WBR23-CON-041 · Constitutional-rights explainer
Was the directory cognitively accessible to people with brain injuries and available in alternative formats?
A question for source review—not a finding. Separate the rights of people served, David Medeiros, and ABI Resources.
Watch with captions
Full transcript
Question 41. Was the directory cognitively accessible to people with brain injuries and available in alternative formats? The 2023 report raises a concern, not a finding. People served: Choice must be meaningful and accessible; a hidden or unusable directory may require regulatory and disability-access review. David Medeiros: Requests, complaints, and public-record activity may be protected, but retaliation and access each use different legal tests. ABI Resources: Directory inclusion may involve program or contract rules, not an automatic constitutional entitlement to business. Constitutional claims need state action; beneficiary choice does not guarantee ABI referrals or a contract. Classify the issue before choosing a remedy. Preserve directory versions, change logs, eligibility rules, access tests, notices, and provider lists actually shown. Apply Constitution, statute, regulation, contract, then record.
Three separate rights lenses
People served
Choice must be meaningful and accessible; a hidden or unusable directory may require regulatory and disability-access review.
David Medeiros
Requests, complaints, and public-record activity may be protected, but retaliation and access each use different legal tests.
ABI Resources
Directory inclusion may involve program or contract rules, not an automatic constitutional entitlement to business.
Limits and records needed
Constitutional claims require conduct fairly attributable to government; private-provider status is not automatic state action.
Provider choice chiefly protects beneficiaries and does not guarantee ABI referrals, volume, renewal, contracting, or payment.
Records identified for review: directory versions, change logs, eligibility rules, access tests, notices, and provider lists actually shown
Educational issue spotting, not legal advice. A filing is not a finding; a question does not prove its premise or answer.