Legal aid attorneys today asked for a temporary restraining order [pdf] to stop Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s unallotment of about $16 million for the General Assistance Medical Care program for the poor.

The class-action complaint, filed in Ramsey County District Court this afternoon, also seeks to keep GAMC benefits flowing through April.

“We are asking the court to maintain the status quo,” said Galen Robinson, attorney for Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance. “What we’re saying is there will be irreparable harm to our clients unless the court orders the Department (of Human Services) not to start making the computer changes this weekend and also orders the unallotment to be put back into the pot.”

Robinson is the attorney who sued the governor and state over his unallotment of human services funds for a special dietary program last year. Ramsey District Court Judge Kathleen Gearin ruled that the unallotment was unconstitutional. The governor appealed and the Minnesota Supreme Court is to begin hearing the appeal on March 15.

Pawlenty vetoed the latest legislative proposal to restore and reform the program, and the House of Representatives was unable to override the veto even though the original bill passed by a 125-9 majority.

Solution still up in the air
The action comes as legislators and the governor’s office have been meeting this week to find a compromise to cover impoverished adults without children. In fact, House Assistant Majority Leader Erin Murphy just announced a public meeting at 4:30 this afternoon (Room 15, State Office Building) to discuss a proposal to use coordinated care organizations, also called accountable care organizations, to provide care for the poor.

"This lawsuit seeks to spend money the state doesn't have," Brian McClung, the governor's spokesman, said in an email. "It underscores why the state budget shouldn't be run out of a courtroom."

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of three named GAMC enrollees who fear they will not be able to afford premiums, co-pays and prescriptions if they are moved to Transitional MinnesotaCare, a six-month benefits program. The lawsuit claims irreparable harm will come to them because of the gaps in coverage under Transitional MinnesotaCare.

Who's at risk
Robert Fischer, 51, of Hennepin County, has a monthly income of $203. “If he were to lose GAMC on April 1, he would be unable to afford his medications and doctor’s visits,” the suit claims.

James Beede, a Ramsey County resident and Vietnam veteran with limited VA benefits, also has a monthly income of $203. “... His ability to pay for dental and other medical needs would be at risk.”

Gabriella Raspa, a 21-year-old diabetic from Hennepin County, “would be unable to afford her prescribed insulin if she were to lose GAMC on April 1.”

A memo of support filed in the case sums up why timing is critical: “It may be suggested that, because GAMC is scheduled to end at some time in the coming months, there is no significant harm from having it end on March 31 rather than at the end of April or May. There is no logic to such an analysis. The fact that we mortals will all die does not lessen the harm of the event, whenever it may occur.”

Three days before the end of last year’s session, Pawlenty used his line-item veto to strike $381 million in second-year funding for GAMC and then unallotted another $16 million, which in effect speeds up the demise of the program well before the state’s fiscal year ends June 30.

Original estimates projected GAMC would run out of funding by the end of February. But the governor and DHS extended the program through March 31 after less money was spent than anticipated. Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance lawyers also had advised the administration two days before the extension was announced that they intended to challenge the governor's unallotment.

At the end of this month, the DHS expects it will have $26 million left in GAMC funds, “which would not be enough to run the program through April,” said DHS spokeswoman Karen Smigielski. 

It costs about $34 million a month to cover current enrollees, and the lawsuit contends that the appropriation should be spent on GAMC benefits and not moved elsewhere to plug a budget hole.

Leftover GAMC funds
“You have $26 million that everybody acknowledges won’t be spent by the end of March,” Robinson said. “There’s $16 million that the governor unlawfully unallotted, and we are asking the court to order that the $16 million be restored and that the remaining money continue to pay GAMC benefits for our clients for the month of April.”

An emergency order also is being sought because GAMC cases are to be converted to MinnesotaCare on the state computer system beginning Saturday, he said. “The state has told us that once they make changes to the computer system, even if the court were to order that the benefits be paid as initially appropriated ... that it would take approximately six weeks ... before they could add the people back into the system.”

Smigielski confirmed that the conversion will start Saturday. “Monday through Wednesday, notices are scheduled to be mailed to GAMC enrollees that their cases have been converted to MinnesotaCare as of April 1,” she said in an email. “We are doing this so we have sufficient to time to notify enrollees.”

The constitutional issues
The new unallotment lawsuit raises some of the “identical claims” made in the suit filed last year over the governor’s unallotment of funding for a special dietary program, Robinson said.  

“Defendant Governor Pawlenty’s failure to veto individual appropriations that he disagreed with, and instead to employ Minn. Stat. 16A.152 to reduce appropriations already signed into law is an unconstitutional usurpation of the Legislature’s constitutional right to attempt to override the Governor’s decision with respect to individual appropriations and as such is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine,” the lawsuit claims.

A brief filed by Pawlenty’s legal team in the separate appeal before the Minnesota Supreme Court argues that the governor followed the law.

Whether a Ramsey County district judge will see the GAMC case in the same light as the dietary program unallotment remains to be seen.

“We certainly know that Judge Gearin (in the Brayton case) issued a very comprehensive order, where she determined that the governor’s use of unallotment was unlawful and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine,” Robinson said. “I can’t ever predict what a judge will do in another case. But we do know that she has ruled on that, and that case is now pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court. ... Obviously, the results in that case will most likely affect this case as well. Right now, we’re seeking temporary relief to maintain the status quo.”

Then again, maybe legislators and Pawlenty will come up with a compromise for GAMC.

Casey Selix, a news editor and staff writer for MinnPost.com, can be reached at cselix[at]minnpost[dot]com. Follow her on Twitter.