Laserfiche WebLink
! <br /> <br /> TO: Mike Ruffin , <br /> <br /> r~O~: s°ciai Se '~fe~Tect°r <br /> SUBJECT: Alexander vs. Flaherty <br /> <br /> I am ~itin§ zo confirm arrangements ue have mede for a presentation to the <br />Board of Commissioners on May 6 regardinE the Alexander vs. Flaherty !ay suit and to <br />provide some related information. <br /> <br /> We are seriously concerned about the present situation and feel the need to talk <br />~th the Board about the impacts ~e are currently experiencing and could face in <br />future here in Cabarrus County. <br /> <br /> The memorandum from Patrice Eoesler of the Association of County Commissioners <br />~o County MaDaEers ant Board Chai~en ~a~ed March I~, 1991 provides au excellent <br />ove~iev of recent events and technical aspects of c~rren: issues. ~o~ever, it <br />helpful here ~o provide s~e additional background info~a~ion before ~iscuss!~g the <br />curran~ si~ua~ion and our concerns for Cebarrus County. <br /> <br />Nis~ozical Backizound <br /> Alexander v. Flaher~y (oziEi~al!y Alexander v. ~ill) is a long-s~an4inE case <br />was originally filed in Federal District Court by Legal Se~'ices of Southern <br />~ 1975. ~e federal class action ~as filed aiafns~ Renee P. Hil~, zhen dfrecZor of <br />%he Division of Social $e~ices, and o%her ~amed defendants, i~clmdiu~ Meckleubur~ <br />County Departmen~ of Social Se~ices ~ue ~o the failure by county departments of <br />social so.ices to pxocess Aid to Families wi~h Dependent ~ildzen (~C) <br />Me6icaid applica~ions in a timely man. er, <br /> <br /> Federal lay no~ requires :he s~a~es to process such applications within ~ days <br />a~, %,~en disability is involwe~, as of January 10, 19~0, ~i~hin 90 gays. Since <br />~71, ~e ie~eral cour~ for the ~es~ern Dis~ric: of Noxzh Carolina has a~erad a <br />~umber of o~gers Eran~i~E various fo~s of relief, i~clUding ~ha requireman~s <br />certain actions involved in processing applica~ions be ~aken within flesiEnated ~ime <br /> <br />t~ly ~eaaer pay to the affected applicant a penalty of $50 for each reek or parc of <br />a reek of delay. As of 3a~uary 3, 1990, the counties and the state had paid <br />in penalties, ~ot cou~tin~ loss of fegeral fin~ncial participation esti~ated to be <br /> <br /> P.O. ~ E~ * C=~d. NC 2~ · (7~J 7~71ll <br /> <br /> <br />