Homeward Bound v. Hissom Memorial Ctr.

MR-OK-002-001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., on behalf of its members,
and
BRIDGET BECKER, by her mother and next friend Mary Ann Becker,
JOHN DOUGLAS BERRY, by his parents and next friends John and Judy Berry,
MICHAEL BRASIER, by his parents and next friends John P. and Sharon Brasier,
DEMINKYN MARTIN, by his next friend Mary Ann Becker,
JULIE MARIE PAULSON, by her parents and next friends Paul and Susan Paulson, and
SUSAN MARIE THOMPSON, by her mother and next friend Barbara Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v .
HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER,
and
GEORGE NIGH, in his official capacity as Governor of Oklahoma,

CIVIL ACTION NO. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

REGINALD BARNES, WILLIAM FARHA, ALBERT FURR, LEON GILBERT, ROBERT GREER, JANE HARTLEY, JOHN ORR, DAVID WALTERS, and CARL WARD, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma Commission for Human Services,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
ROBERT FULTON, in his official capacity as Director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
BURL BARTLETT, E. L. COLLINS, BARBARA JOHNSON, SEAY SANDERS, JIMMY SCALES, and C. B. WRiGIIT, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma Board of Education,
JOHN FOLKS, in his official capacity as the Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction,
JEAN COOPER, in her official capacity as Assistant Director for Developmental Disability Services of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services,
JAMES WEST, in his official capacity as Assistant Director for Rehabilitative Services of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services,
JULIA TESKA, in her official capacity as Acting Superintendent of the Hissora Memorial Center, and

WENDELL SHARPTON, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Sand Springs School District,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Introduction 1. This action is brought by Homeward Bound, I n c . , and six individual retarded citizens of Oklahoma on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. 2. Plaintiffs bring this action to redress the unconstitutional and illegal conditions impose-d under color of state law on 600 retarded persons, most of whom are children incarcerated and segregated by the State of Oklahoma in Hissom Memorial Center. 3. Hissom is a dangerous place to live. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be subjected to a b u s e , n e g l e c t , i n j u r y , and unnecessary physical and chemical restraints and denied adequate medical care, clothing, food and habilitative services• 4. By this action, plaintiffs seek to declare and enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of retarded persons to effective, meaningful, and integrated services in the community.
Jurisdiction and Venue 5. This action is brought to remedy violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
- 3-

6. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U . S.C. S e c t i o n s 1331 and 1 3 4 3 , 42 U . S . C . Section 1983, and 20 U.S.C. Section 1415. Appropriate declaratory relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202.
7. Monetary damages are inadequate and plaintiffs have been suffering and will continue to suffer irrej. arable harm from defendants' actions, policies and procedures and from the violations of the laws complained of herein; accordingly, declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate.
8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b).
The Plaintiffs Homeward Bound 9. Plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation existing under the laws of the S t a t e of O k l a h o m a . Members of Homeward Bound include parents, other relatives, guardians, and next friends of people segregated at Hissom and of persons in jeopardy of being segregated there by the state, as well as retarded people presently segregated or in jeopardy of being segregated there. 10. Homeward Bound was formed when, in the face of the exclusion of their children from a wide a r r a y of p u b l i c services (e . g. , e d u c a t i o n a l , vocational, and recreational programs) provided to all the state's citizens in the community, parents joined together to create and provide t h e i r
- 4-

