Case Name: Day v. District of Columbia (now known as Thorpe v. District of Columbia) Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C. Docket: 1:10-cv-02250-ESH Read Summary Case Issue: Is D.C. violating the ADA by failing to make available services and support in appropriate, integrated community settings to disabled persons residing in Medicaid-funded nursing facilities, which thereby results in unnecessary institutionalization? |
Case Name: Dickerson v. Longoria Court: Md. Ct. App. Docket: 110-2009 Term Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Court found that arbitration provisions could not be enforced against estate of nursing facility resident because the relative who had signed agreement lacked authority to bind the resident. |
Case Name: Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 10-767 Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: The court vacated lower court's ruling that the practice of segregating people with mental illness constituted discrimination because plaintiff's organization did not have standing. |
Case Name: Douglas v. Independent Living Center of S. Cal. Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 09-958, 09-1158, 10-283 Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: Court remanded case for further review after CMS approved non-retroactive Medicaid provider rate reductions. |
Case Name: Emke v. C.J. Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir. Docket: 10-6005 Case Reult: Case remanded to District Court to review motion to vacate attorney fee award. |
Case Name: Emke v. C.J. (previously Grier v. Goetz) Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. MD Tenn. Read Summary Case Issue: Do changed circumstances (i.e. primary budget issues) warrant revisions to a consent decree governing the TennCare program? Are Plaintiffs entitled to a fee award for their activities in defending the consent decree? |
Case Name: FTC v. Watson Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 12-416 Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Issue: Do "reverse payments," where brand drug makers in patent challenge settlements pay generic manufacturers to stay out of the market for a fixed period of time, violate the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Securities Act of 1933? |
Case Name: Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. Court: Cal. Supreme Ct. Docket: S179115 Read Summary AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Case Result: An injured person may only recover in damages the amounts her insurer paid for her medical care. |
Some of the content presented here is in Adobe PDF format. You will need the free Acrobat Reader to access these files.
Topic Alerts
You can get weekly email alerts on the topics below. Just click “Follow.”
Manage AlertsProcessing
Please wait...
