This needs to happen in Missouri:

As you all know, the Missouri Family Support Division (FSD) is dreadful at processing applications within the federal guidelines.  FSD compounds the situation by playing games with requests for information and rejecting applications from clients for allegedly failing to cooperate with their requests.  I have been seriously looking into bringing an action like the one cited below and I will be in contact with the attorneys on this case to seek their guidance on bringing a similar suit in Missouri.

From www.elderlawanswers.com:
A federal court in Ohio rules that a lawsuit by disabled Medicaid applicants against the state for failing to determine their Medicaid eligibility in a timely manner may go forward, holding that most of the recipients' complaints are not moot simply because the state eventually processed their claims. Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. Lumpkin (N.D. Ohio, No. 3:10CV446, Feb. 28, 2011).
Nine individual plaintiffs and a disability rights organization filed suit against the state of Ohio, alleging that it failed to determine their eligibility for Medicaid benefits within 90 days of their applications. Although the circumstances surrounding each application were different, each individual plaintiff waited at least a year (and sometimes more than two years) for an eligibility determination. The plaintiffs claimed that the delay violated their rights under the Medicaid Act and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because federal regulations mandate that a "timely" decision on a Medicaid application must take place within 90 days of filing.
The state moved to dismiss the suit on multiple grounds, including mootness, standing, and other arguments relating to the relevance of the Medicaid Act to Ohio law. In support of its mootness argument, the state claimed that since it eventually processed all nine claims, the current lawsuit was irrelevant because the plaintiffs no longer suffered a harm that could be remedied by their lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that their claims were not moot because there was a reasonable expectation that they would be subject to the same delay at a later date, especially in the cases where the state determined that the plaintiffs were not eligible for benefits. The state also claimed that the disability rights organization lacked standing because it, and its members, did not suffer a cognizable injury.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio grants the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuits of two of the plaintiffs who were determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration (and thus unlikely to "ever be required to go through the eligibility process again"), but denies the state's motion when it comes to the other seven individual plaintiffs and the rights organization. The court explains that the seven remaining plaintiffs could all be expected to have to apply for benefits again in the future and they would experience similar delays, giving them a cognizable claim for relief. The court also rules that the advocacy group has standing to sue in its own right and on behalf of its members, and that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims are appropriate.