children the opportunity to receive those services, which are as essential to retarded people as they are to all others.
11. One of Homeward Bound's major purposes, for which it expends its resources, is to enforce the duties of defendants to provide meaningful and integrated services in the community for the retarded citizens of Oklahoma. H o m e w a r d B o u n d ' s members work to assist state officials to supply the necessary conditions for a full and free life for retarded people. Homeward Bound seeks to bring Oklahoma officials to recognize the competencies of those who are retarded, to replace historical but confining and defeating stereotypes with respect and appreciation, and to lender effective the official Oklahoma policy that "all mentally retarded citizens deserve safe, healthy, positive, caring, learning centered programs and s e r v i c e s and that these programs and services should be available in the least r e s t r i c t i v e , most n o r m a l i z e d and appropriate environment to meet each individual's identified needs."
Bridget Becker 12. Plaintiff Bridget Becker, a thirteen-year-old retarded adolescent, resides at Hissom, in Building No. 15. Bridget lived at home, where she was included with her brothers and sisters in all of the family activities until she was eleven. As a result of various family crises, including the divorce of her parents, the death of her old-er brother, and the need to also care for her learning disabled foster sister,
- 5-

Bridget's mother sought the assistance of the state, because

[

she was no longer able to care for Bridget at home. Although '

\

she sought a community living arrangement, Mrs. Becker was

\

j

i

informed that the only alternative offered by the state was

j

i

i

incarceration at Hissom.

{

I

13. At Hissom, Bridget resides in a locked building,

;

congregated with thirty-one other retarded girls. She has

]

suffered numerous bites, scratches, bruises, and other injuries

\

while living there. Excluded from the public school in the

;-

1

community, she is forced to spend most of her time each day

]

|

sitting on the floor or in a chair, idly, with the other

[

i

-

i

residents in a large dayroom. Bridget fails to receive the

*

appropriate habilitative services she needs, such as training

\

in self-care skills. She is permitted little interaction with

people who are not handicapped.

14. Building No. 15 does not provide a normal environment

for Bridget, but an institutionalized one. The dayroom bears

no resemblance to a normal living room. It is large and imper-

sonal. It contains no comfortable furniture, but rather a row

of seats lined up like those one would find in a bus station.

The walls are stark, undecorated. The curtains on the windows

are drab and institutional-looking, and are not opened during

the day. Here, and in the other dayrooms at Hissom, a loud-

speaker in a corner continually blasts messages for staff.

There is a television, but it is mounted on a platform seven

feet above the floor, so the residents are not able to turn it

- 6-

on or off when they want or to select the programs they desire, or to learn to do so. A large basket filled with dirty towels and clothing takes up a corner of the room.
15. The sleeping area of Building No. 15 bears no resemblance to a normal bedroom for a thirteen-year-old. It is a huge room with a large hallway that has been partitioned into areas that contain four beds each. The residents are provided little privacy. The only decorations are pieces of adhesive tape that have been stuck on the walls with the names of Bridget and the other residents written on them in pen. There are a few stuffed animals and other toys in the building, but they ar<; kept in a locked closet and rarely provided to Bridget and the other residents.
16. Bridget is forced to eat all of her meals in a large congregate setting. The food is institutional in look and taste: overly starchy and unappetizing, with little variety. Instead of receiving training in self-feeding skills, Bridget and the other residents are forced to wear strange-looking, oversized bibs at every meal to protect their clothing.
17. Bridget's clothing is ill-fitting and often ripped and stained. Although she is capable of learning to dress and undress herself, she has not been provided the training to enable her to do so. As a substitute for toilet-training, she is dressed in diapers. Because of her behavior problems, Bridget chews her clothing, bu-t she has been provided with no habilitative programming to ameliorate that condition.
- 7-

understand and his ability to communicate causes frustration that erupts in aggressive and self-abusive behavior.
23. Doug lived at home until he was thirteen. As he neared adolescence, his behavior problems became increasingly difficult to manage. His parents strove to keep him at home as long as possible but, when it became clear that a structured residential placement was needed, they began to investigate appropriate programs and found none in Oklahoma. However, because they wanted to maintain close contact with Doug, they reluctantly agreed to his incarceration at Hissom.
2 4 . When Doug was admitted to Hissom and placed in Building No. 13, his parents were told they could not visit him nor contact him at all for three weeks. During those three weeks, Doug became severely depressed and lost thirteen pounds. Finally, because of the emergency, his parents temporarily removed him from the institutional grounds so that his depression could be alleviated and his weight loss could be corrected .
25. Doug's placement in Building No. 13, with severely retarded, lower-functioning children, was a result of defendants' failure properly to assess his skills and his lerel of retardation. When defendants' mistake was discovered, Doug was moved to another building but was then moved back to Building No. 13 for defendants' convenience, where he remains despite the admission in his Individual Program Plan that Building No. 13 is an inappropriate residential placement for Doug.
- 9-

