Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alice Leitter, Christopher Boyle, Doris anderson v. Richard Armstrong

March 31, 2011

ALICE LEITTER, CHRISTOPHER BOYLE, DORIS ANDERSON,
RUSSELL ANDERSON, NOREEN DAINES, AND ELLEN BROWER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge

ORDER APPROVING AGREED PLAN AND LIFTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Agreement Concerning Proposed Plan for Lifting Temporary Restraining Order and Continuing Objection of Plaintiffs (Dkt. 30). The Court previously ordered that Defendant had correctly identified a group of 255 individuals affected by the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Order on Motion to Lift TRO, Dkt. 29. However, the Court denied the motion to lift the TRO, and required the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) to propose a procedure by which to provide notice to the remaining 125 affected individuals, of the rule change at issue in this case.

The parties now present a procedure that they stipulate is in keeping with the Court's Order (Dkt. 29). Plaintiff maintains that the proposed notice procedure does not satisfy due process, Notice (Dkt. 30 at 4), but agrees that the procedure appears to meet the conditions established by this Court.

The stipulated proposed procedure is as follows:

A. The Department will conduct the interviews by telephone.

B. Each telephone interview would be conducted by a Department employee with the individual residing in the CFH.

C. The CFH provider would be present during the interview as well.

D. At each interview, the Department employee will perform the following:

1. Explain the rule change to eligibility that took effect as of July 1,

2010.

2. Explain that the district court suspended the rule by virtue of the TRO.

3. Explain that the effect of the court's ruling was to temporarily reinstate benefits.

4. Explain that the court has lifted its order and that AABD Cash benefits will be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.