Source: https://healthlaw.org/resource/q-a-emily-q-epsdt-case/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:57:22+00:00

Document:
 This Q&A discusses the significance and impact of the decision in Emily Q v. Bonta, regarding failure by the state to cover Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS).
Question: What is the significance of the recently issued Emily Q. v. Bonta decision in federal District Court in California?
Answer: Emily Q. v. Bonta1 is significant because it reaffirms that EPSDT provisions confer enforceable rights upon Medicaid beneficiaries after the Supreme Court?s decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe and the Ninth Circuit?s decision in Sanchez v. Johnson and it maintains that courts have inherent authority to establish appropriate injunctive relief for violations of EPSDT provisions.
In 1998, children with intensive mental health needs brought a suit alleging that California Medicaid officials failed to cover a full range of mental health services, including Therapeutic Behavioral Services. According to the children?s attorneys, Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) would enable the children to work one-on-one with a trained mental health aide or coach in their homes rather than be housed in one of two state mental hospitals or placed in other locked mental facilities. After the Emily Q. v. Bonta complaint was filed, the State stipulated to the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, to entry of judgment against Diana Bonta, director of the California Department of Health Services (DHS), and to entry of a permanent injunction. Issues related to the extent of the relief were litigated and Plaintiffs filed a motion for a permanent injunction.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.