26. In Building No. 13, Doug has r-epeatedly been injured. He has suffered numerous deep bites, contusions and bruises. On one occasion his parents found him so badly bitten that he had a four-inch bruise on his arm.
27. Since he has been at Hissom, Doug has become aggressive toward other children, and has begun to bite other children. He has become increasingly self-abusive and this behavior has escalated to an extreme degree.
28. The harmful effect of Doug's self-abusive behavior and the abusive behavior of others toward him is exacerbated by defendants' neglect of his personal hygiene and by the unsanitary conditions in Building No. 13. He has sores that have become infected, have been left untreated, and do not heal. On one occasion, Doug's mother found him with a high fever that staff had failed to notice.
29. Despite the increasing escalation of Doug's behavior problems, defendants have failed to provide him with a program to extinguish these behaviors. A program was developed for him by a psychologist, but it has not been implemented.
30. Since entering Hissom, Doug has experienced regression in communication skills. At uhe time he entered Hissom, he was able to communicate by signing. Cottage staff are unable to read signs, thus discouraging Doug from attempting to communicate. Doug is excluded from the opportunity to attend a public school in the community. The institutional environment has caused Doug to lose social skills, and cottage staff
- 10 -

have failed to reinforce the self-care skills he possessed when he entered Hissom.
31. Doug experiences on a daily basis the demoralizing and illegal conditions described in paragraphs 95-132, below. Because defendants have failed to establish sufficient community living arrangements and services for retarded people, and have limited their usage to people less severely handicapped than Doug, he has no alternative to Hissora.
Michael Brasier 32. Plaintiff Michael Brasier, a seventeen-year old retarded adolescent, resides at Hissom, in Building No. 12. His disabilities occurred when iiis mother contracted rubella during her pregnancy. Michael has little residual hearing and can see only peripherally. 33. In 1977, due to the numerous demands normally presented in raising a large family, the failure of defendants to provide any respite, homemaker, or babysitting services, and the refusal of the local school district to provide appropriate educational services, Mr. and Mrs. Brasier requested defendants to provide a community living arrangement and services for Michael. However, the sole placement they had available was at Hissom. 34. Michael resides in a locked building with a large group of other retarded boys. The building has none of the characteristics of a normal home, but is completely institutional in look and ambience. He seldom is permitted to leave
- 11 -

the institution, except on those occasions tha-t his parents take him home.
35. Since being placed at Hissom, Michael has developed severe behavior problems. This includes fits of screaming and thrashing and self-abuse by hitting himself in the head. On one occasion, Michael injured himself by putting his hand through a window. No programming has been provided to ameliorate Michael's behavior problems.
36. Michael has also been subjected to numerous incidents of abuse and injury, including contusions, bruises, and bites on his arms, hands and back. Another resident once pushed him so hard that he struck his head against a solid object, causing a deep, painful gash in his forehead.
37. Since he is excluded from the opportunity to attend a public school in the community, most of Michael's time is spent lying idly on the hard floor in Building No. 12. His parents had taught him a substantial amount of sign language before he was admitted to Hissom, but now he has lost that skill. Although he receives a small amount of speech therapy, nothing that he learns in that program is reinforced or fostered by the staff in Building No. 12. Michael uould also benefit greatly from physical and occupational therapy, but he has been denied the opportunity to receive those services.
38. Whenever Mr. and Mrs. Brasier visit Michael, they never see any planned activity occurring in Building No. 12. As a result of the ubiquitous idleness to which he is sub-
- 12 -

