• Home

• Health Literacy Overview

• Health Literacy Literature

• Research and Policy

• Innovative Materials

• How to Create and Assess Print Materials

• Health Literacy Curricula

• Talks, Presentations, and HLS in the News

• Insights from Practice and Voices from Experience

• Links

• Contact us

Sheila Corriera and others vs. Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare and another

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Superior Court
Civil Action # 92-2468B
Argued October 6, 1992
Decided Jan. 13, 1993

Applicants for disability benefits under emergency aid for elderly, disabled residents and children (EAEDC) program brought action against the Department of Public Welfare challenging its procedures for implementing its program stating that the notices sent by the Dept. or Welfare which deny or terminate benefits do not comply with “due process requirements to inform him or her why benefits were denied or terminated”. There were complaints about both the notice sent by Healthpro when it finds no disability and with the notice sent by the Dept. of Public Welfare to applicants who are denied benefits without referral to Healthpro. The plaintiffs argued that the notices might place a doctor on notice as to why Healthpro denied the application but it is little help to the applicant who does not have a medical degree or any advanced education. The Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County Patrick King issued a preliminary injunction followed by a decision in which the DPW had to issue another mailing within 30 days of the court decision to all individuals whose applications were denied since October 1991. This mailing had to be in 10 different languages and mailed to the last known address.

Lisa Thibault, et al vs. Department of Transitional Assistance, et al

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Superior Court
Civil Action #97-04760C
2 preliminary injunctions (1998, 1999)

In December of 1998 Judge John C. Cratsley issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from reducing or cutting off TAFDC (temporary aid to families, the disabled and children) benefits for disabled welfare people who didn’t comply with the IAMT letter sent out by Healthpro, the state’s former contractor for collecting medical data and screening disability claims. The IAMT letter is sent to applicants who are deemed not disabled by the Department of Transitional Services, the letter details why the applicant was not deemed disabled and why they will not receive benefits. The judge issued the injunction after reading the testimony from Professor Jeanne S. Chall from the Harvard University Graduate School of Education who assessed the IAMT letter at grade 13 using the New Dale-Chall Readabilty Formula. The Department of Transitional Assistance then had to re-write the IAMT letter to the courts statisfaction.

Then in a ruling on March 2, 1999 the judge issued another injunction stating that the state substituted the Healthpro IAMT letter with its own potentially confusing disability supplement form. The judge said the state’s new form suffered from the same defect his original injunction was designed to correct (reading grade level or 10.5). This second injunction bars the state from reducing or terminating the benefits of some 672 recipients.