Date: 04-25-2003

Case Style: Alfred Milton Evans, et al. v. Mike Fogarty, et al.

Case Number: 01-CV-252 and 01-CV-257

Judge: Joe Heaton

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Steven E. Holden, Stephen J. Capron and Michael L. Carr of Holden & McKenna, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Andrew J. Tevington and Nicole Nantols Gibbons, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: Plaintiffs were providers of outpatient behavioral health services. Defendants are various officers and employees of Oklahoma's state Medicaid Agency (the Oklahoma Health Care Authority). The Oklahoma Health Care Authority pays for medically necessary behavioral health services within the scope of the Medicaid program for qualified recipients.

Plaintiffs spoke publicly on a number of issues affecting the Medicaid system and the rights of the mentally ill in Oklahoma. They petitioned the government through lobbying on behavioral health issues and spoke about issues regarding the behavioral health program in Medicaid. As part of these activities, Plaintiffs formed a non-profit corporation to further their political objectives. This effort to associate with others was an attempt to further the group's political objectives. Plaintiffs' rights to lobby, to speak, and to associate with one another are protected by the First Amendment.

Plaintiffs claimed they were punished by Defendants in retaliation for Plaintiffs' political actions and for Plaintiffs' association with the other members of their non-profit corporation.

Among the means of retaliation, Plaintiffs alleged that a conspiracy between the Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality, Inc. (OFMQ) was formed for the purpose of carrying out Defendants' retaliatory objectives. OFMQ is supposed to be an independent agent of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority. OFMQ's dealings with providers such as Plaintiffs is not supposed to be influenced by Defendants or their agency. Plaintiffs alleged, however, that Defendants actively controlled OFMQ for the improper purpose of carrying out Defendants' retaliatory objectives. OFMQ specifically stated that they do whatever the Oklahoma Health Care Authority wants them to do. The Defendants control the Oklahoma Health Care Authority. The Defendants used OFMQ to delay authorization for reimbursability of the work done by Plaintiffs, to restrict this authorization to units of service which are of minimal value to Plaintiffs and, generally, to astronomically increase the administrative burdens (and, therefore, costs) on Plaintiffs. This conspiracy was the only explanation for the disparity which existed in the average reimbursement per unit of service received by Plaintiffs as compared to the average received by all other providers.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted under color of state law. Plaintiffs claimed Defendants' actions in response to Plaintiffs' political efforts were such that these actions would cause a person of ordinary firmness to cease his engagement in such political activity. Plaintiffs claimed Defendants' actions were substantially motivated as a response to Plaintiffs' exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief against Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiffs sought an award of their litigation costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief which this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs alleged that the five individually named Defendants personally, intentionally, and maliciously participated in the conduct giving rise to monetary damages in this case.

The Defendants denied all allegations by the Plaintiffs.

Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $34 million.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unavailable

Defendant's Experts: Unavailable

Comments: Reported by K. Morlan