jected, Michael's sleep patterns have become deviant. He sleeps during the day and has insomnia at n i g h t . Defendants have established no programming for this condition.
39. Michael is forced to eat all his meals in a congregate setting. The food he is served is bland, overcooked,,and institutional-looking. He is not provided with the self-feeding skills that he is capable of learning.
40. Mr. and M r s . Brasier have spent a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of funds purchasing clothing for Michael, but most of it has disappeared, or is worn by others. The clothing supplied by Hissom is often ill-fitting, torn, or has buttons missing. He has not: been provided the habilitative programming that would enable him to learn to dress himself independently.
41. Michael has not been provided adequate dental care. Placque frequently builds up on his teeth, causing them to appear green. He has not been p r o v i d e d h a b i l i t a t i v e programming that would enable him to learn to brush his teeth independently.
4 2 . Michael experiences on a daily basis the demoralizing and illegal conditions described in paragraphs 9 5 - 1 3 2 , below. Because defendants have failed to establish sufficient community living arrangements and services for retarded p e o p l e , and have limited their usage to people less severely handicapped than Michael, he has no alternative to Hissora.
- 13 -

Deminkyn Martin . ' 43. Plaintiff Deminkyn Martin, a thirteen-year-old retarded adolescent, resides at Hissom, in Building No. 13. Minky was placed as a foster child in the home of Mary Ann Becker after the state terminated the parental rights of his natural parents and requested that she take custody of him.
44. At the age of six, Minky began displaying increased behavior problems. Due to the strain on the family due to the fact that Mrs. Becker had four additional children to care for, including a learning disabled child and another retarded .child, she informed state officials that support services were needed to ameliorate Minky's behavior problems, and -equested a community living arrangement for him. The state instead incarcerated Minky at Hissom since there were no alternative placements available.
45. Mrs. Becker continues to visit Minky, takes him home for v i s i t s , and functions as his surrogate parent for the purposes of developing his program p l a n s . Except for the times that Mrs. Becker takes him into the community, Minky rarely leaves the institution.
4 6 . At H i s s o m , Minky resides in a locked building, congregated with thirty other retarded boys, with little or no planned activities. There is little habilitative programming for Minky and the other boys; staff spend their time attempting to prevent them from injuring themselves and one another. The
- 14 -

employees also spend much of their time in a staff lounge located outside of the locked door in Building No. 13.
47. At Hissom, Minky has sustained numerous bruises and contusions, and broken teeth. On one occasion he developed a fungus infection of such severity that his entire head had to be shaved.
4 8 . Minky has f r e q u e n t tantrums and engages in self-abuse, including banging his head against walls and other solid objects. He has injured himself by crashing his head through a glass window. Instead of developing a structured h a b i l i t a t i v e program plan to ameliorate Minky's behavior problem, Hissom staff subject him to chemical r e s t r a i n t s with strong psychotropic drugs.
49. Building No. 13 is the antithesis of a normal home. The dayroom in which Minky is forced to spend the vast majority of his time is a constant scene of noisy confusion and commotion, as would be expected from the congregation of a large number of pre-adolescent and adolescent boys with no structured program for them. The congregation of persons with behavior problems in one place aggravates the risk of injury, harm, and unnecessary restraint of Minky.
50. The dayroom in Building No. 13 contains no comfortable furniture and no decorations, only a long row of hard chairs. The knob on the door leading from the dayroom to the staff lounge has been placed six inches from the top of the door, and is locked from the outside.
- 15 -

51. Minky 'is scheduled to receive a mere fifteen hours of habilitative programming per week. He would benefit greatly from increased programming, including an increased level of speech therapy, and interaction with children who are not handicapped in a public school in the community, but he is excluded from those opportunities. Minky is denied additional needed programming because he is considered "severely retarded."
52. Minky experiences on a daily basis the demoralizing and illegal conditions described in paragraphs 95-132, below. Because defendants have failed to establish sufficient community living arrangements and services for retarded people, and have limited their usage to people less severely handicapped than Minky, he has no alternative to Hissom.
Julie Marie Paulson 53. Plaintiff Julie Marie Paulson, a twelve-year-old retarded child, resides at Hissora, in Building No. 17. Julie was cared for by her parents at home until she was seven. At that time, she was placed in a private residential school. When her mother became unemployed and seriously, chronically ill, the sole alternative presented to her by the state was commitment to Hissom. The state provided no respite care, no crisis intervention services, no support services at all to the family; the only option the state availed to the Paulsons was to incarcerate Julie at Hissom.
- 16 -

