Health Law Daily Wrap Up, MEDICAID—D. Kan.: Court dismisses most of Medicaid recipient’s claims over transportation services, (Feb 4, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The court dismissed all of the claims except for a breach of contract claim over transportation services against the managed care organization that administers Medicaid in Kansas.

In a lawsuit brought by a Medicaid recipient alleging wrongful denial of non-emergency medical transportation services, the federal district court in Kansas has dismissed all of the claims except for a breach of contract claim against UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Inc., a managed care organization that administers Medicaid in Kansas. While the court allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed, the court dismissed all of the claims brought against the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services and against a company that contracts with the managed care organization to provide transportation services (Sallaj v. Howard, No. 25-1119-DDC-BGS (D. Kan. Jan. 27, 2026)).

A Medicaid recipient, who is permanently disabled from a traumatic brain injury with mobility impairments and other medical conditions, sued a variety of defendants alleging wrongful denial of non-emergency medical transportation services. The defendants included Laura Howard, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services, in her official capacity; UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Inc. (UHC), a managed care organization for KanCare, the program that administers Medicaid in Kansas; and Modivcare, a company that contracts with the managed care organization to provide transportation services. The suit filed in the federal district court by the Medicaid recipient, acting pro se, alleged a variety of claims, including breach of contract, violation of several federal statutes, and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

Breach of contract. The court held that the breach of contract claim, based on a contract between the Medicaid recipient and the managed care organization that administers Medicaid in Kansas, can move forward. The document entitled “Kansas Person-Centered Service Plan,” which outlines the Medicaid recipient’s rights and responsibilities regarding her relationship with the managed care organization, could be considered a contract. Liberally construed, the court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of this contract to provide services to the Medicaid recipient.

The court, however, dismissed the breach of contract claims based on contracts between the State of Kansas and the managed care organization. The managed care organization’s contract with Kansas explicitly disclaims third-party beneficiaries. The managed care organization and the State of Kansas did not intend to create a benefit on which the Medicaid recipient could sue. Along with dismissing the breach of contract claims between the State of Kansas and the managed care organization, the court dismissed the claim against Modivcare because the complaint failed to allege any contract between the Medicaid recipient and the contractor.

Statutory claims. The court also dismissed all of the claims based on violations of various federal statutes. The court dismissed the claim alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the complaint contained no allegations that the managed care organization discriminated against the Medicaid receipt because of her disability. The False Claims Act claim failed because the Medicaid receipt does not purport to bring a claim on behalf of the government. Furthermore, the court dismissed the claim alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the Medicaid recipient failed to allege facts capable of supporting an inference that the managed care organization acted under color of state law by performing a public function. The court held that a private entity acting as a managed care organization, without more, does not act under color of state law. Because the managed care organization is not a state actor, the Section 1983 claim failed. The court also dismissed the Section 1983 claim against the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services because a recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a Medicaid provision does not create an enforceable right under Section 1983. In addition, the court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because the complaint failed to allege how an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge deprived her of the notice or the opportunity to be heard.

Negligence. Finally, the court dismissed the negligence claims against the managed care organization. The Medicaid receipt failed to identify a duty that the managed care organization violated. Absent such a duty, the court held that the negligence claim cannot survive.

Therefore, the court dismissed all of the claims except for the breach of contract claim against the managed care organization.

The case is No. 25-1119-DDC-BGS.

Judge: Crabtree, D.

Attorneys: Lisa Sallaj, pro se. Christopher J. Leopold (Stinson, LLP) for UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Inc. and Laura Howard.

Companies: UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions ClaimsAppealsNews GeneralNews ManagedCareNews MedicaidNews EligibilityNews MedicaidPaymentNews KansasNews