel. Moore v. Reese, 637 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2011) (addressing a Medicaid beneficiary’s individual claim for services the state denied). If there is any such patient, the decertification of the class will not render the patient’s claim untimely, even if, as seems unlikely, the otherwise-applicable deadline passed during the pendency of this action. See Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F.3d 1374, 1380-82 (11th Cir. 1998). In any event, in light of the state’s dedication to transitioning 100% of the Medicaid patients who wish to move into the community, it seems unlikely that pursuit of an individual remedy will be necessary.
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 22 of 24
Page 22 of 24
F In sum, the state’s transition efforts have not been perfect. But the plaintiffs have identified no continuing flaw or reason to believe that the state is now violating, or if not enjoined will continue to violate, the rights of class members as a group. Any ongoing violation is the result of an oversight or isolated error or, at least to the extent shown by this record, has made and is continuing to make no practical difference. The class should be decertified.
X This leaves for consideration the question whether Mr. Griffin’s preliminary injunction should be made permanent—as he contends—or his claim should be dismissed as moot based on the voluntary-cessation doctrine—as the state contends. It is a close question. On balance, I conclude that the injunction should be made permanent. Mr. Griffin obtained the Medicaid benefits to which he was entitled only by filing this action and obtaining a preliminary injunction over the state’s determined opposition. Indeed, the state pursued an appeal through the issuance of a mandate. This does not preclude application of the voluntary-cessation doctrine, but it is a factor in the analysis.
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 23 of 24
Page 23 of 24
The state has changed its course and has acknowledged Mr. Griffin’s entitlement to benefits. If it now terminated his benefits, he would be entitled to an administrative hearing, and could file a new lawsuit. But uncertainty and delay can themselves take a toll. He is in a waiver that is still administered partly by DCF, the agency that adopted erroneous screening standards that were corrected only when AHCA learned of the errors at the trial. Under all the circumstances, Mr. Griffin has overcome the presumption that the state’s conduct will not recur. See, e.g., Bankshot Billiards, Inc. v. City of Ocala, 634 F.3d 1340, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2011).
XI For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. It is declared that the plaintiff Clayton Griffin is entitled to the Medicaid services that are available under a waiver and necessary to allow him to live safely in the community, including at least (a) four hours of personal-attendant care per day, (b) isolated emergency personal-attendant care, and (c) the same outside medical care that would be covered if Mr. Griffin remained in a nursing home. The defendant Elizabeth Dudek, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

Case 4:08-cv-00026-RH-WCS Document 372 Filed 01/03/12 Page 24 of 24
Page 24 of 24
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, must provide these services. Any other claim of Mr. Griffin is dismissed.
2. The claims of the other named plaintiffs are dismissed as moot. 3. The class is decertified. 4. The clerk must enter judgment in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2. 5. The court reserves jurisdiction to award costs and attorney’s fees on a timely application in accordance with Local Rules 54.1 and 54.2. SO ORDERED on January 3, 2012.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS

 
 Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 1 of 41
CLOSED,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:08−cv−00026−RH−WCS

LEE et al v. BENSON et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR Case in other court: USCA, 08−16261−AA Cause: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/15/2008 Date Terminated: 01/03/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

WILLIAM LONG ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TERMINATED: 02/28/2011

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION − WASHINGTON DC 601 E STREET NW SUITE D4 WASHINGTON, DC 20049 202−434−2060 Fax: 202−436−6424 Email: bvignery@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL INC − GAINESVILLE FL 1229 NW 12TH AVE GAINESVILLE, FL 32601−4113 352−271−8890 Fax: 352−271−8347 Email: gabriela.ruiz@southernlegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL INC − GAINESVILLE FL 1229 NW 12TH AVE GAINESVILLE, FL 32601−4113 352/271−8890 Fax: 352/271−8347 Email: jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NEIL CHONIN SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL INC − GAINESVILLE FL 1229 NW 12TH AVE GAINESVILLE, FL 32601−4113 352−271−8890 Fax: 352−271−8347 Email: neil.chonin@southernlegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH SOMERS NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM − CARRBORO NC 101 E WEAVER ST STE G−7

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 2 of 41

CARRBORO, NC 27510 919−968−6308 Fax: 919−968−8855 Email: somers@healthlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STACY JANE CANAN AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION − WASHINGTON DC 601 E STREET NW SUITE D4 WASHINGTON, DC 20049 202−434−2130 Fax: 202−434−6424 Email: scanan@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN F GOLD STEPHEN F GOLD ESQ − PHILADELPHIA PA 125 S 9TH ST STE 700 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−627−7100 Fax: 215−627−3183 Email: stevegoldada1@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALICE K NELSON SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL INC − GAINESVILLE FL 1229 NW 12TH AVE GAINESVILLE, FL 32601−4113 352/271−8890 Fax: 271−8347 Email: alice.nelson@southernlegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CHARLES TODD LEE ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NEIL CHONIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH SOMERS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 3 of 41

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STACY JANE CANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN F GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALICE K NELSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
RODNEY PETERSON ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TERMINATED: 02/28/2011

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NEIL CHONIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH SOMERS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STACY JANE CANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN F GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALICE K NELSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOHN BOYD ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TERMINATED: 02/28/2011

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ (See above for address)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 4 of 41

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NEIL CHONIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH SOMERS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STACY JANE CANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN F GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALICE K NELSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CLAYTON L GRIFFIN ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NEIL CHONIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH SOMERS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STACY JANE CANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN F GOLD

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 5 of 41

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALICE K NELSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
LOUISE SEYMOUR ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NEIL CHONIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH SOMERS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STACY JANE CANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN F GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ALICE K NELSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MARGARET WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED TERMINATED: 02/28/2011

represented by BRUCE VIGNERY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GABRIELA MAGDA RUIZ (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 6 of 41
NEIL CHONIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH SOMERS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STACY JANE CANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN F GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ALICE K NELSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
HOLLY BENSON IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED: 08/26/2010

represented by DEAN CLINTON KOWALCHYK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PL−01 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3669 Email: dean.kowalchyk@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ENOCH JONATHAN WHITNEY ATTORNEY GENERAL − PL−01 − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA 400 S MONROE ST PL−01 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3672 Fax: 850−488−4872 Email: jon.whitney@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 03/07/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
KELLY ANN BENNETT AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMN − TALLAHASSEE FL 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG 3 MS 3 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 850−922−5873 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: bennettk@ahca.myflorida.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RUSSELL SCOTT KENT ATTORNEY GENERAL − PL−01 −

