By: Christopher Parrella, Esq., CPC, CHC, CPCO
Parrella Health Law, Boston, MA.
A Health Care Provider Defense and Compliance Firm

A recent federal court ruling could reshape access to opioid addiction treatment across the country. On March 26, a Massachusetts judge certified a class-action lawsuit against the Salvation Army for allegedly violating disability rights laws by denying people access to medications commonly used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD), such as methadone and buprenorphine.

At the center of the suit is the charity’s policy of excluding individuals who use these FDA-approved medications from its network of Adult Rehabilitation Centers (ARCs), despite the organization publicly branding itself as the nation’s largest provider of residential drug and alcohol treatment.

What the Case Is About

The lead plaintiff, Mark Tassinari, claims he was expelled from a Salvation Army facility in 2018 for using buprenorphine under a valid prescription, then denied reentry in 2021 for the same reason. The class-action suit—now allowed to proceed—was filed under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which bars discrimination by organizations receiving federal funding.

The lawsuit could have enormous ripple effects for the addiction treatment field. Many organizations continue to stigmatize medications for OUD, falsely equating them with street drugs. Yet, methadone and buprenorphine are among the few clinically proven tools to reduce opioid overdose and facilitate long-term recovery, especially in the fentanyl era.

Two Classes, Big Implications

Judge Leo Sorokin’s ruling creates two groups: an injunctive relief class, allowing those denied access because of their medication to seek a change in policy, and a damages class for those who were directly harmed by being kicked out of a program or denied entry.

While the case currently covers the Salvation Army’s Northeast region, its reach could extend nationwide. Legal advocates say the decision could set a precedent warning any treatment provider that excluding patients from medication-assisted treatment (MAT) may trigger litigation under disability rights laws.

A Barrier to Recovery

At its core, this is a civil rights issue. Addiction, recognized as a disability under federal law, cannot be used as grounds to deny someone access to federally funded programs. As one attorney involved in the case put it: “People with opioid use disorder shouldn’t have to choose between a bed and their medication.”

And yet, that’s the stark reality for many. Recovery facilities that reject MAT often put patients at risk of relapse or overdose, particularly those transitioning out of incarceration or detox who have just stabilized on these treatments.

Legal Landscape: ADA, Rehab Act, and DOJ Guidance

The case also builds on previous DOJ positions affirming that denying access to MAT violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. In recent years, federal memos and court rulings have chipped away at outdated views of recovery—views still upheld by some 12-step organizations and faith-based programs like the Salvation Army. The court’s certification of a class makes it clear: if you’re a treatment provider, particularly one receiving public funding, you may face liability if you deny access to evidence-based care.

What Happens Next

The injunctive relief portion of the case will proceed to trial without a jury. The damages class will follow depending on the trial’s outcome. Plaintiffs are seeking systemic reform—not just compensation, but a reversal of policies that bar access to medication and place ideology over science.

It’s a case to watch, and it sends a clear message to the treatment community: patient care must be grounded in medicine, not moral judgment.

Call To Action

If you’re a facility operator, MAT provider, or advocate navigating the complex intersection of addiction law and compliance, we can certainly help. Contact Parrella Health Law at 857-328-0382 or Chris directly at cparrella@parrellahealthlaw.com.