Hinkle v. Baass
Wylene Lena Hinkle and Dennis Gassaway, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and The California Council of the Blind v. Michelle Baass, in her capacity as Director of California Department of Health Care Services; California Department of Health Care Services; Contra Costa County; County of Alameda; County of San Diego
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:18-cv-06430
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In Hinkle v. Baass, Judge Chesney certified a settlement class, approved the Medi-Cal communication settlement, and granted $1.55 million in fees and costs.
The settlement class of California Medi-Cal applicants and beneficiaries who need written Medi-Cal materials in an alternative format because of a vision-related disability; plaintiffs’ counsel will receive $1,550,000 in fees and costs.
What happened
In Wylene Lena Hinkle and Dennis Gassaway v. Michelle Baass, the plaintiffs alleged that California health-care officials and counties failed to provide effective communication to blind and visually impaired Medi-Cal consumers. The parties negotiated a settlement requiring system-wide procedures for identifying requests for alternative formats, sharing that information, sending accessible notices, and monitoring compliance.
The court found that notice reached the settlement class and that the class met the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The settlement class covers California Medi-Cal applicants and beneficiaries who need written Medi-Cal materials in an alternative format because of a vision-related disability. The court also found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, and overruled objections.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney certified the settlement class, appointed the named plaintiffs as class representatives and three organizations as class counsel, and granted the parties’ motion for final approval of the settlement. She also granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs’ counsel $1,550,000 within 60 days, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
The detailed version
- Hinkle v. Baass · No. 3:18-cv-06430
- Maxine Chesney
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated federal and state laws by failing to provide effective communication to blind and visually impaired Medi-Cal consumers. After several years of negotiations, the parties presented a proposed class settlement.
The agreement establishes system-wide processes to identify Medi-Cal applicants and beneficiaries who request written materials in an alternative format, maintain that information in a centralized database, share it among the California Department of Health Care Services, counties, managed-care plans, and other providers, send timely notices in the requested format, provide guidance about communication obligations, and monitor whether effective communication is being provided.
Class Notice and Certification
The court found that notice was adequately provided. Class counsel and the California Council of the Blind maintained settlement websites, the California Department of Health Care Services posted notice on its website, and the department mailed a short-form notice in English and Spanish to households receiving Medi-Cal services.
The court certified the settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The class consists of individuals in California who are Medi-Cal applicants or beneficiaries and who need written Medi-Cal materials in an alternative format because of a vision-related disability.
The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, noting data indicating that at least 44,700 individuals met the class definition. It also found common questions because the plaintiffs challenged policies and practices allegedly affecting the class as a whole; found the named plaintiffs’ claims typical of the class; and found that the plaintiffs and their counsel adequately represented the class. The court appointed Wylene Lena Hinkle, Dennis Gassaway, and the California Council of the Blind as settlement-class representatives, and appointed Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights California, and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as class counsel.
Settlement Approval
The court found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23. It found that the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length over more than five years, including settlement conferences with a private mediator and Judge Jacqueline Corley, settlement meetings, and written proposals. The court also found that the agreement addressed the issues underlying the lawsuit by providing for alternative-format materials and new systems for identifying requests, sharing information, sending notices, guiding counties and managed-care plans, and monitoring compliance.
The agreement provides the same injunctive relief to all settlement-class members and does not release potential claims for monetary damages. The named plaintiffs would not receive an incentive payment or benefits unavailable to other class members. The court found that settlement-class members would be treated equitably. It overruled objections, finding that they were either not substantive, insufficiently specific, or unfounded.
Order
Judge Maxine M. Chesney certified the settlement class, appointed the settlement-class representatives and class counsel, and granted the parties’ joint motion for final approval of the agreement. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and directed defendants to pay plaintiffs’ counsel $1,550,000 within 60 days of the order. The court retained jurisdiction during the agreement’s term to enforce it.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.