Settlement of IHSS Lawsuit will Prevent Devastating
Cuts to CA Home Care Services
Lawyers representing IHSS consumers, unions and the State of California have reached a settlement that will prevent the implementation of devastating cuts to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit, David Oster et al. v. Lightbourne
In the settlement, the State has agreed to repeal and eliminate two major cuts to IHSS: (1) the 20% across-the-board reduction in IHSS hours from 2011, and (2) the termination or reduction in IHSS for many recipients based on their functional index score from 2009.
Instead, the settlement:
- Replaces the permanent 20% cut in IHSS hours with a temporary 8% cut in July 2013. (This is an additional 4.4% on top of the 3.6% current cut.)
- Reduces the cut to 7% (3.4% on top of the 3.6% current cut) in July 2014.
- Restores the hours lost from the 7% cut as early as the spring of 2015 if the State obtains federal approval of a provider fee which could bring significant new federal revenue to California.
- Commits any savings from retroactive federal approval of the new provider fee to fund a program to benefit IHSS recipients, such as the SSI Special Circumstances program, which was used to pay for refrigerators and stoves, rent to avoid eviction and other emergency needs but has not been funded in the budget for many years.
The settlement also clarifies that IHSS consumers have a right to request a reassessment based on a change in circumstances, even if this change is not medical.
IHSS consumers are represented in the case by lead counsel Disability Rights California
, the National Senior Citizens Law Center
, Disability Rights Legal Center
, the National Health Law Program
, and the law firm of Charles Wolfinger. A more detailed press release is available through the link below.
For more information, contact Senior Staff Attorney Anna Rich
Case consultation help for advocates
|Forward this alert to a friend
|NSCLC staff are available to help advocates with answers to questions about program rules and requirements, reviewing and analyzing pleadings, commenting on proposed litigation, assisting in the formulation of strategies, drafting opinion letters and providing memoranda, articles and other written materials.