Pennsylvania Medicaid Disability Rights Lawsuit, What the New Caregiver and Travel Rules Actually Do — Byrne v. Commonwealth

Four Pennsylvanians with intellectual and developmental disabilities sued the state on September 16, 2026, arguing new Medicaid rules on family caregiving and travel are functionally the same ones a court already struck down earlier this year. The case, Byrne v. Commonwealth, asks the Commonwealth Court to declare the rules invalid a second time. Here’s what the rules require, what the lawsuit argues, and what’s actually changed for families since the last ruling.

Byrne v. Commonwealth — Key Facts

Field	Details
Lawsuit Filed	September 16, 2026
Plaintiffs	Four Pennsylvanians with intellectual and developmental disabilities, from Montgomery, Allegheny, Cumberland, and Lebanon Counties
Defendant	Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Office of Developmental Programs (ODP)
Rules Challenged	The “40/60 Rule” (caps paid family caregiver hours) and the “Travel Rule” (limits where Medicaid-funded services can be provided)
Legal Theory	The rules were imposed through contracts and enrollment forms without the formal rulemaking process required by two prior Commonwealth Court rulings
Relief Sought	A declaration that the rules are invalid, void, and unenforceable
Court & Case Number	Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania — case number not yet reflected in public dockets as of this writing
Current Stage	Petition for Review and Application for Summary Relief filed; no ruling yet
Related Precedent	Dunkelberger v. DHS and Errickson v. DHS, decided February 2026, given precedential status in May 2026
Last Updated	September 25, 2026

Who Is Involved and Why Is the State Being Sued?

The lawsuit targets Pennsylvania’s Office of Developmental Programs (ODP), the division of the Department of Human Services that runs Medicaid’s home and community-based waiver programs for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Those waivers let people receive care at home instead of in an institution, and many participants use a “participant-directed” model, where they or their families hire and manage their own caregivers — often relatives.

Plaintiff MichaelAnn Byrne, 29, of Cumberland County, has a rare degenerative brain disorder and needs someone with her at all times because she can silently choke. Another plaintiff, Kristen Millar of Montgomery County, has a rare brain condition and is cared for by her sister, Jessica Millar. Both families say the new rules would upend care arrangements that have worked for years.

What Do the 40/60 Rule and the Travel Rule Actually Require?

The 40/60 Rule caps how many hours per week Medicaid will reimburse a single family caregiver at 40 hours, and caps combined reimbursed hours across multiple family caregivers at 60 hours per week — even when a participant is approved for more care than that. The Travel Rule generally stops Medicaid from reimbursing waiver-funded services provided outside Pennsylvania or its six bordering states, which the lawsuit says blocks families from out-of-state weddings, family reunions, the Special Olympics, and medical conferences, among other things.

Neither rule is brand new. Commonwealth Court struck down nearly identical versions of both rules in February 2026, in separate cases brought by two other Pennsylvania families — Dunkelberger v. DHS and Errickson v. DHS — ruling that the department had to go through formal rulemaking, including a public comment period, before imposing rules like these. The court found the department hadn’t done that, and declared the earlier rules “null and void.” In May 2026, the court gave those rulings precedential status, meaning they were meant to apply beyond just the two families who sued.

Independent Living Systems, a Medicaid-focused home care provider, faced its own $14 million settlement after a data breach exposed millions of the same vulnerable population’s records — a reminder of how much day-to-day life for Medicaid home-care recipients depends on decisions made far from their own kitchen tables.

Here’s the part that reframes the new lawsuit: it doesn’t argue the rules are bad policy. It argues the state is doing the same thing again, just through a different paperwork mechanism, after a court already said that mechanism wasn’t good enough.

What Does the New Lawsuit Argue?

According to the Public Interest Law Center, which filed the case with pro bono co-counsel Kessler Topaz, the Shapiro administration responded to the February court rulings not by starting the formal rulemaking process, but by requiring participants in participant-directed programs to sign new enrollment agreements containing substantially the same restrictions. Participants who didn’t sign by an August 6 deadline risked “involuntary termination” from services, according to court filings. Some families signed but noted their objections in writing — and were told those signatures were invalid, with a new, unqualified signature required by September 28.

“The state Department of Human Services is flouting the court’s earlier ruling,” Public Interest Law Center attorney Michael Churchill said in the organization’s statement announcing the suit. The lawsuit asks the Commonwealth Court to declare the rules invalid on the same procedural grounds as before: that imposing them through contracts and consent forms doesn’t satisfy the rulemaking requirement the court already identified.

What Has the Shapiro Administration Said in Response?

The administration has defended the substance of the rules, even while it works on formal rulemaking going forward. A Department of Human Services spokesperson told Spotlight PA the rules aren’t new or unique to Pennsylvania, and that the agency has to balance the program’s financial stability against federal wage, overtime, and Medicaid claiming requirements. A deputy secretary in the Office of Developmental Programs said in a July presentation that federal scrutiny of relative caregiving has intensified, and that the state needs assurance services can be monitored in person before easing the travel limits the court had removed. The administration has said families “may choose to pay for services using private funds” for travel that falls outside the new limits, and that a public comment period is part of the formal rulemaking process now underway.