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 7 of 41
TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA PL 01 THE CAPITOL 400 S MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−6536 850−414−3600 Fax: 850−488−9134 Email: russell.kent@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 03/07/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
THOMAS BRIAN YORK YORK LEGAL GROUP LLC 3511 N FRONT ST HARRISBURG, PA 17110 717−236−9675 Fax: 717−236−6919 Email: tyork@yorklegalgroup.com TERMINATED: 03/18/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANDREW TAYLOR SHEERAN STATE OF FLORIDA − AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE − TALLAHASSEE FL AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMN 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG #3, MS#3 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 850−412−3670 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: andrew.sheeran@ahca.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY E DAVIS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE − S BRONOUGH ST − TALLAHASSEE FL R A GRAY BLDG 500 S BRONOUGH ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−0250 850−245−6536 Fax: 850−245−6127 Email: ashley.davis@dos.myflorida.com TERMINATED: 03/07/2009
GEORGE LEE WAAS ATTORNEY GENERAL − PL−01 − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA PL 01 THE CAPITOL 400 S MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−6536 850/414−3662 Fax: 488−4872 Email: waas01@comcast.net TERMINATED: 03/07/2009
WILLIAM MICHAEL BLOCKER , II AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMN − TALLAHASSEE FL 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG 3 MS 3 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 850−921−0046 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: blockerw@ahca.myflorida.com

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 8 of 41

TERMINATED: 07/31/2010

Defendant
DOUGLAS BEACH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS TERMINATED: 08/26/2010

represented by DEAN CLINTON KOWALCHYK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ENOCH JONATHAN WHITNEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

KELLY ANN BENNETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RUSSELL SCOTT KENT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

THOMAS BRIAN YORK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/18/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY

ASHLEY E DAVIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2009

GEORGE LEE WAAS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2009

WILLIAM MICHAEL BLOCKER , II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2010

Defendant
CHARLIE CRIST IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR STATE OF FLORIDA TERMINATED: 02/19/2008

represented by GEORGE LEE WAAS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/07/2009

Defendant
THOMAS W ARNOLD IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED: 12/28/2010

represented by JEFFRIES H DUVALL STATE OF FLORIDA − AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE − TALLAHASSEE FL AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMN 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG #3, MS#3 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 850−412−3630 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: Jeffries.Duvall@ahca.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L WILLIAM PORTER , II AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMN 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG 3

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 9 of 41

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308−5403 850−412−3630 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: porterl@ahca.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CHARLES T CORLEY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS

represented by ENOCH JONATHAN WHITNEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
L WILLIAM PORTER , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
ELIZABETH DUDEK INTERIM SECRETARY

represented by ANDREW TAYLOR SHEERAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ENOCH JONATHAN WHITNEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/15/2008
01/15/2008 01/15/2008 01/31/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/04/2008
02/15/2008 02/15/2008

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST (Filing fee $350.), filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (pll) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (pll) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
3 Summons Issued as to ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST. (pll) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
4 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
5 Amended MOTION to Extend Time to file Answer and/or Motions by ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
6 Amended MOTION to Extend Time for filing Responsive Pleading and/or Mortions by ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
7 Third MOTION to Extend Time to file Responsive Pleading and/or Motions (Replacing previously filed motions) by ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
9 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR REPONSE TO COMPLAINT. Granting 7 Third MOTION to Extend Time to file Responsive Pleading and/or Motions (Replacing previously filed motions) filed by ANDREW AGWUNOBI, CHARLIE CRIST, DOUGLAS BEACH, ( Answer due by 2/25/2008.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/4/08. (pll) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
10 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
11 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 10 of 41

02/15/2008 02/19/2008 02/19/2008 02/21/2008 02/26/2008 02/26/2008 02/26/2008 02/27/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/06/2008 03/07/2008 03/09/2008

12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Time Records by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
13 First AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against all defendants all defendants., filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
14 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/19/08. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set for 3/4/2008. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 4/3/2008. Discovery due by 6/18/2008. (pll) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
15 ORDER ON DEADLINE FOR FILING ATTORNEYS' FEES RECORDS. Granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/21/08. (pll) (Entered: 02/21/2008)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by ASHLEY ELIZABETH DAVIS on behalf of ANDREW AGWUNOBI, DOUGLAS BEACH (DAVIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
17 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
18 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
19 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
20 Corporate Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
21 Consent MOTION to Extend Time for Rule 26 Conference and other Deadlines by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
22 MOTION to Certify Class by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/24/2008). (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
23 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion to Dismiss Which Exceeds 25 Pages in Length by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
24 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
25 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/25/2008). (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 03/07/2008)
27 ORDER EXTENDING ATTORNEY CONFERENCE DEADLINE AND RELATED DEADLINES. GRANTING IN PART 21 Consent MOTION to Extend

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 11 of 41

03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/21/2008 03/24/2008 03/24/2008 03/27/2008
04/07/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008

Time for Rule 26 Conference and other Deadlines filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, RODNEY PETERSON, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, LOUISE SEYMOUR, JOHN BOYD. ( Attorney Conference to take place by 4/18/2008., Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 5/1/2008.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/9/08. (pll) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
28 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
29 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
30 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
31 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
32 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
33 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Certify Class filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A) (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
36 Request For Oral Argument by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
37 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE OF CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL REGULATION. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/27/08. ***Copy of order provided to AUSA with copies of 13 and 26 and via certified mail with copies of 13 and 26 to MICHAEL B. MUKASEY. (pll) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
38 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to 37 Order. Acknowledgment filed by MICHAEL MUKASAY on 3/31/08. (pll) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
39 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
40 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
41 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 12 of 41

04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 05/01/2008 05/05/2008
05/05/2008
05/06/2008 05/12/2008
05/13/2008

(Entered: 04/15/2008)
42 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
43 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
44 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
45 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
46 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
47 AMENDED DOCUMENT by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. Amendment to 45 Attorney Time Record. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
48 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
49 SCHEDULING AND MEDIATION ORDER Re: 48 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. ( Discovery due by 12/5/2008., Mediation to take place by 1/2/2009., Dispositive Motions to be filed by 1/4/2009., Mediation Report due by 1/16/2009., Jury Trial set for the two week trial period commencing 4/6/2009 08:15 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.) Case referred to mediation. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/5/08. (pll) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
50 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SET HEARING re 22 MOTION to Certify Class filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, RODNEY PETERSON, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, LOUISE SEYMOUR, JOHN BOYD, 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/5/08. (pll) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
51 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
52 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 22 MOTION to Certify Class, 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint : Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2008 10:00 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Kimberly Curles at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Kimberly Curles Courtroom Deputy Clerk (kjc) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
53 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 05/13/2008)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 13 of 41

