A New Orleans woman is suing Louisiana Department of Health officials in federal court for rejecting her bid to launch a business aimed at helping special-needs children learn basic life skills.
A long-time social worker and youth counselor, Ursula Newell-Davis is asking the federal court in the Eastern District of Louisiana to overturn a state requirement that providers of such social services undergo a facility need review (FNR). The Jan. 12 complaint was filed on Newell-Davis’ behalf by the Pelican Institute for Public Policy and the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Like most of those who applied for an FNR in 2019, Newell-Davis was turned down by Department of Health officials, who said she had failed to prove that there was a strong demand for her services in the New Orleans area.
“One of our goals at the Pelican Institute is to create a state for people to pursue the profession they choose without government getting in the way,” Sarah Harbison, the institute’s general counsel, told the Louisiana Record.
The facility need review, which is part of a two-step process for social-service providers who want to operate their own businesses, serves to protect the status quo and existing businesses, according to Harbison. Applicants who clear the FNR hurdle would next have to be licensed and prove their qualifications.
“It’s a violation of (Newell-Davis’) due-process and equal-protection rights under both (the state and federal) constitutions,” she said. “The state never considered her fitness or qualifications to provide the services she wants to provide.”
Mollie Riddle, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the treatment of Newell-Davis impinged on her economic liberty and right to earn a living.
“One of the things the health department looks at … is the presence of existing businesses to decide whether or not you’re needed,” Riddle told the Louisiana Record. “It’s like saying we have enough of them, and we don’t need you.”
The complaint argues that the FNR process does not serve any legitimate government interest and should no longer be enforced.
“It does not lower costs, ensure adequate supply or improve quality,” the complaint states. “Instead, it drives up costs, reduces supply, harms quality and deprives those most vulnerable – special-needs children – of choices when it comes to the care they need.”
A response from the state government to the lawsuit is expected by Feb. 4, according to Riddle.