54. Julie lives in a building congregated with- 47 other girls. But for the fact that her parents take her home on w e e k e n d s , she would not leave the institution. When the weekend is over, Julie tells her parents that she hates to go back.
55. At Hissom, Julie has suffered numerous bruises on her legs and hips and severe rashes on her f e e t , and s e v e r e problems with her teeth. On one occasion, Mrs. Paulson found her daughter with a large, painfully infected, untreated a b s c e s s on her arm. M r s . Paulson had to take Julie to a private physician to have it lanced and treated.
56. Julie's physical condition has substantially regressed since she was incarcerated at Hissom. Her posture has significantly w o r s e n e d , her muscle tone is poorer, and her speech is no longer understandable. Hissom fails to provide Julie with the physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy she needs.
57. Building 17 fails to provide a normal, home-like environment for Julie. Few decorations appear on any of the walls in the building and the children are given no toys or games to help them occupy themselves. The dayroom contains none of the furniture ordinarily found in a h o m e . In the bedroom, the children's beds are all closely aligned, barracks style, affording the residents no privacy. Even worse is the bathroom: All of the toilets and shower stalls are completely e x p o s e d , forcing the residents to exercise private bodily
- 17 -

functions in front of one another and in front of all of the staff.
58. Julie spends most of her time in Building No. 17 sitting idly amidst the noisy chaos sitting on the hard floor or on one of the row of chairs. The resulting boredom, monotony, and high noise levels have caused Julie to engage in body rocking, hair twisting, nose picking, and thumb sucking. However, Hissom has failed to institute any programs to ameliorate the conditions.
59. Although Julie is capable of learning to dress and feed herself and to toilet herself, she has not been provided adequaLo programs to enable her to gain all of these abilities. Many of the limited skills she has been taught in her programs have been lost when she is returned to Building 17. When Mr. and Mrs. Paulson visit Julie they never observe any of the residents engaged in planned activity that would reinforce basic self-help skills. They are all excluded from the opportunity to attend a public school in the community.
60. Julie experiences on a daily basis the demoralizing and illegal conditions described in paragraphs 95-132, below. Because defendants have failed to establish sufficient community living arrangements and services for retarded people and have limited their usage to people less severely handicapped than Julie, she has no alternative to Hissom,
- 18 -

Susan Ma~rie Thompson 61. Susan Marie Thompson is a seventeen-year old retarded adolescent residing at Hissom in Building No. 17. She has lived there a year and three months. Susan has profound retardation as a result of microcephaly and perinatal anoxia and is multiply handicapped. She is nonverbal and nonambulatory and uses a wheelchair. 62. Mrs. Thompson, a single working parent, strove to keep Susan living at home as long as possible. Before Susan entered Hissora, Mrs. Thompson ensured that she was exposed to all the activities normal children enjoy: school, vacations, trips, sports, movies, camping, computers, dances, and movies. Susan was trained to communicate with signs and a blissymbol board, to feed herself, and to signal her toileting needs. By the time Susan was sixteen, Mrs. Thompson's own advancing age and consequent difficulty lifting and carrying Susan forced her to seek residential services for her daughter. She was informed that there was no alternative but Hissom. Because defendants offered no community programs, no family support services, no homemaker services, no respite care, no visiting nurses or therapists or sm^ll c o m m u n i t y r e s i d e n c e s , Mrs. Thompson had no choice but to place Susan at Hissora. Mrs. Thompson continues to visit Susan regularly and takes her home each weekend and on holidays and vacations. 63. At Hissom, Susan lives in a noisy ward with twentythree other young women, eight of them in wheelchairs.
- 19 -

