Hermes' Admr. v. Hatfield Coal Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Rule 23(b)(2) was satisfied because the only remedy for EPSDT violations was statewide implementation of services
• holding that commonality was met because the class consisted of children that the state had determined were eligible for services, so individualized determinations for each class member were not required
• holding that typicality was satisfied because named plaintiffs all had mental- or behavioral-health disorders and alleged “common question [of] whether the state is providing required [HCBS] services” that “are ‘medically necessary’”
• certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class where injunctive or declaratory relief could be fashioned “in the form of requiring modifications to the allegedly unlawful policies at issue”
• rejecting defendant’s argument that “highly individualized determinations” of medical necessity defeated certification of an injunction class to pursue claims that the State failed to provide prescribed mental health interventions required the EPSDT mandate
• “By their very nature [] policy changes [related to the integration mandate] are generally applicable, and therefore would benefit all class members.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).