IBJNews

Indiana agency sued over cuts to program for disabled

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal lawsuit says Indiana's social services agency has made changes to Medicaid waiver programs that threaten to deprive thousands of developmentally disabled people of income they need to survive outside of institutions.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration on behalf of 27-year-old Karla Steimel in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. The ACLU is asking for class-action status.

Steimel, who has cerebral palsy and requires assistance with daily tasks such as bathing and eating, works at an office but depends on state assistance to live outside of an institution, the lawsuit says. FSSA recently changed the criteria for one program to require applicants to need skilled nursing care such as ventilation or help taking medication. Steimel had been on the waiting list for another program for 15 years when the FSSA eliminated the waiting list and said only certain "priority" applicants would be accepted, court documents say.

"The bottom line is the state operates two significant waiver programs. And for various reasons, she's been told she can't reenroll in either one," ACLU attorney Gavin Rose said.

The state has offered Steimel, who lives in southwest Indiana's Knox County, the option of signing up for a third program, but without the others her income would be greatly reduced, the lawsuit filed Friday contends.

FSSA spokeswoman Marni Lemons said Monday that the agency hadn't received a copy of the lawsuit and couldn't comment.

For the first time in her life, the lawsuit says, Steimel faces the prospect of being forced into an institution.

The ACLU suit contends that the FSSA's new policies violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and asks a judge to order the agency to reinstate former requirements.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Deception
    As usual fraud and deception is all that can be expected with this state run agency. I only wish the federal government knew the truth about this state run agency It would be great if it did go class action, there would be thousands and this is why the judge would prob deny it. Hope she wins her case:))
  • Missing the point as usual
    Shouldn't the goal here be that this woman be able to live independently?? As usual, the state will let the lazy freeload off the system, but someone makes an effort and no help is available. Makes no sense. FSSA is run by a bunch of bureaucrats with no common sense and no compassion.
  • 47%
    Damn TAKERS!!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT