Legal Opinion
A.A.A. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 29, 2013No. A11-1831PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Justice.
This case requires us to determine whether a person who is physically able to move without assistance, but who lacks the ability to direct his movement to a specific location, has a dependency in “mobility” under Minn.Stat. § 256B.0659 (2012). Appellant A.A.A. challenges the decision of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“DHS”), who found that appellant is not dependent in “mobility,” and therefore reduced his authorized personal care assistant (“PCA”) services covered through the Minnesota Medical Assistance program. The district court…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Premier Bank v. BECKER DEVELOPMENT, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Mammenga v. State Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Greene v. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Alice Ann Staab v. Diocese of St. CloudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- State of Minnesota v. David Lee HaywoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict SchmidSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Pitman Farms v. Kuehl Poultry, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
- Minnesota Transitions Charter School v. Commissioner of Minnesota Department of EducationCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.