holding that the district court could order prospective relief requiring the state to provide benefits until the plaintiffs received adequate pre-termination notice, without addressing whether there was any ongoing violation of federal law
How later courts described this case
- holding that the district court could order prospective relief requiring the state to provide benefits until the plaintiffs received adequate pre-termination notice, without addressing whether there was any ongoing violation of federal law
- finding no Eleventh Amendment impediment to awarding prospective reinstatement of benefits “which requires payments [for Medicaid recipients] only for medical services received after entry of the district court’s decree”
- holding that “the Eleventh Amendment permits an order requiring the prospective restoration of [Medicaid] benefits”
- holding that reinstating Medicaid benefits prospectively does not violate the Eleventh Amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALTER E. HOFFMAN, District Judge,
dissenting:
If Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), has any continuing vitality, it assuredly would not permit to be done indirectly what it cannot do directly. If the majority opinion in this case is good law, it would result in the complete destruction of the 1974 Supreme Court decision by devising allegedly prospective procedures for the purpose of assuring the payment of retrospective benefits. The majority cites no precedent for its action. It may be fair and equitable in a given case such as this, but to me it is a unique device to avoid the Supreme Court ruling. I would affirm the district court.