Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I , I ase 3:00-cv-O1050—AVC Document 151 Filed O4/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
I if I
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT II Ii?
I ‘ FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT " I ` ’ I
I
I NCI Ilj.3 —;2 I ‘.’. > I: I) ,. I
I ` MARY CARR, et al., ) CIVIL ACTION NO. I
I Plaintiffs, ) 3:00 CV 1050 (AVC)/@4
I I I I I
V- ) I
) .
PATRICIA WlLSON—COKER, in her ) CLASS ACTION
official capacity as Commissioner of the State of ) I
Connecticut Department of Social Services, )
Defendant. ) I
) FEBRUARY 2, 2006
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 19, 2006, the Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in
I
the above-captioned matter, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendant violated the I
Medicaid Act by failing to ensure an adequate access to dental care for recipients in her HUSKY I
A program} The plaintiffs now respectfully request that the Court reconsider its grant of
_ I
3:OOCVlO50(AVC) April A/5 , 2006.
On January 19, 2006, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary
judgement with respect to the plaintiff's "reasonable promptness" claim based on
42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a) (8). At issue was the meaning of the term "medical I
assistance” as used in l396a(a) (B) . The court concluded that "the term ‘medical I
assistance’ in 42 U.S.C. § l396a(a) (8) is synonymous with ‘financial
assistance' .” The plaintiff has now filed a motion to reconsider arguing that I
the court made “a clear error of law" with respect to its interpretation of the
term. I
In its January 19 opinion, the court applied the meaning of the term
“medical assistance” that is provided in the definitional section governing the
relevant part of the Medicaid statute. Although, as the court acknowledged, a
number of courts have interpreted the term differently, many courts have come to
. the same conclusion.
Generally, reconsideration will only be granted when a party can point to
I “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Vir in Atl.
Airwa s Ltd. v. rNat'l‘ Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(citations omitted)., ,_Iiav_ing_reconsidered the grounds for its interpretation of
the term "medical’ assistance” in light of the arguments presented in the
plaintiff's memorandum, Ithetgcourt does not agree that it made a clear error of
law. Therefore,“wlhi·le"‘tHe"mdtion to reconsider is GRANTED, the court AFFIRMS its
January 19, 2006, decision to grant the motion for summary judgment. I
SO ORDERED. ;,f T T,* I
, '.__;;. ;,; ,..1
I
Alfred . Covello, U.S.D.J. I
______,|
_ __ Kr mkr _·_ FI FF _`_ _"`"`""`T
»: gg e5-. 5..--;.-.; ..-. -. ., .
‘`I` ff S- -
J 7 a it s ‘- L = A ·- - V - YF __ 7}- Wir __ __ Wir 7 Wir-- @*7--_