Opinion ID: 216365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cohon's Complaint

Text: Cohon's complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (collectively, statutory claims). Compl. ¶¶ 99-107. Cohon alleges that the State Defendants violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against her in the manner used to determine the approval of budget requests within the Mi Via Waiver program. Id. ¶ 102. Cohon further alleges that the State Defendants violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Acts by subjecting [her] to discrimination in state programs on the basis of disability. Id. ¶¶ 105-107. Specifically, Cohon alleges that aside from the per diem she requested, the services and budget items requested in her budget would have been approved if her funding requests had not exceeded the $59,449 IBA set by New Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32, 42, 43, 44, 66. Budget requests exceeding $59,449 were approved only if they addressed Cohon's physical safety or risks associated with behavior issues. Id. ¶ 41, 46. Cohon alleges that because she has a high level of need, and because the state prioritizes her budget requests, all of her requests are effectively subject to the risk/ safety limitation to which less severely disabled Mi Via participants are not subject. Id. ¶ 64, 65, 67, 68, 70. For example, Cohon's request for a homemaker/ companion was for $63,096. Id. ¶ 67. Because that line item alone exceeded her IBA of $59,449 and because the state prioritized her budget requests, all of her remaining budget requests were subject to the risk/ safety limitation. Id. ¶ 68. Cohon thus contends that this manner of administering the Mi Via program discriminates against her because of the severity of her disabilities. Id. ¶ 55. Cohon's complaint also asserts claims under the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. Id. ¶¶ 92-98. Cohon alleges that her due process rights were violated by the [State] Defendants' arbitrary and capricious manner of partially denying her budget requests. Id. ¶ 94. Cohon alleges that the State Defendants fail[ed] to give her adequate notice of the reasons for the partial denial of her budget requests, [failed] to follow the Mi Via regulations and standards in partially denying her budget requests and . . . prioritiz[ed] her budget requests without input from her. Id. ¶ 95. Cohon alleges that her equal protection rights were violated because she was subjected to disparate treatment as compared to those similarly situated Mi Via participants with less severe disabilities in the criteria applied to a determination of approval/denial of her budget requests, and that [n]o adequate justification exists for the disparate treatment by the [State] Defendants. Id. ¶ 96-97.