Fishman et al v. Daines, M.D. et al
| 2:2009cv05248 |
| December 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Civil Rights: Welfare Office |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| Arlene R. Lindsay |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
162
ORDER granting 149 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. It is hereby ordered that defendants are permanently enjoined from dismissing adminis trative appeals of defaulting Medicaid appellants who are not given at least ten (10) days to respond to a written notice from defendants inquiring as to whether they would like their hearings rescheduled. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/29/2017. (Zbrozek, Alex)
|
|
Filing
144
ORDER granting 139 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted because plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits. Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from d ismissing administrative appeals of defaulting Medicaid applicants who are not given at least 10 days to respond to a written notice from defendants inquiring whether they would like their hearings rescheduled. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/4/2016. (Dolecki, Lauren)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER denying 106 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 109 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 116 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 130 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. For the reasons explained herein, IT IS HER EBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied because plaintiffs have failed to make a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. Based upon the current record, the Court concludes that defendants&# 039; method of notice, which already involves the mailing of three separate letters, is reasonably calculated to comply with due process. Moreover, a recent regulatory change extends the time for defaulting claimants to reschedule their fair hearing s and have benefits restored both retrospectively and prospectively. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs have not made a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/16/2014. (Lamb, Conor)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Dismiss. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court grants the motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part. Specifically, the mo tion to dismiss is granted with respect to plaintiffs' claims under (1) New York state law and (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(1). The motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 10/15/2010. (Quigley, Brendan)
|
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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Fishman et al v. Daines, M.D. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
