Hiltibran et al v. Levy et al
||Ronald J Levy and Ian McCaslin
||Steven Hiltibran, Nicholas Tatum, Ronald Coontz and Nena Hammond
||August 23, 2010
||Missouri Western District Court
||Jefferson City Office
||Nanette K. Laughrey
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|June 24, 2011
ORDER by Judge Nanette Laughrey granting 32 motion for summary judgment. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 32] is GRANTED. The Court declares that, notwithstanding Defendants January 14, 2011 Notice Concerning Adult Inco ntinence Briefs, Defendants current policies deeming adult incontinence briefs personal hygiene items for participants over age twenty violates the Medicaid Acts reasonable standards requirement andhome health services requirement, and violates the i ntegration mandate of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Court permanently enjoins Defendants from applying their unlawful policies, and orders Defendants to establish a fair process, in accord with this Order and federal law, whereby all adult Missouri Medicaid recipients can obtain medically necessary incontinence briefs.(Smith, Fran)
|October 20, 2011
ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Hiltibran's Motion for Attorney Fees [Doc. # 47] is GRANTED. The Court awards in favor of Hiltibran and against Levy $174,222 in attorney and paralegal fees, plus $400 in other costs, for a total of $174,622. (Kanies, Renea)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.