article: The plaintiffs in this case are three individuals with dual diagnoses of mental illness and intellectual disability. They receive services and support in order to remain in the community through Pennsylvania Medicaid's Consolidated Waiver program. After each plaintiff experienced a change in his/her condition (i.e. a specific episode caused by mental illness that necessitated increased care), the plaintiffs were briefly institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals. The disruption in services created a range problems when the plaintiffs sought to resume waiver services. The level of care offered under the waiver was allegedly insufficient, which put the plaintiffs at risk of future institutionalization. In addition, the plaintiffs faced numerous administrative challenges in securing services. One of the plaintiffs could not be discharged from an institutionalization without a promise of more extensive services than could be put in place under the waiver. The plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 20, 2011. The complaint alleged that the state placed the plaintiffs at risk of unnecessary institutionalization in violation of the ADA under the Supreme Court precedent Olmstead v. L.C. The complaint also alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and that the insufficient waiver services amount to violations of the Medicaid Act. Although the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the case was resolved before any decision was necessary. Two of the three plaintiffs were moved to community placements with sufficient support services, while the state had taken some steps to ensure that the third plaintiff would be moved in a timely fashion. Judge Joel H. Slomsky approved the parties' stipulation of dismissal and settlement on October 18, 2011.
summary: This was a challenge to the insufficiency of Pennsylvania Medicaid's Consolidated Waiver program for individuals with both mental illness and intellectual disabilities. The case was dismissed after each of the three plaintiffs began to receive adequate services in the community.