05/13/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 05/22/2008

54 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
55 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
56 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
57 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
58 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
59 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
60 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
61 NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH re 34 Response in Opposition to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Department of Children and Familes Patient Tranfer and Continuity of Care with Physician's Orders for Plaintiff Clayton L. Griffin., # 2 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff Clayton L. Griffin showing assessment of his functional disabilities in nursing home, # 3 Exhibit Department of Children and Families Patient Transfer and Continuity of Care with Physicians Orders for Plaintiff William Long showing Skilled Nursing Care requirements, # 4 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff William Long showing assessment of his functional disabilities in nursing home, # 5 Exhibit Department of Children and Families Patient Transfer and Continuity of Care with Physicians Notes for Plaintiff Charles Todd Lee showing Nursing Home Care requirements, # 6 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff Charles Lee showing assessment of his functional disabilities in nursing home, # 7 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff Rodney Peterson showing assessment of his functional disabilities in nursing home, # 8 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff John Boyd showing assessment of his functional disabilities in nursing home, # 9 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff Margaret Washington showing assessment of her functional disabilities in nursing home, # 10 Exhibit Department of Elder Affairs Assessment Instrument for Plaintiff Louise Seymour showing assessment of her functional disabilities in nursing home, # 11 Exhibit Florida Medicaid Nursing Facility Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 59G−4.200, Florida Administrative Code, showing the process required for admission and for continued placement at nursing homes., # 12 Exhibit Florida Medicaid Aged and Disabled Adult Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 59G−13.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, showing at page 2−2 a description of the comprehensive client assessment a, # 13 Exhibit Florida Medicaid Assistive Care Services and Assisted Living for the Elderly Waiver Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook, adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 59G−8.200, showing a description of what is required to be

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 14 of 41

05/23/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/28/2008
05/29/2008
05/30/2008
06/01/2008 06/07/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008

eligible for that waive) (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
62 Consent MOTION to Seal Document 61 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Defendants' Consented to Motion to Seal Documents Previously Filed With the Court by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
63 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
64 NOTICE of Statement of Interest of the United States by UNITED STATES re 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint (SANDBERG, JUSTIN) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
65 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 22 MOTION to Certify Class, 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint : Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2008 10:00 AM in Gainesville before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. United States Courthouse, 401 SE 1st Avenue, Gainesville, Florida 32601.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Kimberly Curles at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Kimberly Curles Courtroom Deputy Clerk (kjc) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Motion Hearing held on 5/29/2008 re 22 MOTION to Certify Class filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, RODNEY PETERSON, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, LOUISE SEYMOUR, JOHN BOYD, 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH − written order to follow (Court Reporter Judy Nolton.) (bkp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/30/2008: # 1 Minute entry) (bkp). (Entered: 05/30/2008)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Motion Hearing held on 5/29/2008 re 22 MOTION to Certify Class filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, MARGARET WASHINGTON, RODNEY PETERSON, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, LOUISE SEYMOUR, JO HN BOYD, 26 First MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH − written order to follow (bkp) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
67 ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS. Granting 62 Motion to Seal Document. The clerk shall maintain exhibits 1 − 10 to document 61 (documents 61−2 through 61−11) under seal. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/1/08. (pll) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
68 ORDER DENYING 26 MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFERRING RULING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if defendants supplemental response not filed earlier: 7/29/2008). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/7/08. (pll) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
69 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
70 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
71 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 15 of 41

06/13/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/19/2008 06/20/2008
06/21/2008 07/01/2008 07/02/2008

TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
72 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
73 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
74 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
75 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
76 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
77 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer and Discovery Responses, First MOTION to Extend Time Deadline for filing Class Certification Memorandum by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
78 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS and NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS OF TRANSCRIPT REDACTION REQUIREMENTS re: 66 Motion Hearing, held on 05−29−08 before Judge Robert L. Hinkle by Court Reporter Judy A. Nolton
A transcript of a court proceeding is available for viewing at the Office of the Clerk of Court in the above−captioned case. This transcript has been filed under seal pending a review pursuant to Judicial Conference Privacy Policies. The parties have five (5) days to file with the clerk a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no notice is filed by the deadline, the attorney will be deemed to have certified that no redactions are needed. Any party needing to purchase a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase it from the court reporter.
Applicable deadlines under 11th Cir. R. 12−1 will be calculated from the date of this notice. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due by 6/27/2008. Transcript to be unsealed by 9/23/2008 if no redaction request filed. (jag) Modified on 9/30/2008 (pll). ***Unsealed 9/30/08. (Entered: 06/20/2008)
79 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR ANSWER AND DISCOVERY RESPONSES. Granting in part 77 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer and Discovery Responses filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. ( Answer to complaint due by 7/7/2008., (Supplemental response by defendant to plaintiffs' motion for class certification due by: 7/29/2008) Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/21/08. (pll) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
80 NOTICE Defendants' First Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
81 DISCOVERY ADVISORY: Re 80 Notice (Other) filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH Counsels attention is directed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d), which prohibits the filing of discovery materials (including notices of deposition, deposition transcripts, interrogatories and interrogatory responses and notices thereof, production requests and responses and notices thereof, and

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 16 of 41

07/03/2008 07/07/2008 07/11/2008 07/13/2008
07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 07/29/2008
07/29/2008

admissions requests and responses and notices thereof) and disclosures under Rules 26(a)(1) and 26(a)(2), unless and until needed for consideration of pending motions by the court. This advisory serves as notice that no further discovery materials should be filed and all discovery posting options have been removed from CMECF. (dlt) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
82 First MOTION to Extend Time Defendants' Consented To Motion For Extension of Time To File Discovery Responses by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
83 Defendants' ANSWER to 13 Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
84 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Serving Expert Witness Reports by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
85 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS' RULE 26(a)(2) DISCLOSURES AND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY RESPONSES. Granting 82 Motion to Extend Time. Granting 84 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/13/08. (pll) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
86 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
87 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
88 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
89 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
90 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
91 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
92 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
93 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
94 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Defendants' Consented to Motion for Leave to File Defendants' Supplemental Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Which Exceeds 25 Pages in Length by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Certify Class Defendants' Supplemental Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs'

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 17 of 41

07/29/2008
07/29/2008 07/29/2008 08/05/2008
08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/08/2008 08/08/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008

Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Class Certification filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
96 NOTICE Defendants' Notice of Filing Exhibits in Support of Supplemental Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH re 95 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit) (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
97 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Supplement Response on Class Certification by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
98 NOTICE of Vacation by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
99 Amended MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendants' Supplemental Response on Class Certification − Consented To by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
102 ORDER GRANTING 94 LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/7/08. (pll) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
103 ORDER GRANTING 99 LEAVE TO FILE REPLY ON CLASS CERTIFICATION. Denying as moot 97 Motion for Leave to File. A reply of no more than 20 pages may be filed by 8/27/08. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/7/08. (pll) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
100 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
101 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
104 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
105 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
106 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
107 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
108 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
109 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 18 of 41

08/27/2008 08/27/2008
08/27/2008 09/04/2008 09/05/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/17/2008 09/22/2008

WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
110 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 MOTION to Certify Class filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
111 NOTICE of Filing Exhibits by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD re 110 Reply to Response to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Griffin, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Lee, # 3 Exhibit 3 − CARES, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Stanley, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Petersen, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Stone, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Harrington, # 8 Exhibit Harrington CV) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
112 RESPONSE re 95 Response in Opposition to Motion, and Defendants' Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Class Certification. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
113 NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS BRIAN YORK on behalf of HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH (pll) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
114 CORRECTED NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS BRIAN YORK on behalf of HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH (pll) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
115 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
116 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
117 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
118 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
119 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
120 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
121 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
122 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
123 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
124 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 22 MOTION to Certify Class, 123 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2008 09:00 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 19 of 41

