Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities and Medicaid recipients who receive Home and Community Based Disability Waiver services under the direction of the Acting Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. They live in Community Residential Setting facilities, also described as corporate adult foster care, and seek access to individualized housing services so they can pursue more integrated housing options. They allege that their current living arrangements isolate and segregate them in violation of federal law and seek declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the administration of the Disability Waiver programs.

The opinion addressed two motions to exclude expert testimony. The plaintiffs moved to exclude John Patterson, whose opinions concerned the availability and affordability of housing in Minnesota. The defendant moved to exclude the opinions, reports, and testimony of plaintiffs’ experts David Michael Mank and Dennis F. Price.

Legal Standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Under those standards, expert testimony must be relevant and reliable and must help the factfinder understand evidence or decide a disputed fact. The court also explained that challenges to the factual basis of an expert’s opinion generally affect the testimony’s credibility and weight, rather than its admissibility, unless the opinion is so unsupported that it cannot assist the factfinder.

Patterson’s Testimony

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Patterson’s opinions. It concluded that testimony about the availability of affordable housing would not assist the factfinder in deciding the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed to provide waiver services allowing class members to live in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; they did not seek an order requiring the defendant to provide housing.

The court found that even if a shortage of affordable housing prevented some individuals from moving, that issue did not determine whether the defendant’s waiver system prevented people from living in integrated settings or affect the requested relief. The court also noted that Patterson’s report did not analyze barriers that people with disabilities face in finding housing. Because the testimony did not relate to an issue in the case, the court excluded it as irrelevant. The court did not decide whether the testimony concerned matters within common knowledge.

Mank’s Testimony

The court denied the defendant’s motion as to Dr. Mank. Mank offered opinions about meaningful choice and community participation in integrated settings, the relative characteristics of corporate foster care facilities and individualized housing options, and the ways those settings may affect choice and community engagement.

The court found Mank qualified based on more than 40 years of experience in disability services, including direct support, research, education, integration, and inclusion of people with disabilities. It rejected the argument that he needed to administer a statewide waiver system, provide direct care to a waiver recipient, or have experience with the relevant settings outside this case.

The court also found Mank’s opinions helpful and reliable. His qualitative study drew on interviews, observations, national and state data, professional experience, and review of nearly 100 documents. The court concluded that his sampling methods and disputed data created issues for cross-examination and credibility, not grounds for excluding his testimony.

Price’s Testimony

The court denied the defendant’s motion as to Price. Price offered opinions about whether Minnesota’s Olmstead Plan and Department of Human Services policies provided adequate choice and opportunity for people in corporate foster care facilities to move to individualized housing options. He also addressed whether the plaintiffs’ requested relief would be reasonable and whether it would fundamentally alter the Disability Waiver system.

The court found Price qualified based on more than 40 years of professional experience in disability services in Minnesota, including supervision of a county waiver program and participation in groups that monitored and improved community-based services. The court concluded that his opinions could help it evaluate the issues even though he did not provide a formal cost opinion. The court further found that his opinions were based on multiple sources, including personal knowledge, professional judgment, expertise, interviews, and hundreds of documents. Challenges to his data and analysis could be addressed through cross-examination or competing expert evidence.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of John Patterson. It denied the defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Testimony, Reports, and Opinions. The order therefore excluded Patterson’s testimony while allowing the opinions of Mank and Price to be presented.