Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 163.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 461 Words, 2,799 Characters
Page Size: 614.4 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9951/141.pdf

Download Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut ( 163.3 kB)


Preview Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 141 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARY CARR, et czl., ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs, ) 3:00 CV 1050 (AVC)
)
v. )
» )
PATRICIA WILSON-COKER, in her ) CLASS ACTION
official capacity as Commissioner of the State of )
Connecticut Department of Social Services, )
Defendant. )
) FEBRUARY 14, 2006
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT A
On I anuary 31, 2006, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary
judgment in the above-captioned matter, finding that genuine issues of fact exist regarding
plaintiffs’ claims under Count Eight of the Complaint that the defendant violated the Medicaid
Act by failing to ensure that children receive needed dental treatment under the Act’s Early and h
Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) provisions. The plaintiffs now
respectfully request, pursuant to Local Rule 7(c) that the Court reconsider its denial of summary
judgment to the plaintiffs with respect to this count. As set out more fully in the attached
memorandum, the plaintiffs contend that the Court committed clear errors of law in its analysis
regarding the plaintiffs’ EPSDT claim, misconstruing the evidence and legal standard applicable
to denials of EPSDT services. Therefore, the plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
reconsider its grant of summary judgment with regard to the plaintiffs’ EP SDT claims under 42
U.S.C. §§ l396a(a)(43), and l396d(r)(3)(A) and (B), and enter an order granting the plaintiffs’
motion. I
l

I Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 141 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
THE PLAINTIFF S,
MARY CARR, ET AL.
By: K
JAMEY BELL
Fed. Bar N0. CT 520
J`[email protected]
VICTORIA VELTRI
Fed. Bar N0. CT19754 -
[email protected]
GREG BASS
Fed. Bar N0. CT18114
[email protected]
GREATER HARTFORD LEGAL AID
999 Asylum Ave., 3rd Floor
Hartford, CT 06105-2465
I (860) 541-5000
Fax (860) 541-5050
DAHLIA GRACE
Fed. Bar N0. 19551
[email protected]
CONNECTICUT LEGAL SERVICES
211 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
‘ , (203) 336-3851
Fax (203) 333-4976
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Of Counsel:
BE T K. WRUBLE
CT Juris No. 421195
3 16 Westmont
West Hartford, CT 06117
b1 (860)521-3543
Fax (860)521-3560
2

Case 3:00-cv-01050-AVC Document 141 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This hereby certifies that the foregoing plaintiffs’ Motion For Reconsideration was
tk
mailed thisulk day of February, 2006 to counsel of record for the defendant, as follows:
Tanya Feliciano
Hugh Barber
Richard Lynch
Assistant Attorneys General
55 Ehn Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Jamey Bell I k
3