09/25/2008 09/29/2008
09/29/2008 09/29/2008 09/29/2008 09/29/2008 09/29/2008 09/30/2008 10/01/2008

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Jill May Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jwm) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
125 ORDER SETTING PROCEDURES FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING. ( Exhibit and Witness List due by 9/29/2008 at 2:00 p.m.., Evidentiary Hearing set for 9/30/2008 09:00 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 9/25/08. (pll) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
126 NOTICE by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Transcript of Stanley Depo, # 2 Exhibit 2−Transcript of Hackle Depo, # 3 Exhibit 3−Export Report of Stanley re: Long, # 4 Exhibit 4−Dec. of Ruiz re: Griffin Motion for PI, # 5 Exhibit 5−FL Medicaid Home Health Services Handbook, # 6 Exhibit 6a−FL Medicaid Summary of Services FY 2007−08, # 7 Errata 6−b−Fl Medicaid Summary of Services FY 2007−08, # 8 Exhibit 7−8/806 MDS − Griffin, # 9 Exhibit 8−11/6/06 MDS − Griffin, # 10 Exhibit 9−2/3/07 MDS − Griffin, # 11 Exhibit 10−8/2/07−MDS − Griffin, # 12 Exhibit 11−11/1/07 MDS − Griffin, # 13 Exhibit 12−1/31/07− MDS − Griffin, # 14 Exhibit 13−FL Medicaid Nursing Homes 7/08 Rate Semester Initial Per Diems, # 15 Exhibit 14−FL Plan Under Title XIX − SSA, Attachment 3.1A, # 16 Exhibit 15−7/25/07− Ltr from Dept. Health &Humans Services to State Medicaid Directors, # 17 Exhibit 16−−1/10/01− Ltr from Dept. Health &Humans Services to State Medicaid Directors) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
127 NOTICE Second Notice of Filing Exhibits by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD re 126 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 18−Social/Psy Data Collection &Evaluation for Griffin) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
128 Exhibit List Per September 26, 2008 Order by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BB, # 2 Exhibit DD, # 3 Exhibit FF, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit W part 1, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit W part 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit S−V, # 7 Exhibit X, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit CC part 1, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit CC part 2, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit GG) (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
129 Exhibit List by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit Z part 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit Z part 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit Z part 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit Y psrt 1, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit Y part 2) (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
130 Exhibit List Per Order dated 9/25/08 by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit AA, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit EE) (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
131 RESPONSE in Opposition re 123 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
133 Minute Entry for proceedings held before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Motion Hearing on all pending motions held on 9/30/2008: 22 MOTION to Certify Class taken under advisement; 123 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN GRANTED. Written orders will follow. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton.) (jwm) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
132 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD re 22 MOTION to Certify Class, 110 Reply to Response to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 20 of 41

10/03/2008
10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/30/2008

Authority) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
134 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS and NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS OF TRANSCRIPT REDACTION REQUIREMENTS re: 133 Motion Hearing, held on 09−30−08 before Judge Robert L. Hinkle by Court Reporter Judy A. Nolton
A transcript of a court proceeding is available for viewing at the Office of the Clerk of Court in the above−captioned case. This transcript has been filed under seal pending a review pursuant to Judicial Conference Privacy Policies. The parties have five (5) days to file with the clerk a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no notice is filed by the deadline, the attorney will be deemed to have certified that no redactions are needed. Any party needing to purchase a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase it from the court reporter.
Applicable deadlines under 11th Cir. R. 12−1 will be calculated from the date of this notice. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction due by 10/10/2008. Transcript to be unsealed by 1/6/2009 if no redaction request filed. (jag) Modified on 1/7/2009 (pll). ***Unsealed 1/7/09. (Entered: 10/03/2008)
135 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Granting 123 Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Plaintiff Clayton Griffin. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/14/08. (pll) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
136 ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS. Granting 22 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/14/08. (pll) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
137 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
138 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
139 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
140 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
141 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
142 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
143 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
144 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
145 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 135 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. ( Filing fee $455 Receipt Number 11290000000001104449.) Notify Chambers on 11/14/2008. (YORK, THOMAS)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 21 of 41

11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/11/2008
11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/14/2008 11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008
11/21/2008

(Entered: 10/30/2008)
146 USCA PROCEDURAL LETTER re: 145 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 135 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. USCA Appeal # 08−90031−A (pll) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
147 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 145 Notice of Appeal. (pll) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
148 USCA Case Number 08−16261−AA for 145 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 135 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (pll) (Entered: 11/11/2008)
149 USCA PROCEDURAL LETTER re: 145 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 135 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. ). USCA Appeal # 08−16261−A. (pll) (Entered: 11/11/2008)
150 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/11/08. Attorney Conference to take place by 2/16/2009. Pretrial Stipulation due by 3/2/2009. Jury Trial set for the two week trial term that begins 4/6/2009 08:15 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Pretrial Conference set for 3/12/2009 09:00 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. (pll) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
151 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
152 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
153 MOTION to Extend Time for Mediation Deadline by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CHONIN, NEIL) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
154 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CHONIN, NEIL) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
155 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
156 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
157 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
158 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
159 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR MEDIATION AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. Granting 154 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions and 153 MOTION to Extend Time for Mediation Deadline. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 1/19/2009., Mediation to take place by 1/20/2009.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/17/08. (pll) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
161 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered:

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 22 of 41

11/21/2008 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008 11/26/2008
11/26/2008 12/02/2008
12/02/2008 12/02/2008
12/03/2008

11/21/2008)
162 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
163 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
164 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
165 MOTION for Protective Order by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2) (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 165 MOTION for Protective Order. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/12/2008). (pll) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR notified that action is needed Re: 165 MOTION for Protective Order. Motions referred to WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR. (pll) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
166 RESPONSE in Opposition re 165 MOTION for Protective Order filed by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
167 ORDER re 165 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED in part and the depositions are each limited to one and one−half hours. In all other respects the motion is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR on 11/26/08. (dlt) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
168 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "A" to Defendants' Objection, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit "B" to Defendants' Objection, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit "C" to Defendants' Objection) (WAAS, GEORGE) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
169 RESPONSE re 168 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, in Opposition. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Deposition) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
170 ORDER POSTPONING DEPOSITIONS AND SETTING HEARING re 168 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. ( Telephonic Hearing set for 12/5/2008 10:00 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/2/08. (pll) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
171 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing set for 12/5/2008 10:00 AM in Tallahassee in the chambers of CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Attorney George Waas shall initiate the conference call.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May or Kimberly Curles at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 23 of 41

