 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
King v. Secretary9/16/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Mellissa King, by her next friend Patricia Jacob, appeals the trial court's dismissal of her complaint for injunction and petition for review of agency action. King raises a number of constitutional issues, which we consolidate and restate as a single issue: did the trial court properly dismiss her complaint for injunction and petition for review of agency action, which alleged violation of certain federal rights, because she had not met state administrative agency filing deadlines?
We reverse the trial court's dismissal of her complaint and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
King has severe mental and physical disabilities as a result of a childhood illness. Because of these disabilities, King qualified as a Medicaid recipient. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments and, in Indiana, is administered by the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) and its Division of Family and Children. The federal Medicaid act and various implementing regulations permit states to provide nursing and home health care services to individuals for whom such care is less expensive than institutionalization. In Indiana, FSSA has contracted with Health Care Excel to perform certain administrative functions connected with the Medicaid home health care program.
In 1998, King was receiving eight hours of home health care service each day. She made a request for an increase to ten hours of home health care per day. On September 17, 1999, Health Care Excel issued a notice that King would be entitled to only six hours of home health aid services each day.
On November 23, 1999, Jacob's attorney sent a letter to the FSSA Office of Hearings and Appeals, requesting a delayed appeal of this matter. On November 27, 1999, King's mother and guardian, Patricia Jacob, filed a letter requesting agency review of this decision. Jacob's letter indicated she was delayed in filing an appeal because the burdens of caring for her daughter had distracted her.
On March 31, 2000, the agency's administrative law judge dismissed King's appeal on the ground that it had not been timely filed. After an internal agency appeal of the administrative law judge's decision, the agency issued an affirmance of the Order of Dismissal on July 17, 2000, that stated:
A person who is not satisfied with this final Agency action may seek judicial review in accordance with Indiana Code 4- 21.5-5-5. Judicial review is initiated by filing a petition for review in a court within thirty-three (33) days of the mailing date of this notice. (App. at 22.)
King filed in Noble Superior Court a verified complaint for injunction and declaratory judgment and a verified petition for review of agency action on August 17, 2000. She named as defendants the FSSA and its secretary, the Noble County office of the FSSA, and Health Care Excel. Her complaint included claims based on due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 12, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the administrative appeal from the original September 17, 1999 decision had not been requested within thirty days of the action. On December 3, 2001, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order of dismissal.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
When reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss, all facts in the plaintiff's complaint must be taken as true, and every reasonable in
Page 1 2 3 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|