In 2008, Clay County resident Edna Chadwell, along with seven others, filed suit against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA).
The suit targeted the FSSA's Aged and Disabled Waiver Program.
The program permits Medicaid recipients who "otherwise required institutionalization for their conditions -- whether that be in a nursing home, a hospital or another facility -- to receive services in their homes or a community-based setting," according to American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Attorney Gavin Rose, who represents the eight.
In March 2010, Clay County Superior Court Judge J. Blaine Akers ruled that caps on services through the program were "permanently enjoined."
Following the court ruling, the state filed an appeal to the ruling, which was then scheduled to go to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
However, Rose recently informed The Brazil Times the state filed a "Voluntary Motion to Dismiss."
"(It's) a motion with the Court of Appeals asking that the appeal be dismissed," Rose told The Brazil Times. "Note that this does not result in the actual dismissal of the appeal unless and until the Court of Appeals grants the motion."
Rose added, however, that he expects the motion to be granted.
"There is virtually no doubt that this will happen," he said, "although it may take a couple of weeks before it does."
Chadwell said she is "very pleased" with the direction of the case.
"I'm hoping that it will help not only myself, but other people in the future when other people are fighting for their care," Chadwell said. "That is the reason that I started (the lawsuit)."
According to Rose, the waiver program had to be renewed by the FSSA every five years and the renewal then goes through an approval process by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
However, when the renewal process came up in 2008, the FSSA included a limitation on the number of "attendant care" hours that enrollees may receive.
Rose told The Times he is pleased with the direction this suit has taken.
"I am personally thrilled that the state has decided not to continue its appeal," he said. "And I think it likely that at least a portion of the state's decision had to do with their assessment that they were unlikely to prevail on appeal.
"In addition to their pleasure (and relief) at this outcome, I think many of the plaintiffs are happy to put the case behind them at long last."