12/04/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008

be made.
s/ Kimberly Curles Division Manager (kjc) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
172 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Exhibits by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpts from Deposition of Elizabeth Kidder, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' Answeres and Responses to 2nd RFA's and Interrogatories) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
173 NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS BRIAN YORK on behalf of HOLLY BENSON (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
174 NOTICE of Appearance by THOMAS BRIAN YORK on behalf of HOLLY BENSON (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
175 Minute Entry for proceedings held before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Telephonic Hearing on the defendants objections to the magistrate judges order. The plaintiffs are to specify the subjects for 30(b)(6) and the Defendants are to provide prepared people based on this information. 1/5/09 − depositions are set; 1/12/09 − deadline for depositions; 1/19/09 − deadline for dispositive motions; no fees are assessed in this case as it was disputed in good faith. Trial is reset to begin on 4/6/2009.(Court Reporter Judy Nolton.) (kjc) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
176 ORDER ON DEPOSITIONS OF DEPARTMENT HEADS. GRANTING IN PART 165 MOTION for Protective Order filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/5/08. (pll) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
177 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
178 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
179 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
180 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
181 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
182 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
183 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
184 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 24 of 41

12/29/2008 01/04/2009

185 MANDATE of USCA as to 145 Notice of Appeal filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. USCA # 08−90031−A. (pll) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
186 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge Robert L. Hinkle. Court Reporter Judy A. Nolton, Telephone number (850) 561−6822.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/14/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 01/20/2009
01/20/2009

Redaction Request due 1/9/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/9/2009. (jag) Modified on 4/10/2009 −*TRANSCRIPT UNSEALED* (dlt). (Entered: 01/04/2009)
187 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
188 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
189 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
190 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
191 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
192 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
193 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
194 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
195 NOTICE OF MEDIATION Report re Scheduling and Request to Continue Trial and Scheduling Deadlines (pll) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
196 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL re 195 Notice of Mediation re Scheduling. All deadlines that have not passed are extended 90 days. ( Pretrial Stipulation due by 5/31/2009., Attorney Conference to take place by 5/17/2009., Jury Trial set for the tow week trial period that begins 7/6/2009 08:15 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.) The clerk must set a status conference for the first available date on or after 4/5/09. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/20/09. (pll) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
197 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 4/16/2009 at 10:30 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 25 of 41

01/26/2009 01/26/2009
01/29/2009
02/09/2009 02/09/2009 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/23/2009

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Jill May Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jwm) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
198 MOTION to Amend/Correct 196 Order,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, Adjusting Deadlines by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CHONIN, NEIL) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
199 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 198 MOTION to Amend/Correct 196 Order,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, Adjusting Deadlines, 196 Order,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, Correct Scrivener's Error by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CHONIN, NEIL) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
200 ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE−MOTION DEADLINE. GRANTING 198 MOTION to Amend/Correct 196 Order, 199 Amended MOTION to Amend/Correct 198 MOTION to Amend/Correct. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 5/1/2009.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/29/09. (pll) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
201 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
202 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
203 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
204 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (CANAN, STACY) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
205 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
206 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
207 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
208 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
209 ORDER of USCA as to 145 Notice of Appeal filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. USCA # 08−90031−A. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (pll) (Entered: 02/24/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 26 of 41

02/26/2009 02/27/2009
03/02/2009 03/05/2009 03/07/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/11/2009 03/11/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/18/2009
03/31/2009

210 MEDIATION REPORT (pll) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
211 THIRD ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES re 210 Mediation Report. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 5/31/2009., Pretrial Stipulation due by 6/30/2009., Attorney Conference to take place by 6/16/2009., Status Conference set for 4/16/2009 10:30 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/27/09. (pll) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
212 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial and Extend Deadlines by HOLLY BENSON. (BENNETT, KELLY) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
213 First MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel and to Substitute Counsel by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
216 ORDER SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEYS. Granting 213 Motion to Withdraw 213 First MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel and to Substitute Counsel. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/7/09. (pll) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
214 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
215 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
217 ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE re 212 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial and Extend Deadlines filed by HOLLY BENSON. The joint motion to continue will be heard at the 4/16/09 status conference. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/9/09. (pll) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
218 MOTION to Withdraw by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. (YORK, THOMAS) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 218 MOTION to Withdraw. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/30/2009). (pll) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
219 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
220 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
221 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
222 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
223 ORDER SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEYS. Granting 218 MOTION to Withdraw filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. Attorney DEAN CLINTON KOWALCHYK for HOLLY BENSON and DOUGLAS BEACH, WILLIAM MICHAEL BLOCKER, II for HOLLY BENSON and DOUGLAS BEACH, KELLY ANN BENNETT for HOLLY BENSON and DOUGLAS BEACH added. Attorney THOMAS BRIAN YORK terminated. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/18/09. (pll) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
224 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 145 Notice of Appeal. USCA # 08−16261−AA. (pll) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 27 of 41

04/02/2009 04/06/2009 04/09/2009

225 Certified and Transmitted CERTIFICATE OF READINESS AND AMENDED Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 145 Notice of Appeal. USCA # 08−16261−AA. (pll) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
226 USCA Acknowledgment 224 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Appeal # 08−16261−AA) (dlt) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
227 NOTICE of Telephone Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/16/2009 10:30 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Parties are instructed to call (850) 521−3601 at the time of the hearing.

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

04/10/2009 04/10/2009 04/14/2009

s/ Jill May Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jwm) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
228 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
229 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
230 AMENDED NOTICE of Telephone Hearing **amended as to call−in number**: Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/16/2009 10:30 AM EST in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Parties are instructed to call 1−800−255−3812, ID#95390318 at the time of the hearing.

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009

s/ Jill May Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jwm) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
231 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
232 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
233 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
234 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 28 of 41

04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/16/2009 04/20/2009
04/21/2009

235 STATUS REPORT by HOLLY BENSON. (BENNETT, KELLY) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
236 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
237 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
238 Minute Entry for proceedings held before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/16/2009. Parties 212 Joint Motion to Continue Trial and Extend Deadlines is GRANTED. A separate Order with revised trial dates will be issued. A Telephone Status Conference is set for August 20, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. (Court Reporter Lisa Girod−Jones) (jwm) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
239 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES, CONTINUING TRIAL AND SETTING HEARING. GRANTING 212 Motion to Continue. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 9/28/2009., Discovery due by 9/7/2009., Pretrial Stipulation due by 10/26/2009., Attorney Conference to take place by 10/12/2009., Jury Trial set for the two week trial period that begins 12/7/2009 08:15 AM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. The clerk must reschedule the pretrial conference for the first available date on or after 11/5/09. Status Conference set for 8/20/2009 12:45 PM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/20/09. (pll) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
240 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial Conference set for 11/5/2009 12:45 PM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Courtroom 5A East, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

05/11/2009

s/ Jill May Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jwm) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
241 NOTICE of Telephone Hearing:Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/20/2009 12:45 PM in Tallahassee before CHIEF JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Parties are instructed to call (800) 255−3812, Conf. ID 99787272 at the time of the hearing.