As of early September 2026, more than 8,300 beneficiaries or their delegates — about 93% of those required to — had signed the department’s updated agreements, according to the department.

What Should Affected Families Do Right Now?

1. This is a declaratory judgment case, not a class action seeking money — there’s no claim form, settlement, or payout to watch for.
2. If you’re a participant-directed services participant who signed an enrollment agreement with reservations, keep a copy of exactly what you submitted and any response you received from the department or your county.
3. Document how the 40/60 Rule or Travel Rule has actually affected your family’s care arrangements or travel plans, in case it becomes relevant to the case or to future advocacy.
4. Watch for the Commonwealth Court’s ruling on the Application for Summary Relief, which could resolve the case faster than a full trial.
5. If your family is facing an “involuntary termination” threat tied to these agreements, a disability rights attorney or the Public Interest Law Center can advise on your specific situation.
6. Follow both this case and the state’s formal rulemaking process — a public comment period, once opened, is a direct way to weigh in on any permanent version of these rules.

Byrne v. Commonwealth — Timeline

Milestone	Date
Commonwealth Court strikes down original 40/60 and Travel Rules (Dunkelberger, Errickson)	February 2026
Rulings given precedential status	May 2026
ODP requires new enrollment agreements with similar restrictions	May-August 2026
Deadline to sign new agreements	August 6, 2026
Deadline to resign without reservations, per the lawsuit	September 28, 2026
Byrne v. Commonwealth filed in Commonwealth Court	September 16, 2026
Next ruling (on Application for Summary Relief)	UNVERIFIED — no date set as of this writing

Frequently Asked Questions About the Pennsylvania Medicaid Disability Lawsuit

Is there a class action lawsuit against Pennsylvania over Medicaid disability rules right now?

Yes. Byrne v. Commonwealth was filed September 16, 2026, in Commonwealth Court by four Pennsylvanians with intellectual and developmental disabilities, represented by the Public Interest Law Center and Kessler Topaz.

Do I need to do anything right now to be part of this case?

 The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the rules are invalid for everyone affected, not individual payouts, so there’s no claim form to file. If you’re personally affected by the 40/60 Rule or Travel Rule, documenting your situation is still worthwhile.

When will the Pennsylvania Medicaid rules case be decided? 

There’s no set timeline. The plaintiffs filed an Application for Summary Relief alongside their petition, which can move faster than a full trial, but no hearing date is public yet.

What specifically is the “40/60 Rule”? 

It caps Medicaid reimbursement for a single family caregiver at 40 hours per week, and at 60 hours per week combined when more than one family member provides paid care — regardless of how many hours of care a participant is otherwise approved to receive.

What specifically is the “Travel Rule”?

 It generally stops Medicaid from reimbursing waiver-funded caregiving services provided outside Pennsylvania or its six bordering states, which the lawsuit says prevents participants from traveling for weddings, reunions, the Special Olympics, and medical conferences with paid support.

Did a court already rule on these rules once before? 

Yes. Commonwealth Court struck down earlier, similar versions of both rules in February 2026 in Dunkelberger v. DHS and Errickson v. DHS, ruling the department hadn’t followed the required rulemaking process. Those rulings were given precedential status in May 2026.

How is the state defending the new rules?

 The Department of Human Services says the rules protect the Medicaid program’s financial integrity and comply with federal wage and overtime law, and that formal rulemaking — including public comment — is now underway.

What happens if I don’t sign the department’s enrollment agreement? 

According to the lawsuit, participants who don’t sign risk “involuntary termination” from participant-directed services. Anyone facing that situation should talk to a disability rights attorney about their specific options.

Sources Used in This Article

• The Public Interest Law Center — “Pennsylvanians With Disabilities File Suit Over State Rules Restricting Medicaid Reimbursement for Family-Provided Care,” September 16, 2026: https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/pennsylvanians-with-disabilities-file-suit-over-state-rules-restricting-medicaid-reimbursement-for-family-provided-care/
• Spotlight PA (Ed Mahon) — “Shapiro admin rules for Medicaid recipients spark lawsuit from people with disabilities,” September 18, 2026: https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2026/09/pennsylvania-medicaid-work-hour-travel-rules-disabilities-health/
• Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania — Dunkelberger v. DHS opinion, February 2026: https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1236CD24_5-4-26.pdf

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Public Interest Law Center’s official case announcement, Spotlight PA’s reporting, and the Commonwealth Court’s published opinion in the related Dunkelberger case, as of September 25, 2026. Last Updated: September 25, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It describes claims made by the parties in ongoing litigation; no court has yet ruled on the merits of Byrne v. Commonwealth. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.