Court Opinion

ID: 9400324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 21:00:34.531901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.517737
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069     Doc: 70         Filed: 06/06/2023   Pg: 1 of 6

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1069

        RICHARD STOGSDILL; NANCY STOGSDILL, Parent of Richard Stogsdill, on
        behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                    and

        ROBERT LEVIN; MARY SELF, Parent of Robert Levin, on behalf of themselves
        and other similarly situated persons,

                           Plaintiffs,

                    v.

        SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

                           Defendant - Appellee,

                    and

        KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; CYNTHIA MANN; JOHN DOES 1-20; CMS;
        ANTHONY KECK,

                           Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12−cv−00007−JFA)

        Submitted: February 22, 2023                                       Decided: June 6, 2023

        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069      Doc: 70         Filed: 06/06/2023    Pg: 2 of 6

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Patricia Logan Harrison, Cleveland, South Carolina, for Appellants. Damon C.
        Wlodarczyk, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069      Doc: 70          Filed: 06/06/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               In 2012, Richard Stogsdill, Robert Levin and their parent caregivers sued the South

        Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and related individual defendants

        (collectively, the “SCDHHS”) in the District of South Carolina seeking declaratory and

        injunctive relief. On multiple grounds, they challenged South Carolina’s Medicaid waiver

        program, established under 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c), which provides home and community-

        based services to certain individuals with severe disabilities and allows individuals to avoid

        institutionalization. Stogsdill and Levin, two severely disabled individuals, receive such

        medical equipment and services. Following a bench trial and extensive motions practice,

        the district court entered judgment granting the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief as

        to a determination about the provision of a single piece of medical equipment, a water

        walker, and denied all other requested relief. Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers

        appealed. Considering the entire record and applicable law, we affirm.

               In 2010, the SCDHHS implemented amendments to the waiver program that capped

        certain community-based services and eliminated others. As a result, Stogsdill and Levin

        experienced a reduction in the services they received. Stogsdill moved for the

        reconsideration of the reduction of services provided to him and, after the denial of that

        motion, appealed administratively and to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Levin did

        not request such reconsideration.

               Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers also brought this action in federal court

        with a lengthy list of claims against the SCDHHS for alleged violations of the Americans

        with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069       Doc: 70          Filed: 06/06/2023      Pg: 4 of 6

        the Medicaid Act, the Administrative and Procedures Act of the State of South Carolina

        and the Supremacy and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. In the

        following years, the parties have engaged in significant motions practice and the district

        court has conducted several bench trials. The court issued multiple orders that have

        narrowed the issues, claims, and parties in the case. And we have considered two prior

        appeals of the district court’s decisions.

               The last time the case was before us, in March 2019, we affirmed the careful and

        thoughtful judgments of the district court in nearly all respects but remanded Stogsdill’s

        claims against the state defendants which the district court declined to consider based on

        abstention principles in light of parallel proceedings taking place in state court. Stogsdill v.

        Azar, 765 F. App’x 873, 877 (4th Cir. 2019).

               After we remanded on that limited issue, the district court considered the remaining

        claims. It dismissed most of those claims based on a combination of preclusion, the

        outcome of state court litigation and a consent order. But as to the remaining claims, it

        conducted another bench trial. Following the trial, the district court denied all requested

        relief except for Stogsdill’s request for declaratory relief as to the reasonable promptness

        provision of the Medicaid Act set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8) with respect to

        Stogsdill’s specific request for a water walker, which it granted.

               The district court also determined that the SCDHHS provided notice and an

        opportunity for a fair hearing with respect to the requested medical equipment in

        accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3) and the regulations. In sum, other than as to the

        provision of the water walker, the district court concluded that Stogsdill, Levin and their

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069       Doc: 70         Filed: 06/06/2023      Pg: 5 of 6

        parent caregivers failed to carry their burden of proof showing entitlement to any relief as

        to any remaining claims. The district court also denied their motion to alter or amend the

        judgment. Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers appealed that order as well as any

        other appealable orders below. JA8559; JA8570.

               On appeal, Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers argue that the SCDHHS

        violated the integration mandate of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to make

        reasonable modifications in the State’s programs, and that the district court erred in its

        rulings concerning these provisions. They also argue that the SCDHHS violated their

        constitutional and statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including rights guaranteed

        under the Constitution of the United States and the Medicaid Act, particularly the

        reasonable promptness mandates at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(8)

        and the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(2) to assure the financial accountability.

               But in their opening brief, Stogsdill, Levin and their parent caregivers advance only

        conclusory arguments and fail to dispute the district court’s reasoning or to articulate any

        meritorious basis for reversal of the court’s judgment. This constitutes waiver under our

        precedent. See Grayson O. Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A

        party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop

        its argument––even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.”) (cleaned up); see also

        Timpson ex rel. Timpson v. Anderson Cnty. Disabilities & Special Needs Bd., 31 F.4th 238,

        256–57 (4th Cir. 2022) (finding appellants’ argument waived where they “presented no

        basis for reversing the judgment below.”). And to the extent not waived, upon review of

        the record, we affirm the district court and find no reversible error.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1069         Doc: 70   Filed: 06/06/2023    Pg: 6 of 6

              We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                 AFFIRMED

                                                 6