HARIECE LEWIS, ETC., APPELLEE,
v.
BERT SHULIMSON ET AL., APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that federal law requires Missouri to provide medical assistance to eligible general relief recipients under its medical assistance plan, and notification expenses are permissible ancillary effects under the Eleventh Amendment.
The Division of Family Services appealed a District Court determination that Missouri's medical assistance plan, under state and federal law, required…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ancillary Effect On State Treasury cases and more on FLexlaw
VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by the Division of Family Services [formerly the Division of Welfare] of the State of Missouri from a determination by the District Court, Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin presiding, that where under Missouri’s January 1, 1972, medical assistance plan the state was required by § 208.151, R.S.Mo.1969, to provide medical assistance to persons eligible for general relief, and appellee and members of her class presently qualify under the January 1, 1972, Missouri general relief eligibility requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A) and § 1396a(f) require appellants to provide medical assistance to members of appellee’s class.
Appellant also alleges that the District Court, in ordering appellants to promptly notify all members of appellee’s class who were denied medical assistance in violation of the District Court order, thereby required the State of Missouri to expend its public funds to satisfy a liability to private parties, in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court did not, however, require Missouri to make any retroactive payments to appellee and members of her class. It is clear that the type of notification expenses involved here are the necessary result of compliance with a decree which by its terms is prospective in nature. Such “ancillary effect” on the state treasury is permissible under Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662.
After a careful review of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, the court affirms the judgment of the District Court on the basis of its Memorandum Opinion and our comments above. Lewis v. Shulimson, 400 F.Supp. 807 (E.D.Mo.1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. Trainor, 563 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1977)
-
Jordan v. Trainor, 551 F.2d 152 (7th Cir. 1977)
-
Fanty v. The Commonwealth OF Pa., 551 F.2d 2 (3d Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1974)