Parties Propose Revised Ball v. DeWine Settlement Terms to Address Guardian Intervenor Concerns

Today, plaintiffs and state and county defendants in the Ball v. DeWine lawsuit filed a revised version of the case's proposed settlement agreement to address the concerns of guardian intervenors raised at a fairness hearing last month.

All parties in the suit initially agreed to a tentative settlement agreement in October. At a mandatory settlement fairness hearing on December 17, however, a number of guardians of ICF residents raised objections to the agreement, claiming the tentative settlement language did not do enough to protect ICFs and their residents.

In a good-faith effort to assuage guardian intervenor concerns and avoid a civil trial, plaintiffs (DRO et al) and state and county defendants (DODD and OACB) have jointly agreed to several changes. The new proposed settlement language does the following:

• Affirms that the settlement agreement is not intended to force or direct ICF residents to leave ICFs or otherwise remove ICFs as an option;
• States that the agreement does not require people with developmental disabilities to accept a waiver as an alternative to ICF-based supports; and
• Commits DODD to preserving the current ICF reimbursement rate through the fiscal biennium and states that the department will make all feasible efforts to maintain that rate through the end of FY2023.

Read the Revised Proposed Settlement Language

At the December fairness hearing, Judge Edmund Sargus of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio accepted hours of in-person testimony from guardians of ICF residents. He then asked plaintiffs and state and county defendants to consider the guardians’ requests, which included 1) state commitments to ICFs and ICF choice in the settlement language, and 2) the inclusion of a legal enforcement provision that would give the guardians oversight of the settlement's implementation by allowing them to bring additional complaints related to the settlement before the court.

Plaintiffs and state and county defendants have expressed their concern that the scope of such a mechanism would be overly broad as well as their belief that the additional commitments made in the revised settlement proposal directly address the guardian intervenors' concerns. Therefore, the requested enforcement provision has not been included in the revised settlement language.

The judge can now choose to accept the revised settlement or ask parties to renegotiate its terms. If the judge does not accept the revised settlement and an agreement with the guardian intervenors cannot be reached, the case could then proceed to trial.

Read the Full Ball v. DeWine Timeline

OACB will continue to update members in future editions of the PolicyBrief. Members with questions about Ball v. DeWine can send an email to drolegal@oacbdd.org.