SMRLS Court of Appeals Decision Gives Student Compensatory Tutoring

Laura Isenor, staff attorney with the Education Law Advocacy Project at Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS), logged an important decision for her client at the Minnesota Court of Appeals last month. Isenor filed a special education complaint to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) in August regarding the suspension of a student with an emotional disturbance for which no written notice was given. She secured a favorable decision for the client to receive compensatory education for missed school time because of the school’s actions. The school district then appealed MDEs decision and Isenor represented the client on the appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed and upheld MDE's investigation and complaint decision (Minn. Ct. App. 02/05/24, unpublished) because of the school district's failure to provide written notice of suspensions violated state law. That decision ordered the district to pay for 60 hours of tutoring at a rate of $50 an hour for the student’s missed school time.

In Minnesota procedural safeguards beyond those set forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have been adopted. School districts are required to review these additional requirements with relevant personnel to emphasize the importance of compliance. IDEA requirements do not require suspension notices, but MDE can enforce the state’s law requiring written notice of suspension. Read the full Court of Appeals decision.

MMLA and Standpoint Recognized as 2022 Attorneys of the Year by Minnesota Lawyer

On February 15, 2023, outstanding individuals and teams were honored for their exemplary legal work by Minnesota Lawyer. The annual Attorneys of the Year event recognizes efforts in procuring a successful result in an important case or business transaction, leadership in professional associations, participating in newsworthy events in the legal community, performing significant public services or excellence in providing in-house legal services.

The 2022 Attorneys of the Year Awards were presented at an in-person celebration held at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Minneapolis.

Among the legal teams recognized as Attorneys of the Year were Justin Perl, Steve Schmidt, Justin Page and Eren Sutherland of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid; along with Peter J. McElligott and Steven M. Pincus of Anthony Ostlund Louwagie Dressen & Boylan PA; and Laura Farley of Nichols Kaster, PLLP for their work on Murphy et al. v. Harpstead, 16-cv-2623 (DWF/BRT).

After almost 6 years of litigation, the team reached a settlement agreement in the federal class action lawsuit, which requires DHS to take a variety of specific steps to improve access and opportunities for people with disabilities who want to live in their own homes or apartments. Read Settlement Reached in Disability Rights Class Action Lawsuit for more about the case.

Rana Alexander of StandPoint, and Katie Barrett Wiik of Saul Ewing LLP, were honored for their work on In re Hope Coalition before the Minnesota Supreme Court. In the appeal, the high Court ruled that communications between sexual assault counselors and their clients are protected by state law. The ruling is a major victory for advocacy groups in Minnesota, reversing a district court decision that allowed a court review of a victim’s private communications with a sexual assault advocacy counselor in a criminal case. Read Standpoint Wins Minnesota Supreme Court Appeal to Protect Victims' Privacy for more about the case.

SMRLS Receives Favorable SCOTUS Decision on Religious Liberty Rights Case

On July 2, 2021, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) received a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in its case Mast v. County of Fillmore. The Court remanded the case of the Swartzentruber Amish community of Fillmore County to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In the decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that “in this country, neither the Amish nor anyone else should have to choose between their farms and their faith.”

Asserting his clients’ rights to religious freedom, Brian Lipford, senior leadership attorney for SMRLS’ Southeast Region in Rochester, represented the Swartzentruber Amish and saw the case through to the United States Supreme Court.

In its SCOTUS petition, the plaintiffs asked the Court to consider two questions under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: does the government have a compelling interest in regulating the disposal of “gray water,” and, is a septic system the least restrictive method when 20 states allow mulch basin systems?

“This rejection of modern technology is critical to their way of life; if they are forced to choose between their beliefs and the farms that provide their livelihood, they will choose their beliefs,” the petition states. “That is the choice the government is forcing upon them.”

Also supporting the case was The Yale Law School’s Free Exercise Clinic, which co-authored an amici curiae brief in support of Amish plaintiffs’ challenge. “I believe the Yale clinic’s amicus brief played a vital role in highlighting the lower court’s flawed analysis and ultimately my clients’ getting relief at the U.S. Supreme Court level,” Lipford said.

MMLA Appeal Ensures Human Services Judge Must Consider All Relevant Evidence

Earlier this year, the Wright County District Court reversed a 2019 decision by the commissioner of Human Services which denied Medical Assistance to a client of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid – St. Cloud. The issue was whether the Human Services Judge should have considered all relevant evidence submitted at the hearing, not just the evidence that was submitted to the county agency. This is a routine practice not typically challenged, but with adverse consequences for many clients.

The client was represented on appeal by Karla Krueger, supervising attorney at MMLA, St. Cloud, who argued that the Human Services Judge has a duty to consider all of the evidence submitted. The Judge of District Court agreed, finding that the county “fails to recognize that by the human services judge failing to adhere to the relevant part of a statute regarding its duties to consider all relevant evidence, appellant was not afforded the rights to a meaningful hearing.” The judge further stated “Appellant’s procedural due process rights were violated and she shall be afforded the right to a meaningful hearing which considers all relevant evidence, not just evidence timely submitted to the agency.”

The decision was issued last March, but the case was remanded to the Human Services Judge, who then remanded it to the County Agency, hence approval of the client's eligibility for Medical Assistance was only recently received. For a copy of the decision or questions about this case, contact Krueger at kkrueger@mylegalaid.org.

Changes Coming to DHS Appeals System

Did you know that over 15,000 appeals are processed by the DHS Appeals Division every year? This fall, a new Enterprise Appeals Solution (EAS) system will allow agency representatives and appellants to access their appeals information and documents online. Parties will also be able to make requests, submit documents, and receive notices, decisions, and other correspondence electronically. The new system will eliminate the need for multiple databases for tracking appeals, as well as eliminate the dependency on a manual paper-based process.

Since June 2017, the EAS project team has been planning, designing, building and testing the new system. With the help of state and county partners, User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is currently in progress.  UAT is one of the last testing phases for the software, to ensure the system works well in real world scenarios. The new appeals system is an integral part of the process to modernize IT throughout the State of Minnesota.

The new Enterprise Appeals Solution (EAS) will assist thousands of state, county and tribal staff with their appeals work.  Those using EAS will include:

• Financial Workers
• Health Care Staff
• Social Workers
• Attorneys
• Appeals Representatives
• Managed Care Organizations

EAS will be used for all types of appeals including:

• Cash and Food Assistance
• Health Care Issues (eligibility, claims, prior authorization, PCA and MNChoices assessments)
• Maltreatments
• Disqualifications
• Fraud Determinations
• Social Services

The EAS will only be used for appeals heard by the Appeals Division of DHS.  The EAS will not be used for appeals under the authority of other agencies, such as the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), or under the jurisdiction of another venue, such as district court. The Appeals Division and a subset of county and state agency users will begin piloting the system in September. Stay tuned for more information about upcoming training sessions, and when all users will begin using EAS.