1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 74 F.3d
  5. 74 F.3d 406 (1996)
 

GRANATO v. BANE

Nos. 1836, 2385, Dockets 94-7173, 95-7463.

74 F.3d 406 (1996)

Ruth A. GRANATO, Individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Jo BANE, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services; Donald W. Yager, Jr., as Acting Commissioner of the Cortland County Department of Social Services, and Cortland County, New York, Defendants-Appellees. Emma McCOY; Alicia Hadad, by her legal guardian and mother, Florence Ciccarelli, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Karen SCHIMKE, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services; Mary Jo Bane, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided January 22, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Valerie J. Bogart, New York City (Jonathan A. Weiss, Legal Services For The Elderly, New York City, Ellen Yacknin, Greater Upstate Law Project, Rochester, NY, James Murphy, Legal Services of Central NY, Inc., Cortland, NY, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant in No. 94-7173.

Victor Paladino, Assistant Attorney General, Albany, NY (Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of the State of New York, Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General, Peter G. Crary, Assistant Attorney General, Albany, NY, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Mary Jo Bane in No. 94-7173.

Gregory A. Gates, Binghamton, NY (Hickey, Sheehan & Gates, Binghamton, NY, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Cortland County, New York in No. 94-7173.

James M. Morrissey, Buffalo, NY (Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc., Buffalo, NY, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants in No. 95-7463.

Before: MINER, WALKER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge:

The issue in this consolidated appeal is whether New York State's termination of Medicaid home care services upon a recipient's admission to a hospital constitutes an "action" under 42 C.F.R. § 431.201 (1994), thereby triggering the recipient's right to notice, a hearing, and the continuation of home care services pending that hearing. Because we hold that the termination of a recipient's benefits under such circumstances is such an "action...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases