Ruling could stop cuts in elderly, disabled care

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 12/20/11 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

[SmithL]

States can't cut in-home care for elderly and disabled people if there's a serious risk they'll be forced into nursing homes, a federal appeals court has ruled in a decision that could forestall a 20 percent reduction in services to 372,000 Californians.

Friday's ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco did not directly involve California and came instead from Washington state, where officials reduced home-care hours for 45,000 residents by 10 percent in February.

But the issues are similar to those now before a federal judge in Oakland, who has scheduled a Jan. 19 hearing on whether to let California eliminate one-fifth of the care it provides in the in-home supportive services program.

The program serves low-income residents who need help with daily tasks, like dressing, bathing and preparing meals. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken issued a restraining order Dec. 1 that blocked the scheduled Jan. 1 implementation date, and said there are "serious questions" about whether the cutback would violate federal disability law.

A lawyer for care recipients in both states said the appeals court ruling, which is binding on federal judges in California, increases the likelihood of stopping the 20 percent rollback.

[SmithL]

Wilken, Claudia Ann

Born 1949 in Minneapolis, MN

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 7, 1993, to a new seat authorized by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 1993, and received commission on November 22, 1993.

U.S. Magistrate, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 1983-1993

Education:
Stanford University, B.A., 1971
University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D., 1975

Professional Career:
Staff attorney, Federal Public Defender's Office, Northern District of California, 1975-1978
Private practice, Berkeley, California, 1978-1984
Adjunct professor, University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1978-1984
Professor, New College School of Law, 1980-1985

[SmithL]

The law does not require proof of immediate impact but only a showing of a "serious risk of institutionalization," Judge William Fletcher said in the majority opinion, citing arguments submitted by the Obama administration's Justice Department.

Fletcher, William A.

Born 1945 in Philadelphia, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 7, 1997, to a seat vacated by William Albert Norris; Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1998, and received commission on October 9, 1998.

Education:
Harvard College, B.A., 1968
Oxford University, B.A., 1970
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Professional Career:
U.S. Navy Lieutenant, 1970-1972
Law clerk, Hon. Stanley A. Weigel, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1975-1976
Law clerk, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Supreme Court of the United States, 1976-1977
Professor of law, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1977-1998

[blueunicorn6]

Yeah, but they’re smarter than the rest of the world combined. Judicial arrogance.

[goat granny]

Any lefty headline that contains the words....could....may..or might....its garbage...if they use the words ....has.....that means it might be factual.

[chris_bdba]

So are the judges going to make up the difference that the state can’t pay?

[VeniVidiVici]

How in the hell does this become a federal issue?

[W. W. SMITH]

Came in as an (03) LT and then served only two years? Could an officer recruiter from the late sixties enlighten me here please. Only two years does not sound right, was he kicked out? Of course having attended both Harvard and Yale might be an indication that his education was not good enough to be a commissioned officer in the Navy.

[cherry]

people think everything is free.....even the elderly and disabled and their families need to face the facts...

the facts are that it USED TO BE that disabled and elderly lived with relatives who took care of them...fed them, washed them, etc....

now we have this huge govt monstrosity thinking it can make up that care by paying out billions and suddenly , the billions aren't there....

we'd better get back to the old days folks...blood is thicker than water....its going to be that WE take care of our families,in sickness and in health....not the govt...the govt couldn't care for a gerbil properly....