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Jill May at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

05/13/2009 05/13/2009 05/14/2009

s/ Jill May Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jwm) (Entered: 05/11/2009)
242 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
243 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
244 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON,

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 29 of 41

05/14/2009
05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 06/12/2009 06/12/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/15/2009

MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
245 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
246 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
247 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
248 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
249 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 05/15/2009)
250 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
251 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
252 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
253 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
254 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
255 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
256 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
257 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
258 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 07/15/2009)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 30 of 41

07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/16/2009
08/13/2009 08/13/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/20/2009
08/20/2009

259 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
260 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (Attachments: # 1 sealed portion) (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
261 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: Attorneys have access to ex parte events including: Attorney Time Records − Sealed Portion (Ex Parte). In regard to attorney time records, electronic service will be made through the use of the "Attorney Time Records (Public Notice)" companion event. Re 260 Attorney Time Record, filed by HOLLY BENSON, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, JOHN BOYD, DOUGLAS BEACH, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLIE CRIST, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR. **The portion of this document labeled sealed has been sealed. (pll) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
262 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
263 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
264 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
265 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
266 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
267 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
268 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
269 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
270 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/20/2009. Parties have entered into agreement for a one year abatement. Court grants the oral motion to abate. A Telephone Status Conference will be set for 8/20/2010 12:45 PM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. An order will be forthcoming. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (jwm) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
271 ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS − All proceedings are stayed and all deadlines are extended for one year. The clerk must set a status conference by

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 31 of 41

09/11/2009 09/11/2009 09/14/2009 09/14/2009 09/15/2009
09/15/2009
09/15/2009 09/15/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/15/2009

telephone for the first available date on or after 8/20/2010. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 9/28/2010., Discovery due by 9/7/2010., Pretrial Stipulation due by 10/26/2010.,Attorney Conference to take place by 10/12/2010.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 08/20/09. Deadline for clerk to check status of stay by 8/20/2010. (dlt) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
272 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
273 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
274 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
275 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
276 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
277 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
278 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
279 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
280 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
281 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
282 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
283 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by WILLIAM LONG. (GOLD, STEPHEN) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
284 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
285 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 32 of 41

10/15/2009 10/15/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009
11/16/2009
12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/16/2009 04/05/2010 05/26/2010

BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
286 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
287 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
288 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
289 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, MARGARET WASHINGTON, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
290 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
291 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, LOUISE SEYMOUR, WILLIAM LONG, UNITED STATES, HOLLY BENSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, DOUGLAS BEACH, CHARLIE CRIST, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, JOHN BOYD. (VIGNERY, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
292 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
293 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
294 ORDER MODIFYING ATTORNEY−TIME−RECORD PROCEDURES. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/16/09. (pll) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
295 NOTICE of Change of Address by SARAH SOMERS (SOMERS, SARAH) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
296 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/26/2010 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Parties are instructed to call (800) 255−3812 ID # 76773908 at the time of hearing.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Elizabeth Lawrence Courtroom Deputy Clerk (erl) (Entered: 05/26/2010)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 33 of 41

07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/31/2010 08/10/2010 08/18/2010 08/26/2010
08/26/2010
08/27/2010 09/28/2010 09/29/2010
09/30/2010

297 NOTICE of Appearance by ANDREW TAYLOR SHEERAN on behalf of HOLLY BENSON (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
298 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by HOLLY BENSON. (BLOCKER, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
299 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW − BLOCKER. Granting 298 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney WILLIAM MICHAEL BLOCKER, II terminated. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/31/2010. (dlt) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
300 MANDATE of USCA as to 145 Notice of Appeal filed by HOLLY BENSON, DOUGLAS BEACH. USCA # 08−16261−AA. AFFIRMED. (pll) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
301 Appeal Record Returned: 300 USCA Mandate. USCA # 08−16261−AA. (pll) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
302 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Status Conference held on 8/26/2010. Parties discuss status of case. Plaintiff Attorneys request that the case be put back on the trial docket. Ruling by Court: Case will be tried during the trial period beginning February 7, 2011. An order will be forthcoming. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
304 ORDER SETTING TRIAL, REOPENING DISCOVERY, SETTING DEADLINE AND PROCEDURES,AND SUBSTITUTING DEFENDANTS − The reference of discovery matters to the magistrate judge is withdrawn. ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 10/15/2010., Discovery due by 11/1/2010.,Bench Trial set for 2/7/2011 08:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.), THOMAS W ARNOLD is substituted as a defendant in place of Holly Benson and CHARLES T CORLEY is substituted as a defendant in place of Douglas Beach. The case style is amended accordingly. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/26/2010. (dlt) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
303 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to William Long by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
305 NOTICE of Additional Counsel by THOMAS W ARNOLD (PORTER, L) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
306 Emergency MOTION to Compel Discovery, MOTION for Order Awarding Reasonable Expenses and Extending the Time to File Dispositive Motions by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
307 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 306 Emergency MOTION to Compel Discovery: Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 10/5/2010 10:00 AM EST before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Parties are instructed to call (800) 255−3812 ID# 15338977 at the time of hearing.

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

10/05/2010

s/ Elizabeth Lawrence Courtroom Deputy Clerk (erl) (Entered: 09/30/2010)
308 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Motion Hearing held on 10/5/2010 re 306 Emergency MOTION to Compel Discovery. Parties discuss pending Motion to Compel. Ruling by Court: Motion to Compel is

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 34 of 41

10/07/2010 10/08/2010 10/13/2010 10/27/2010 11/15/2010 11/15/2010 11/15/2010
11/16/2010 12/10/2010 12/10/2010

GRANTED. Summary Judgment deadline is extended until November 15, 2010. An order will be forthcoming.(Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
310 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/7/2010. Attorney Conference to take place by 12/20/2010. Pretrial Stipulation due by 1/5/2011. Jury Trial set for the two week trial term that begins 2/7/2011 08:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Pretrial Conference set for 1/13/2011 09:00 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. (pll) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
309 ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY, AMENDING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND EXTENDING THE SUMMARY−JUDGMENT DEADLINE − GRANTING 306 Plaintiff's Emergency MOTION to Compel Discovery, ( Dispositive Motions to be filed by 11/15/2010.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/8/2010. (dlt) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
311 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Motion Hearing held on 10/13/2010. Parties discuss Motion to Compel Discovery. Ruling by Court: Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED orally on the record. No fees assessed. (Court Reporter Danielle Freeze) (erl) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
312 NOTICE of Appearance by JEFFRIES H DUVALL on behalf of THOMAS W ARNOLD (DUVALL, JEFFRIES) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
313 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Elizabeth Dudek. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/3/2010). (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Elizabeth Y. Kidder, # 2 Affidavit Kristen Russell, # 3 Affidavit Mary Schrenker, # 4 Affidavit Alexandra Kruse) (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
314 MOTION for Summary Judgment by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/3/2010). (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
315 NOTICE of Filing Exhibits by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON re 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
316 NOTICE of Agreement to Shorten Time to Oppose and Reply to Motions for Summary Judgment by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
317 RESPONSE in Opposition re 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CHARLES T CORLEY, Elizabeth Dudek. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Elizabeth Y. Kidder, dated December 10, 2010, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories, # 3 Affidavit Affidavit of Kristen Russell, dated December 10, 2010, # 4 Affidavit Affidavit of Mary Schrenker, dated December 9, 2010, # 5 Exhibit Excerpts from Deposition of Kristen Russell) (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
318 RESPONSE in Opposition re 313 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 35 of 41

