granting injunction to plaintiffs opposing reduction in personal care hours as violative of the ADA and indicating “the elimination of services that have enabled [a plaintiff] to remain in the community violates the ADA, regardless of whether it causes them to enter an institution immediately, or whether it causes them to decline in health over time and eventually enter an institution in order to seek necessary care”
How later courts described this case
- granting injunction to plaintiffs opposing reduction in personal care hours as violative of the ADA and indicating “the elimination of services that have enabled [a plaintiff] to remain in the community violates the ADA, regardless of whether it causes them to enter an institution immediately, or whether it causes them to decline in health over time and eventually enter an institution in order to seek necessary care”
- recognizing violation where plaintiffs established that “reduced access to' personal care services will place them at serious risk of institutionalization”
- noting that a statement of interest filed by the United States “under 28 U.S.C. § 517 is comparable to amicus brief” and does not confer “party” status on the United States or the federal agency that it represents
- defining an actionable risk of institutionalization as one where the contested actions could “cause[] [plaintiffs] to decline in health over time and eventually enter an institution in order to seek necessary care,” even if there is no “imminent risk of institutionalization”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Order; Dissent to Order by Judge BEA; Opinion by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER; Dissent to Opinion by Judge RAWLINSON.
ORDER
The opinion filed December 16, 2011, and published at 663 F.3d 1100 , is amended as follows:
On page 1107, right column, lines 16-19: delete <The district court stayed proceedings, including disposition of the motion for class certification, pending our decisions
On page 1121, left column, line 10: change <obviously > to <likely >
On page 1121, left column, lines 17-19: change <The district court stayed its decision on class certification pending our ruling on appeal. > to <At the time we reviewed this appeal, the district court had yet to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certifications
With these amendments, Judges Reinhardt and W. Fletcher have voted to deny Plaintiffs-Appellants’ petition for rehearing and Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Rawlinson has voted to deny Plaintiff-Appellants’ petition for rehearing and to grant Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.
A judge of the court called for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. A vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges of the court failed to vote for en banc rehearing. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).
The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed. The mandate shall be issued forthwith.