Answer to Class Action Complaint

    O
O
 

0
 

N
N
 

O
O
 

n
n
 

a
 

WL
W 

N
N
 

=
 

tN
 

N
N
N
 
N
N
 
N
N
N
 

ee
 

e
d
 

pe
 

pe
d 

e
t
 

m
d
 

e
e
d
 

e
k
 

e
d
 

Lo
 
S
o
 
L
E
 

© 
Th

io
l 

- 
TE
RN
S 

© 
1 
O
R
 

| 
BE

RT
 

S
T
E
 

oe
 
SE

RI
E 

© o
 
TR
EE
 
oo
 
SH

IR
L 

R
A
 
o
R
 

© 
S
R
G
 

S
R
E
 
v
B
 

S
i
 

T
E
 

ee
 

M\ a tA ous ; dic QL 

- @ » P 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General 
of the State of California 

CHARLTON G. HOLLAND, III 
Assistant Attorney General 

STEPHANIE WALD 
Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

LAN E. VAN WYE 
Deputy Attorney General i 

2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor “ NBACP LEGAL DEFENSE AnD 
Oakland, California 94612-3049 + Se EDUCATIONAL FUND, NC 
Telephone: (415) 464-1173 | 

  

  

  

    

  

  

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERIKA MATTHEWS AND JALISA 
MATTHEWS, by their guardian ad litem Lisa 
Matthews, and PEOPLE UNITED FOR A 
BETTER OAKLAND, On Behalf of 
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, 

No. C 90 3620 EFL | 

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION 
COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KENNETH KiZER, Director, California 
Department of Health Services, 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

Defendant. 

  

By way of answer to the Class Action Complaint on file in the above- 

captioned action, Defendant KENNETH KIZER, in his official capacity as Director of 

the California Department of Health Services, admits, denies!’ and alleges as follows: 

1 Answering 1 1 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that said paragraph 

correctly states the general nature of this action, but denies that any applicable statutes, 

|l regulations or guidelines are not being fully complied with. 

      1. Each of the denials herein should be considered a general and specific denial 
of each and every aspect of the matter denied unless otherwise specifically indicated. 

1. 

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

  

 



  

O
O
 

0
 

N
N
 

O
O
 

n
h
 

&
 

W
W
 

N
N
 

=
 

—
 

Co
 

      

® » 
2 Answering 71 2, 3 and 4, Defendant admits that lead poisoning is a 

serious and widespread environmental illness affecting children. The remaining 

allegations in such paragraph are vague, speculative and uncertain -- Defendant, lacking 

information and/or belief as to the truth of such allegations on that basis denies them. 

3. Answering 1 5, Defendant denies the allegations in the first and second 

sentences thereof and admits the allegations in the remaining sentence. Further 

answering 1 5, Defendant denies that blood level assessments (i.e., tests for lead levels 

in a person’s blood) are required when not indicated on the basis of age and risk 

factors. 

4. Answering 1 6, Defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence 

thereof and denies the allegations in the remaining sentences of 1 6. 

S. Answering 11 7, 8 and 9, Defendant admits the allegations therein as 

regards jurisdiction of this Court over the causes of action stated by Plaintiffs and the 

propriety of venue in this Court; except as hereinabove admitted, Defendant denies 

such allegations to the extent that they imply that Plaintiffs have stated any causes of 

action upon which relief may be granted. 

6. Answering 19 10 and 11, Defendant lacks information and/or belief as to 

the truth of the matters alleged therein and on that basis denies such allegations. 

7. Answering 1 12, Defendant admits the allegations in the 1st, 2nd and 4th 

sentences thereof and denies the allegations in the 3rd sentence thereof. 

8. Answering 11 13, 14 and 15, Defendant lacks information and/or belief as 

to the truth of the matters alleged therein and on that basis denies such allegations. 

9, Answering 11 16 and 17, Defendant admits the allegations therein. 

10. Answering 1 18, Defendant admits that the allegations therein are literally 

| correct; however, this technical admission should not be deemed an admission that all 

applicable statutes, regulations and guidelines, taken together and in context, support a 

granting of the relief sought by Plaintiffs. 

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

  

   



1 11. Answering 1 19, Defendant admits the allegations therein. 

  

12. Answering 1 20, Defendant admits the allegations therein; further 

answering this paragraph, Defendant alleges that the Department of Health Services 

2 

3 

4 | are in full compliance with all applicable portions of the State Medicaid Manual 

5 | including, but not limited to, the portion quoted by Plaintiffs, 

6 13. Answering 1 21, Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence 

7 || and the first clause of the second sentence, but deny the remaining or last clause of 

# 8 || the second sentence; further answering this paragraph Plaintiff alleges that there he no 

9 || "mandatory federal requirements for children under six" relevant to this litigation that 
> DA, Ls 

  | 10 are not being fully complied with by Plaintiff. 

