Hinkle v. Baass

Background

Wylene Lena Hinkle, Dennis Gassaway, and the California Council of the Blind sued Michelle Baass, in her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Health Care Services, the California Department of Health Care Services, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and San Diego County. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, California law, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by failing to provide effective communication to blind and visually impaired Medi-Cal consumers. The defendants denied the allegations.

After several years of negotiations, including settlement conferences before a private mediator and Judge Jacqueline Corley, the parties presented a proposed class settlement. The agreement would create system-wide processes for identifying Medi-Cal applicants and beneficiaries who need written materials in alternative formats because of a vision-related disability; sharing that information among the state agency, counties, managed-care plans, contractors, and other partners; sending accessible notices within a reasonable time; informing counties and managed-care plans about their communication obligations; and collecting and reviewing information about compliance.

Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval

The proposed settlement class consisted of individuals in California who are Medi-Cal applicants or beneficiaries and need written Medi-Cal materials in an alternative format because of a vision-related disability. The Court preliminarily found that the class met the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2), which permits a class action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief based on conduct generally applicable to the class. The Court cited data indicating that at least 150,000 people met the class definition.

The Court preliminarily found numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. It found that the named plaintiffs challenged policies and practices allegedly affecting the class as a whole, and that their claims arose from the same alleged failure to provide effective communication. The Court found no apparent conflict between the named plaintiffs and other class members and found that plaintiffs’ counsel had relevant class-action and disability-rights experience.

The Court also preliminarily found that the proposed agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It considered the parties’ representation, the arm’s-length negotiations, the risks and delay of continued litigation, and the relief provided. The agreement would give named and unnamed class members the same injunctive relief and would not release potential claims for monetary damages. Plaintiffs would not receive an incentive payment or a benefit unavailable to other class members. Subject to court approval, defendants agreed to pay $1,550,000 for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, including costs related to monitoring implementation.

Notice and Deadlines

The Court approved the proposed class notice as to form and content. Notice was to be posted on the websites of the California Council of the Blind, the California Department of Health Care Services, Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Disability Rights Advocates. The state agency was also directed to include a short-form notice in its next quarterly mailing to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, no later than February 28, 2025.

The notice was to be available in English, Spanish, and other specified threshold languages. It was also to be available in alternative formats upon request unless the state agency reasonably determined that providing a requested format would be unduly burdensome under the cited regulation. Class members or their legal representatives had to submit objections by April 4, 2025, and timely objectors who stated an intent to be heard could appear at the fairness hearing.

Order

The Court conditionally certified the settlement class and conditionally appointed Hinkle, Gassaway, and the California Council of the Blind as class representatives. It conditionally appointed Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights California, and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as class counsel. The Court granted preliminary approval of the agreement, approved the notice, adopted the proposed distribution plan, and set a fairness hearing for May 9, 2025, to decide whether to grant final approval.

The order required the parties to file a joint motion for final approval by April 25, 2025, and plaintiffs to file their motion for attorneys’ fees and costs by February 28, 2025. If final approval was not granted, the proposed settlement and related evidence and proceedings would be null and void. The Court also temporarily barred settlement class members from asserting claims that the agreement would release until the fairness hearing. This order preliminarily approved the settlement; it did not finally approve it or decide whether the defendants violated the law.