The Department of Human Services hoped to recover more than $28,000 in medical assistance payments made to Pegi Bengston after she suffered serious burns when a can of gasoline exploded in her hands as she attempted to re-ignite a charcoal grill at her father's home. The Bengstons were appealing a judgment of the Le Sueur County district court of February 4, 1993, which held that the medical assistance lien statute does not violate their equal protection under the Minnesota Constitution or the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

At issue was whether the Department correctly applied the utilization methodology, rather than the cost-center methodology requested by the hospitals, in conducting pass-through cost settle-ups of rates paid for certain inpatient hospital admissions under the medical assistance and general assistance medical care programs.

Lawsuit in federal district court by the DAC trade association, DACs, and clients against DHS alleging violations of federal law and the U.S. Constitution in connection with the rate setting process concerning Medicaid.

Concerns whether Hennepin County provided appropriate case management services to Parkhurst, who was a ward of the state from the age of two until well into his thirties (1947 to 1985), and with Hennepin County after that. A deaf man with cerebral palsy who was diagnosed as mentally retarded for almost 40 years, Parkhurst began making progress toward independent living when he was provided with a good instructor in American Sign Language in the early 1980s. The case documents his movement from state institutions to group homes to living on his own.

Documents supplementing the preceding case.

Declaratory judgment actions sought for alleged violation of the Boren Amendment (which concerned Medicaid nursing home rates) and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

Revision of the rule governing administration and provisions for Child Protective Services by Local Social Service agencies, Mn. Rules Part 9543.0100 and Parts 9560.0120 to 9560.0234.

Homer Jarvis was committed to the Minnesota Security Hospital in March 1977 as mentally ill and dangerous after being convicted of killing his sister. During his incarceration Jarvis was involuntarily treated with antipsychotic or neuroleptic drugs on four occasions. Jarvis denied he was ill or required professional help, experienced severe side effects to each drug administered, and doctors doubted significant progress was being made with any of the medications. This case stems from the last episode of his drug therapy, between December 1984 and September 1985, after he had been off neuroleptic drugs for over two years and had experienced no problems. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that such neuroleptic medication was an intrusive medical procedure and that the Minnesota constitution required court approval before such treatment could be administered involuntarily. This was the first decision that recognized that patient’s have the right to refuse drug treatment.

Baby D., an Afro-American girl, born on July 12, 1989, was placed with white foster parents, residing in Tonka Bay, Minnesota, four days after her birth. All parental rights of her natural parents were terminated by the Hennepin County Juvenile Court in August 1990 and shortly thereafter her foster parents started adoption proceedings. Because of inaccurate and misleading information supplied by the mother, authorities did not know the whereabouts of the grandparents nor the grandparents the location of their grand-daughter until this point. The grandparents filed an adoption request (they had legal custody of Baby D.’s sisters). In January 1992, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted custody of Baby D. to her grandparents even though they ruled the Minority Heritage Preservation Act, which emphasized placing children of color with adoptive parents of the same race, unconstitutional since it did not cover all races. The Court also ruled Baby D. would remain with her foster parents until all appeals were heard. In June 1992, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision, and sided with the grandparents, saying the long term benefits of a child being raised by ethnic relatives outweighs the trauma of being removed from foster parents. The foster parents then appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the basis that Minnesota law was unconstitutionally too vague in the definition and application of the terms “race” and “ethnic heritage” in adoption proceedings and thus in violation of the due process provisions of the 14th amendment.