Taylor v. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing

Summary

The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act arising from Colorado's refusal to compensate attendants for driving a Medicaid recipient to medical appointments. The court held that the agency did not discriminate based on disability because the same benefits were provided to similarly situated Medicaid recipients, and the requested accommodation would have created a benefit unavailable to anyone. The court also affirmed denial of the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Holdings

1. Colorado's decision not to pay attendants for driving Taylor did not constitute disability discrimination because the agency provided the same Medicaid benefits to all similarly situated recipients, disabled or not.
2. The per-mile reimbursement was not discriminatory merely because it failed to fully compensate Taylor's transportation costs.
3. Taylor was properly compared with Medicaid recipients residing in her county, and the claim failed because no one in that county could obtain compensation for a driver under the transportation program.
4. Colorado was not required to modify its Medicaid programs to create a new transportation benefit unavailable to anyone, because Taylor could otherwise receive the same benefits made available to nondisabled individuals.
5. The district court acted within its discretion in denying reconsideration because the submitted fee schedule would not have changed the basis for dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Colorado's refusal to compensate Taylor's attendants for driving her to medical appointments constituted disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether the per-mile transportation reimbursement was discriminatory because it did not fully compensate Taylor's transportation costs.
3. Whether Colorado discriminated by failing to provide Taylor with a compensated driver when some Medicaid recipients elsewhere in Colorado received transportation services involving drivers.
4. Whether 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) required Colorado to modify its Medicaid programs to create a benefit paying Taylor's attendants for driving.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

affirmed