As the only national legal organization focused on advancing equity and protecting the rights of low-income older adults, we are uniquely positioned to drive change through the courts. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the intricacies of the complex health care and economic security programs that low-income older adults rely on and know when barriers to services violate their rights.
When developing litigation, we partner with advocates on the ground who help us identify and monitor serious systemic issues that impact groups of low-income older adults. We then partner with those on-the-ground advocates and our pro-bono partners from top law firms across the country to file and win cases that bring justice to large groups of plaintiffs.
Throughout our more than 50 year history we have litigated landmark cases that provide sweeping relief to low-income older adults across the country, leading to the return of billions of dollars worth of vital benefits.
The suit charges that SSA discriminated against these individuals for months, and in some cases more than a year, after that discrimination was held unlawful by the Supreme Court when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June 2013.
This class action lawsuit was filed against the Social Security Administration (SSA) on behalf of about 4,000 residents in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Coast whose disability benefits were denied or terminated based on the reports of a discredited physician.
This case challenged the Social Security Administration (SSA)'s reliance on outstanding probation and parole warrants as a basis for denying benefits to older adults and people with disabilities.
Justice in Aging joined this amicus brief filed by the National Health Law Program along with Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. Plaintiffs in this case claim that California’s low reimbursement rates in Medicaid lead to less access to care for low-income individuals in California compared to people enrolled in other forms of health insurance coverage. The subject of this amicus brief is on whether payments for Long Term Care (LTC) Medicaid can serve as a proper comparator to payments for Medicaid physician services in a case alleging discrimination in the program.
This amicus was filed in the United States Court Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The amicus asks the court to reverse the opinion of the District Court on the basis that the lower court’s holding that the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices does not have the authority to recommend preventive services and vaccines would harm low-income people enrolled in the Medicaid program. Justice in Aging joined 16 national and state-based advocacy organizations in this amicus filing.
Justice in Aging filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of California in support of the ruling of the Second Appellate District and trial court that held that an agent’s authority to make “health care decisions” on a principal’s behalf does not include the authority to execute optional arbitration agreements. In this case, a nursing facility attempted to compel a resident’s nephew to enter into arbitration on the basis that the nephew executed the admission agreement as the resident’s health care agent. AARP, AARP Foundation, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, California Long-Term Care Ombudsman, and the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care joined the amicus.
