<div dir="auto">In light of this decision and the text of DOH's guidance yesterday, counsel has informed us that unless you have an explicit authorization from a plan to serve an individual, you should stop serving them. The message should be that DOH has indicated consumers who have started or completed the process with PPL, regardless of the status of their PA with PPL, are not to be granted an authorization with their previous FI. Do not anticipate reimbursement for any consumer for whom you do not have an explicit authorization.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 4, 2025, 3:52\u202fPM Bryan O'Malley <<a href="mailto:bryan@cdpaanys.org">bryan@cdpaanys.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Judge Block today met with counsel in the Engesser v McDonald case. After efforts to arrive at a compromise, the TRO was extended. See below.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Full docket text:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frederic Block: Lisa Cleary, Esq., Catlin Ross, Esq. & Elizabeth Jois, Esq. for the plaintiff and Rachel Summer, Esq. & Samantha Buchalter, Esq. for the defendants, all present. Preliminary injunction hearing held on 4/4/2025. Plaintiffs order to show cause [4] seeking a preliminary injunction was discussed further. Counsel continue to work together for joint language for a preliminary injunction. The terms of the TRO will remain in effect. Counsel will report by letter on 4/8/25 by midnight as to their progress on their joint preliminary injunction language. Should there be no joint proposal the Court will schedule a telephone conference to discuss the matter further. </div></div>
</blockquote></div>