12/10/2010
12/20/2010 12/20/2010
12/20/2010 12/23/2010 12/23/2010 12/28/2010
01/04/2011 01/05/2011
01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011

LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
319 NOTICE of Filing Corrections to Exhibits by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON re 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 315 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Ex. 4, # 2 Supplement Ex. 19, # 3 Supplement Ex. 16, # 4 Supplement Ex. 2, # 5 Supplement Ex. 7, # 6 Supplement Ex. 3) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
320 REPLY to Response to Motion re 313 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Elizabeth Dudek. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
321 REPLY to Response to Motion re 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
322 NOTICE of Statement of Interest by UNITED STATES re 314 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 313 MOTION for Summary Judgment (RAISH, ANNE) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
323 MOTION for Leave to File re 322 Notice (Other) by Elizabeth Dudek. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 323 MOTION for Leave to File re 322 Notice (Other). (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 1/10/2011). (pll) (Entered: 12/27/2010)
324 ORDER SUBSTITUTING DEFENDANT AND GRANTING 323 LEAVE TO RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT OF INTEREST. ELIZABETH DUDEK substituted for THOMAS W ARNOLD. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/28/2010. (pll) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
325 NOTICE of Appearance by ALICE K NELSON on behalf of All Plaintiffs (NELSON, ALICE) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
326 TRIAL BRIEF /Memorandum by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
327 Proposed Findings of Fact by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
328 Proposed Findings of Fact by ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
329 RESPONSE by ELIZABETH DUDEK re 322 Notice (Other) Statement of Interest of the United States by ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
330 TRIAL BRIEF by ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
331 PRETRIAL Stipulation by JOHN BOYD, CHARLES T CORLEY, ELIZABETH DUDEK, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4, # 5 Appendix 5) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 36 of 41

01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/13/2011 01/18/2011

332 AMENDED DOCUMENT by ELIZABETH DUDEK. Amendment to 331 Pretrial Memorandum, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants' Amended Exhibit List) (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
333 Exhibit List Amended Exhibit List by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Pretrial Conference held on 1/13/2011. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on February 7, 2011. Parties will be notified if anything changes. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
335 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/13/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A. NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

01/19/2011 01/24/2011 01/25/2011 01/26/2011 01/28/2011 01/31/2011
01/31/2011

Redaction Request due 1/25/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2011. (jag) Modified on 5/10/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 5/10/11. (Entered: 01/18/2011)
336 ORDER DENYING 313 AND 314 SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/19/11. (pll) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
337 Proposed Pretrial Order (Plaintiffs) by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 3) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
338 TRIAL BRIEF Supplemental Authority by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
339 ORDER ON TRIAL SCHEDULE AND ELECTRONICS. ( Bench Trial set for 2/7/2011 09:00 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/25/11. (pll) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
340 TRIAL BRIEF Second Supplemental Authority by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
341 NOTICE of Telephonic Supplemental Pretrial Conference set for 2/1/2011 10:30 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.
Parties are instructed to call (866) 704−7500 ID# 973452# at the time of hearing.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Pam Lourcey Deputy Clerk (pll) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
342 NOTICE of filing by ELIZABETH DUDEK (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Amended Witness List, # 2 Defendants' Second Amended Exhibit List, # 3 List Correlating Defendants' witnesses to Plaintiff class members) (SHEERAN,

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 37 of 41

02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011
02/02/2011 02/02/2011
02/04/2011
02/07/2011 02/08/2011 02/09/2011 02/10/2011 02/11/2011 02/15/2011 02/16/2011

ANDREW) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
343 MOTION in Limine by ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
344 Second MOTION in Limine by ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
346 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Supplemental Pretrial Conference held on 2/1/2011. Parties discuss matters related to trial. The trial is still scheduled to begin on February 7, 2011 at 9:00 am. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
Set Deadlines as to 343 MOTION in Limine, 344 Second MOTION in Limine. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 2/22/2011). (dlt) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
345 Proposed Pretrial Order (Joint) by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
347 AMENDED DOCUMENT by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. Amendment to 345 Proposed Pretrial Order, Notice of Filing Fourth Amended Exhibit List (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Fourth Amended Exhibit List) (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
348 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Bench Trial (Day 1) held on 2/7/2011. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
349 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Bench Trial (Day 2) held on 2/8/2011. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
350 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Bench Trial (Day 3) held on 2/9/2011. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
351 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Bench Trial (Day 4) held on 2/10/2011. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton / Lisa Jones) (erl) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
352 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Bench Trial (Day 5) held on 2/11/2011. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (erl) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
353 NOTICE 93D by CHARLES T CORLEY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted_Exhibit_093D_DOEA) (KOWALCHYK, DEAN) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
354 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of First Day of Trial held on 02/07/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A. NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

02/16/2011

Redaction Request due 2/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (jag) Modified on 5/25/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 5/25/11. (Entered: 02/16/2011)
355 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Second Day of Trial held on 02/08/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A.

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 38 of 41
NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

02/16/2011

Redaction Request due 2/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (jag) Modified on 5/25/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 5/25/11. (Entered: 02/16/2011)
356 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Third Day of Trial held on 02/09/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A. NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter or may be obtained through PACER.

