Edward Withrow Janelle Roberts v. Kevin Concannon Freddye Webb-Petett

942 F.2d 1385 60 USLW 2172 , Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 39,545 Edward WITHROW; Janelle Roberts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kevin CONCANNON; Freddye Webb-Petett, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-35145. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 11, 1990. Decided Aug. 19, 1991. Kathleen G. Dolan, Lane County Legal Aid Service, Inc., Eugene, Oregon, for plaintiffs-appellants. Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges. CANBY, Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiffs, who are applicants for or recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, or Medicaid, brought this class action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Kevin Concannon as Director, Oregon Department of Human Resources' and Freddye Webb-Petett 1 as Administrator of the Department's Adult and Family Services Division. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction compelling the defendants to hold hearings and issue administrative decisions under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children…

Plaintiffs, who are applicants for or recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, or Medicaid, brought this class action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Kevin Concannon as Director, Oregon Department of Human Resources’ and Freddye Webb-Petett 1 as Administrator of the Department’s Adult and Family Services Division. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction compelling the defendants to hold hearings and issue administrative decisions under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs within federally prescribed time limits. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ failure to issue timely decisions violated federal statutes, implementing regulations and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Both sides moved for summary judgment. Holding that the defendants had substantially complied with the regulations, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We reverse that decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Discussion

We review de novo the district court’s judgment dismissing this ease on…

dissenting:

Today, the majority hangs the specter of an injunction over the heads of state officials responsible for administering large bureaucracies and tells those officials (1) they may be held in contempt of court if they fail to comply with the administrative demands of their missions “as strictly as humanly possible,” and (2) administrative failures will be tolerated only if they are “truly inevitable.” This is not an insignificant ruling. If this nearly impossible standard of overall performance had been mandated by Congress I should not dissent, for the resolution of such issues is for the legislative branch of government. But as I read the law, Congress did not have this sisyphean standard in mind when it launched these programs. I respectfully disagree with Judge Canby’s analysis, and I do so because I am persuaded that the reasoning advanced by the Third Circuit in Shands v. Tull, 602 F.2d 1156, 1160-61 (3rd Cir.1979) is sound.

*1390 Our task in this case is to discover the intent of Congress with respect to the degree of overall compliance required of a state participating in the three programs in question. To accomplish this, we look to the relevant law, but when…