Taranov v. Area Agency of Greater Nashua et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Lidia Taranov, by and through
Tatiana Taranov and Leonid
Taranov, Next Friends.
Case No. 21-cv-995-PB
v. 	Opinion No. 2022 DNH 104
Area Agency of Greater Nashua,
a/k/a Region VI Area Agency
d/b/a Gateways Community
Services, Inc., et al.
ORDER
Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction on or about November 22, 2021, seeking restoration of
the “adult foster care services” that she had previously received under New
Hampshire’s Medicaid Waiver program for individuals with acquired brain
disorders. See Doc. No. 5. On December 1, 2021, the court denied her request
for temporary relief and took under advisement her request for preliminary
relief. See Doc. No. 8. On January 11, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended motion
for preliminary injunction. See Doc. No. 17.
A plaintiff must show that she lacks an adequate remedy at law to be
entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Together Emps. v. Mass Gen.
Brigham, Inc., 19 F.4th 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2021). Here, the record reveals that the
Case 1:21-cv-00995-PB Document 48 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 3

2
plaintiff could have obtained the interim relief she seeks from this court by
taking an appeal from the decision of the Gateway defendants to discontinue
the benefits she had previously received. See N.H. Code Admin. R. He-M
522.18(g)(1) (providing that “[c]urrent recipients, services, and payments
shall be continued as a consequence of an appeal for a hearing until a
decision has been made” on the appeal). Because plaintiff failed to take
advantage of this regulation, which would have restored her prior benefits on
an interim basis while her appeal was pending, she is barred from seeking
preliminary relief in this court. See, e.g., A.M.C. v. Smith, No. 3:20-CV-00240,
2022 WL 3210809, at *18 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2022) (denying motion for
preliminary injunction that sought reinstatement of Medicaid benefits
because terminated recipients who opted to pursue administrative appeals
would receive continuation of benefits pending the outcome of those appeals
and thus loss of benefits did not count as irreparable harm); Mitchell ex rel.
Mitchell v. Cmty. Mental Health of Cent. Mich., 243 F. Supp. 3d 822, 843
(E.D. Mich. 2017) (denying for lack of irreparable harm motion for
preliminary injunction seeking restoration of Medicaid waiver services where
some plaintiffs had “chosen to bypass the state’s administrative appeal
process” that enabled other plaintiffs to have their benefits restored).
To the extent that plaintiff claims that she needs a preliminary
injunction now because defendants will not allow her to take a late appeal,
Case 1:21-cv-00995-PB Document 48 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 3

3
she may file a new motion for preliminary injunction asserting that she
currently lacks an adequate remedy at law even though she may have had
one in the past.
Plaintiff’s requests for a preliminary injunction (Doc. Nos. 5 and 17) are
denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul J. Barbadoro
Paul J. Barbadoro
United States District Judge
August 30, 2022
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:21-cv-00995-PB Document 48 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 3