02/16/2011

Redaction Request due 2/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (jag) Modified on 5/25/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 5/25/11. (Entered: 02/16/2011)
357 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Fourth Day of Trial held on 02/10/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A. NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

02/16/2011

Redaction Request due 2/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (jag) Modified on 5/25/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 5/25/11. (Entered: 02/16/2011)
358 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Fifth Day of Trial held on 02/11/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A. NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

02/16/2011 02/20/2011

Redaction Request due 2/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/24/2011. (jag) Modified on 5/25/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 5/25/11. (Entered: 02/16/2011)
359 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Bench Trial (Day 6) held on 2/16/2011. Parties are to file Proposed Findings of Fact by February 25, 2011. (Court Reporter Judy Nolton) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List) (erl) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
360 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Sixth Day of Trial held on 02/16/2011, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter JUDY A. NOLTON, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 39 of 41

02/24/2011 02/24/2011 02/25/2011
02/28/2011
03/01/2011 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 03/21/2011 03/29/2011 05/17/2011 07/06/2011
07/06/2011 07/25/2011 01/03/2012

Redaction Request due 2/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/31/2011. (jag) Modified on 6/3/2011 (pll). **Unsealed 6/3/11. (Entered: 02/20/2011)
361 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 343 MOTION in Limine, 344 Second MOTION in Limine. **No response filed. (pll) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
362 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. GRANTING 361 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.( Miscellaneous Deadline − by 3/1/2011.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/25/11. (pll) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
363 ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF THE DECEASED NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND AMENDING THE CASE STYLE. RODNEY PETERSON, MARGARET WASHINGTON, JOHN BOYD and WILLIAM LONG terminated. CHARLES TODD LEE is now the first named plaintiff. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/28/11. (pll) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
364 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Trial Ex. 148 by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, LOUISE SEYMOUR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Trial Ex. 148) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
365 Proposed Findings of Fact by ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
366 Proposed Findings of Fact by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, LOUISE SEYMOUR. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
367 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, LOUISE SEYMOUR re 366 Proposed Findings of Fact (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplemental Authority) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
368 Exhibit List D's Exhibit 1 by CHARLES TODD LEE.. (KOWALCHYK, DEAN) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
369 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Document Regarding Status of Plaintiff Class Member by ELIZABETH DUDEK (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Status of Plaintiff Class Member) (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
370 MOTION Judicial Notice and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Comp. Ex. 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 370 MOTION Judicial Notice and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 7/25/2011). (pll) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
371 RESPONSE in Opposition re 370 MOTION Judicial Notice and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT filed by CHARLES T CORLEY, ELIZABETH DUDEK. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
372 ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF GRIFFIN, DISMISSING THE OTHER NAMED PLAINTIFF' CLAIMS AS MOOT, AND DECERTIFYING THE CLASS. It is declared that the plaintiff Clayton Griffin is entitled to the Medicaid services that are available under a waiver and necessary to allow him to live safely in the community, including at least (a) four hours of personal− attendant care per day, (b) isolated emergency

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 40 of 41

01/03/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/30/2012 01/30/2012 01/31/2012 02/02/2012
02/02/2012 02/19/2012
03/08/2012 04/13/2012
04/23/2012
04/27/2012

personal−attendant care, and (c) the same outside medical care that would be covered if Mr. Griffin remained in a nursing home. The defendant Elizabeth Dudek, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, must provide these services. Any other claim of Mr. Griffin is dismissed. The claims of the other named plaintiffs are dismissed as moot. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/3/12. (pll) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
373 CLERK'S JUDGMENT, entered pursuant to 372 Order. ( 90 Day Exhibit Return Deadline set for 4/2/2012) (pll) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
374 BILL OF COSTS and Documentation by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (SIEGEL, JODI) Modified on 1/17/2012 (pll). (Entered: 01/13/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 374 MOTION for Taxation of Costs. (Internal deadline for referral to clerk if response not filed earlier: 1/31/2012). (pll) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
375 NOTICE of Appearance by ENOCH JONATHAN WHITNEY on behalf of CHARLES T CORLEY, ELIZABETH DUDEK (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
376 RESPONSE in Opposition re 374 MOTION for Taxation of Costs filed by CHARLES T CORLEY, ELIZABETH DUDEK. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Miscellaneous Deadline for status of Bill of Costs − by 3/27/2012. (pll) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
377 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS MOTION ON LIABILITY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES by JOHN BOYD, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, WILLIAM LONG, RODNEY PETERSON, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 377 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS MOTION ON LIABILITY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 2/21/2012). (pll) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
378 RESPONSE in Opposition re 377 MOTION for Attorney Fees PLAINTIFFS MOTION ON LIABILITY FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES (Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion on Liability for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses) filed by CHARLES T CORLEY, ELIZABETH DUDEK. (WHITNEY, ENOCH) (Entered: 02/19/2012)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 374 MOTION for Taxation of Costs (pll) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
379 ORDER DETERMINING THE PLAINTIFF GRIFFIN'S ENTITLEMENT TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES re 377 MOTION for Attorney Fees. It is determined under Local Rule 54.1 that the plaintiff Clayton Griffin is entitled to a fee award. Proceedings to determine the amount of the award will go forward under Local Rule 54.1(E). (Internal deadline for referral to judge if affidavit not filed earlier: 4/27/2012)., Acceptance or rejection of the amount being claimed as attorneys fees due by 5/11/2012, Acceptance or rejection of the counteroffer being claimed as attorneys fees due − by 5/25/2012.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/13/12. (pll) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
381 ORDER ON TAXATION OF COSTS. Mr. Griffin must file a declaration identifying the amount included in the bill of costs for expediting transcripts. After the declaration is filed, the clerk must tax costs in Mr. Griffins favor against the Secretary. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/23/12. (pll) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
380 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Affidavits Relating to Attorneys' Fees by CLAYTON L GRIFFIN. (RUIZ, GABRIELA) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

Case: 4:08-cv-26 As of: 05/08/2013 12:17 PM CDT 41 of 41

04/30/2012 05/04/2012 05/10/2012

382 ORDER EXTENDING THE 54(E)(1)−(3) DEADLINE. GRANTING 380 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Affidavits Relating to Attorneys' Fees. ( Miscellaneous Deadline for filing affidavits − by 5/7/2012.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/30/12. (pll) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
383 NOTICE of Settlement of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses by CHARLES T CORLEY, ELIZABETH DUDEK, CLAYTON L GRIFFIN, CHARLES TODD LEE, LOUISE SEYMOUR, MARGARET WASHINGTON (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
384 ORDER ON COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. DENYING AS MOOT 374 MOTION for Taxation of Costs and 377 MOTION for Attorney Fees. The denial is without prejudice to a motion to enforce the order to comply with the settlement agreement and without prejudice to a renewed bill of costs or renewed motion for attorneys fees if the settlement agreement is vacated or not consummated. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/10/12. (pll) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

 
 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FILED

________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-16261 ________________________

JUNE 22, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 08-00026-CV-4-RH-WCS

WILLIAM LONG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CHARLES TODD LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

HOLLY BENSON, in her official capacity as Secretary Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, DOUGLAS BEACH, in his official capacity as Secretary Florida Department of Elder Affairs, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (June 22, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and HODGES,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the grant of a preliminary injunction. As we understand it, today's case presents a close question in the application of law to a set of unique facts. We are not deciding the merits of the case. But we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction in this case. "A preliminary injunction may be issued to protect the plaintiff from irreparable injury and to preserve the district court's power to render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion of the district court." Canal Authority of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489
*Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
2

F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). See also Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2005); Revette v. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 740 F.2d 892, 893 (11th Cir. 1984).
Today's affirmance of the preliminary injunction does not affect the law of the case on the merits. A full review of appellants' assertions can be had after -and if -- the district court on full consideration decides to grant a permanent injunction.
AFFIRMED.
3