11 14. Answering 1 22, Defendant denies the allegations therein; further 

12 || answering this paragraph Defendant alleges that health care providers are properly 

13 || compensated for all required screening and testing required by law. 

14 15. Answering 11 23 and 24, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 

15 16. Regarding 11 25, 31, 34 and 38, all previous answers are realleged and 

16 | incorporated by reference. 

17 17. Answering 126, Defendant denies the allegations in the first and second 

18 | sentences thereof and admits the allegations in the third sentence thereof; further 

19 || answering this paragraph, Defendant denies that blood tests for lead are required as a 

20 || part of EPSDT screens except where age and risk factors indicate that such tests are 

21 || necessary. 

22 18. Answering 11 27, 28, 29 and 30, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 

23 19. Paragraph 32 requires no comment by Defendant. 

24 20. Answering 1 33, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 

25 21. Answering 11 35, 36 and 37, Defendant denies the allegations therein. 

26 22. Answering 11 39 and 40, Defendant denies the allegations therein; further 

27 || answering paragraph 39, Defendant alleges that the Department of Health Services is 

3       ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 



  

po
d 

W
W
:
 

o
h
 

ay
 
O
N
 

P
e
 
U
N
)
 

t
N
 

N
O
O
N
 

O
N
 
O
N
O
N
 

N
O
N
 

ed
 

p
e
d
 

e
d
 

e
d
 

e
d
 

p
e
d
 

e
k
 

e
d
 

ee
d 

fe
d 

co
n 
H
E
,
 
«
S
S
E
 

B
E
 
E
C
 

RE
 
G
E
 

en
 
G
E
L
 

SE
E 

oo
 
S
E
 

BE
R 

R
E
E
 

B
R
 

GE
R 

7 
TE
E 

J
E
 

TC 
T
R
 

ne
 

  
    

in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

As separate and complete affirmative defenses to the several causes of action 

herein and as a complete bar to any and all relief by way of this litigation, Defendant 

alleges that: 

1. The Complaint herein is unclear, uncertain and ambiguous. 

“n The Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted 

as to or against Defendant herein. 

3 The Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to constitute grounds for a 

class action. 

4, The Plaintiffs herein have available to them applicable administrative 

remedies which they have failed to exhaust. 

5 The matters complained of are within the administrative discretion of 

Defendant, and such discretion has been exercised in a lawful and proper way. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that: 

}. This action not be certified as a class action; 

2 This action be dismissed with prejudice; 

3 Judgment be rendered in favor of Defendant; 

4, Plaintiffs take nothing by this action; 

11} 

1:4 

{1} 

[1] 

{1} 

[11] 

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

  

 



  

7 
EE
 

I 
S
Y
 

LE
 

EE
 

7 
Se

 
N
O
N
 

O
N
 
N
N
 

O
N
 
N
N
 

e
d
 

e
t
 

ed
 

e
d
 

e
d
 

e
d
 

h
e
d
 

SO
 
SR

 
O
N
 

I 
| T

HR
E 

© 
SW
I 

© 
He

el
 

| 
RR
 

E
E
 

oo
 
TH

RE
 

o 
SR
NR
 

oo
 
BU
RE
N.
 

SE
RN

 
«S
R 

a 
| 
SE

S”
 

I
R
E
 

© 
ET

 
L
E
 

CL
 

es
 

    

5. Defendant recover his costs of suit; and 

6. Such other relief be granted as the interest of justice may require. 

Dated: February 22, 1991 

~ DANIEL E. LUNGREN 
Attorney General 

A A7 4 
HARLAN E. VAN WYE 
Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

  

 



  

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL 
  

Case Name: Erika Matthews, et al. v. Kenneth Kizer, et al. 

Court No.: U.S.D.C., Northern District No. C-90-3629 EFL 

I declare that: 

I am employed in the County of Alameda, California. I am over the age of 18 years 
and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is 2101 Webster Street, 
12th Floor, Oakland, California 94612-3049. 

On February 27, 1991, 1 served the attached 
  

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

in said cause by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage 
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at Oakland, California, addressed as 
follows: 

JOEL R. REYNOLDS 
Natural Resources Defense Council 

617 S. Olive Street, Suite 1210 
Los Angeles, CA 90014 

JANE PERKINS 
National Health Law Program 

2639 S. La Cienega Blvd. 

Los Angeles, CA 90034 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this 
declaration was executed at Oakland, California, on February 27, 1991. 

  

(Date) 

KATHERYN G. WALKER 
  

  

(Typed Name) (Signdture)