Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca1-16-01047/USCOURTS-ca1-16-01047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 16-1047 

REZA SHERKAT, 

As Guardian of Shahram Sherkat and Individually, 

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND VILLAGE, INC.; GAIL T. BROWN, New England 

Village, Inc., Executive Director and Individually; 

GINGER SULLIVAN, New England Village, Inc., Director of 

Residential Services and Individually; RUI CARREIRO, 

New England Village, Inc., Clinical Director and Individually; 

ELIN M. HOWE, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of 

Developmental Services; EDWARD FITZGERALD, Area Director for 

Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services, 

Defendants, Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

[Hon. Indira Talwani, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Torruella, Lynch, and Barron, 

Circuit Judges. 

Thomas J. Frain, with whom C. Alex Hahn, Frank E. Bonanni, 

and Frain and Associates were on brief, for appellant. 

Christopher A. Callanan, with whom Kevin B. Callanan and 

Stevenson McKenna & Callanan LLP were on brief, for appellees New 

England Village, Inc., Gail T. Brown, Ginger Sullivan and Rui 

Case: 16-1047 Document: 00117068357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Entry ID: 6040643
Carreiro. 

Jesse M. Boodoo, with whom Kenneth Y. Lee, Assistant Attorney 

General and Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, were 

on brief, for appellee Elin M. Howe. 

October 18, 2016 

-2- 

Case: 16-1047 Document: 00117068357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Entry ID: 6040643
-3- 

Per Curiam. Reza Sherkat ("Sherkat"), on behalf of 

himself and as the guardian of Shahram Sherkat ("Shahram"), appeals 

the United States District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts's dismissal of the complaint he brought against New 

England Village, Inc. ("NEV"), three of its officers, 

Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services ("DDS") 

Commissioner Elin Howe, and another DDS official. 

NEV is a private organization that receives funding from 

Massachusetts to provide community-based and residential services 

to individuals with intellectual disabilities. In September 2014, 

Sherkat completed the application process to have Shahram, his 

now-thirty-nine-year-old son, receive services from NEV. A month 

later, NEV officials responded that new DDS regulations forced NEV 

to stop planning for new admissions. NEV subsequently sent 

Shahram a letter stating that although Shahram was "eligible for 

services at [NEV]," NEV did not foresee any openings for either a 

residential placement or community-based day services and would 

place Shahram on a waitlist.

Sherkat claims that NEV's rejection of Shahram violated 

the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and the "free 

choice" provision of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(2)(C). 

Case: 16-1047 Document: 00117068357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Entry ID: 6040643
-4- 

Sherkat's complaint also included a count for negligent infliction 

of emotional distress against NEV officials based on Shahram's 

rejection causing Sherkat "physical and emotional harm." 

Additionally, Sherkat filed two claims against Howe and another 

DDS official claiming that DDS violated the Massachusetts Civil 

Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I, and sought injunctive 

relief "to take all necessary steps relative to the admission of 

Shahram to NEV."1

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court 

properly dismissed Sherkat's complaint. Pursuant to First Circuit 

Rule 27.0(c), we summarily affirm without adopting the district 

court's opinion.2

So ordered. 

 

1 Sherkat's complaint also contained counts for negligence and 

breach of contract against NEV officials, but Sherkat does not 

appeal their dismissal. 

2 In summarily affirming the district court's opinion, we take no 

position on the parties arguments as to whether there is a circuit 

split on the scope of rights conferred by § 1396n(c)(2)(C). 

Compare Ball v. Rodgers, 492 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[The 

Medicaid choice provisions, including § 1396n(c)(2)(C)] seek to 

guarantee that individual patients are informed of 

noninstitutional care options and that individual patients retain 

the right to make a choice based on this information."), with 

Bertrand ex rel. Bertrand v. Maram, 495 F.3d 452, 459 (7th Cir. 

2007) (finding that § 1396n(c)(2)(C) "just requires the provision 

of information about options that are available" and "does not 

make any particular option 'available' to anyone"). 

Case: 16-1047 Document: 00117068357 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Entry ID: 6040643