()

District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein

 

Read Full-Text Decision

New York State’s Office for People with Developmental Disabilities and codefendant Kelly objected to a magistrate judge’s report recommending that they be denied summary judgment in plaintiff’s lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants argued the report improperly read out of §504 the requirement that denials of benefits had to be solely by reason of the plaintiff’s disability to be actionable under §504. The court adopted the report. Plaintiff’s claims that failure to remediate his present “unworkable” living situation will worsen to the point where he will need to be institutionalized, and that he sought relocation to an independent living facility (ILF) to avoid institutionalization, implicated the ADA’s integration mandate so that defendants must administer their services and programs in the most integrated setting appropriate to plaintiff’s needs. Nor did defendants show that plaintiff’s desired reallocation of his Medicaid-funded budget would require them to violate the law. They could not show that plaintiff’s current monthly housing subsidy would be insufficient to pay the ILF’s room and board fee such that Medicaid funds would necessarily be impermissibly reallocated.

District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein

 

Read Full-Text Decision

New York State’s Office for People with Developmental Disabilities and codefendant Kelly objected to a magistrate judge’s report recommending that they be denied summary judgment in plaintiff’s lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants argued the report improperly read out of §504 the requirement that denials of benefits had to be solely by reason of the plaintiff’s disability to be actionable under §504. The court adopted the report. Plaintiff’s claims that failure to remediate his present “unworkable” living situation will worsen to the point where he will need to be institutionalized, and that he sought relocation to an independent living facility (ILF) to avoid institutionalization, implicated the ADA’s integration mandate so that defendants must administer their services and programs in the most integrated setting appropriate to plaintiff’s needs. Nor did defendants show that plaintiff’s desired reallocation of his Medicaid-funded budget would require them to violate the law. They could not show that plaintiff’s current monthly housing subsidy would be insufficient to pay the ILF’s room and board fee such that Medicaid funds would necessarily be impermissibly reallocated.