UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES TIFFANY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12157 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND STAYING BRIEFING ON 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

 On August 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as Defendants 

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Community Mental Health for Central 

Michigan, and Mid State Health Plan Network Pre-Paid Inpatient Health Plan. See Am. Compl., 

ECF No. 21. Plaintiffs allege that the State of Michigan’s reduction of General Funds allotted to 

healthcare led to Defendants no longer providing certain mental health services and no longer 

paying some of Plaintiffs’ Medicaid deductible on their behalf.1

 According to Plaintiffs, the 

implementation of this decision violated their due process rights under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 

U.S. 254 (1970); violated their rights under the Equal Protection clause of the United States 

Constitution; and violated the Michigan Mental Health Code, Mich. Comp. L. § 330.1001ff. Id. 

All three Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a 

claim for which relief may be granted. See Defs.’ Mots. Dismiss, ECF Nos. 27, 31, & 32. The 

parties timely briefed all three motions. 

 1

 The Medicaid deductible is a certain amount of health services that must be paid out-of-pocket by an 

individual before they qualify for Medicaid funding during a specific coverage period. 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 42 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 2355
- 2 - 

 On November 6, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. TRO, ECF No. 41. Plaintiffs argue in their motion that 

Defendants have begun the process of terminating benefits and they seek an immediate order 

from the Court enjoining Defendants from doing so. Initially, Defendants had continued benefits 

in exchange for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ first complaint. Defendants then 

continued benefits indefinitely after Plaintiffs sought a Medicaid review hearing. Defendants 

maintained the position that Plaintiffs were not entitled to a Medicaid review hearing. Now, 

according to Plaintiffs, Defendants have moved forward with terminating benefits. 

 In the course of conducting research on Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ arguments 

regarding the sufficiency of those claims, the Court located two cases that appear to be the law of 

the Sixth Circuit and relevant to Defendants’ motions. The two cases are Benton v. Rhodes, 

586 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1978), and Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2005). None of the parties 

have discussed the two cases in their papers.2

 

In Benton, the Sixth Circuit heard a class challenge to Ohio’s “proposed reduction of a 

number of optional benefits from the state’s medicaid program[.]” Benton, 586 F.2d at 1. The 

Sixth Circuit held that “when a state decides to terminate optional benefits on the basis of lack of 

appropriated funds, or for any other state reason, this is a matter of state law or policy which it 

was permitted to adopt.” Id. at 3. Further “nothing in the Federal or State Constitutions giv[es] 

prospective recipients of optional benefits a constitutional right to their perpetual continuance.” 

Id. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit concluded that it “do[es] not regard the case of Goldberg v. 

Kelly as apposite. Goldberg involved the termination of public welfare payments.” Id. at 4 

(internal citations omitted). The facts of Benton “involve[d] only the termination of optional 

 2

 In its Reply Brief, Defendant Michigan Department of Health and Human Services cites to Benton in 

passing as support for the proposition that “[b]ecause Plaintiffs allege no claim against the Department itself, 

dismissal is the appropriate remedy.” Def.’s Reply Br. 3, ECF No. 36. 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 42 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 2356
- 3 - 

benefits which the state was never required to provide in the first place. The [r]equired payments 

under medicaid [were] still being made.” Id. 

 Thirty years later, in Rosen, the Sixth Circuit confronted a challenge to the reduction in 

Tennessee’s state Medicaid program. The Sixth Circuit determined that individual recipients are 

entitled to Medicaid hearings when there coverage is eliminated “so long as they raise a valid 

factual dispute about their continued eligibility for coverage[.]” Rosen, 410 F.3d at 927. They are 

not so entitled, however, to receive a hearing in order to make “a mere challenge to the change in 

law or policy.” Id. In addition, the court once more held Goldberg inapposite because “plaintiffs 

have not shown that the requirement of establishing a valid factual dispute before being entitled 

to a hearing violates due process.” Id. at 928. Indeed, Goldberg itself “declined to reach the issue 

of ‘whether due process requires only an opportunity for written submission, or an opportunity 

both for written submission and oral argument, where there are no factual issues in dispute or 

where the application of the rule of law is not intertwined with factual issues.’” Id. (citing 

Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 268 n.15). The Rosen court, relying on Benton, went on to note that “since 

Goldberg, the Court has explained that the due process requirement that the government provide 

a hearing before the termination of benefits turns on the sensible fact/law dichotomy that CMS, 

the State and Benton have drawn.” Id. 

 Both cases provide additional guidance that may be helpful to resolving the disputes in 

this case. The above summaries were just that, summaries. They are intended to aid the parties in 

their study of the two cases. The parties will be instructed to submit supplemental briefs 

providing: analysis of the two cases and their applicability to this dispute; discussion of the 

factual distinctions between Benton, Rosen, and the present case; and any additional authority 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 42 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 2357
- 4 - 

that may help address Benton and Rosen. Extensive factual exposition unmoored from analysis 

of Benton and Rosen is not required and, in fact, discouraged. 

Defendant Michigan Department of Health and Human Services will be given ten pages 

in which to address these issues. Defendants Community Mental Health and Mid State Health 

Plan Network will be given a combined ten pages in which to address these issues in a single 

supplemental brief. Plaintiffs’ shall respond with a brief no longer than fifteen pages. Defendant 

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services may then file a reply brief no longer than 

five pages. Defendants Community Mental Health and Mid State Health Plan Network may also 

file a combined reply brief no longer than five pages. 

 While supplemental briefing is being conducted, briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a 

temporary restraining order will be stayed. The briefing stay will be lifted on the day 

Defendants’ supplemental reply briefs are due. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants are DIRECTED to file supplemental 

briefs on the Court’s docket, in compliance with the directions set forth herein, on or before 

November 20, 2015. 

 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a supplemental response 

brief on the Court’s docket, in compliance with the directions set forth herein, on or before 

December 4, 2015. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendants are DIRECTED to file any supplemental reply 

brief they wish to be considered on the Court’s docket, in compliance with the directions set 

forth herein, on or before December 11, 2015. 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 42 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 2358
- 5 - 

It is further ORDERED that briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining 

order, ECF No. 41, is STAYED until December 11, 2015. 

Dated: November 10, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on November 10, 2015. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 42 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 2359