Staffing is inadequate to care for the multiply handicapped residents and to ensure their safety in an emergency. Cottage staff lack even a rudimentary grasp of sign language, are unable to communicate with Susan and ignore many of her basic needs, such as toileting.
64. Susan's living environment in Building No. .17 is stark, barren, and dehumanizing. She is deprived of the stimulating experiences and activities she enjoyed before entering Hissom. Except for the times that her mother takes her home,- she leaves the grounds only on rare occasions. When Susan is taken outside her cottage, she and other residents in wheelchairs are merely lined up against the wall, "parked" in front of the cottage.
65. Since her incarceration at Hissom, Susan has received little or no habilitation or training in self-help skills in the cottage to which she is assigned that would reinforce the skills she learned at home before entering Hissom and that her mother continues to teach her on weekend home visits. When Mrs. Thompson visits, the residents of Susan's cottage are never observed engaged in any planned activity. On occasion Mrs. Thompson arrives at Hissora to find cottage staff eating and smoking in the kitchen, while the residents are unsupervised. Rather than reinforce Susan's toileting skills, staff have tied Susan to the toilet and left her unsupervised. When left unattended, she has also fallen from the toilet and been injured.
- 20 -

6 6 . Although Susan's mother provides all of Susan's clothes and labels them, she regularly arrives at Hissom to find Susan dressed in other residents' belongings, and in clothes that are painfully tight and uncomfortable. Staff dress Susan without regard to the season or her own comfort. She is taken out in chilly weather wearing thin clothing, and dressed in heavy winter clothing in the summer. Her clothing is not kept in a personal chest or closet accessible to her but is scattered about in four different locations. Despite Mrs. Thompson's repeated efforts to remedy this situation through the Hissom social work staff, it has not been corrected.
6 7 . Hissom's policies forbid M r s . Thompson to discuss S u s a n ' s needs w i t h her c a r e g i v e r s in B u i l d i n g N o . 1 7 . Mrs. Thompson is allowed to communicate with staff only through the social work department.
68. At Hissom, Susan receives only one hour a day of classroom instruction, plus an average of one hour and twenty minutes of specialized t h e r a p i e s . This is insufficient to prevent regression when Susan returns to the idleness of the c o t t a g e . She is excluded from the opportunity to attend a public school in the community with nonhandicappad children.
69. According to the Individual Program Plan developed for Susan shortly after she entered Hissom, Susan's appropriate long-terra placement is in a group home in the community. However, there is no group home available for Susan and, upon information and belief, defendants presently have no plans to
- 21 -

establish any group homes for severely and profoundly retarded, multi-handicapped persons.
70. Susan experiences on a daily basis the demoralizing and illegal conditions described in paragraphs 95-132, below. Because defendants have failed to establish sufficient community living arrangements and services for retarded people and have limited their usage to people less severely handicapped than Susan, she has no alternative to Hissom.
Class Action Allegations 71. Plaintiffs Bridget Becker, Douglas Berry, Michael B r a s i e r , Deminkyn Martin, Julie Marie Paulson, and Susan Thompson bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), in combination with either Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(l)(A) or (B) or, alternatively, Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons who are now, or who may be in the future segregated by the state at Hissom Memorial Center. 72. The members of the class include all persons who are now at Hissom or may be transferred there in the future; r e t a r d e d persons residing at home who, because effective community services to assist their families are u n a v a i l a b l e , are in jeopardy of being sent to Hissom, and persons who have been transferred to skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, homes for the aged and similar facilities, yet remain defendants' responsibility and who, because of defendants' failure to provide alternatives in the community, may be
- 22 -

force'd to return to Hissom. Plaintiffs seek for themselves and the members of the class declaratory and injunctive relief to require defendants to create the quantity and type of community living arrangements and other community services necessary for the habilitation of all plaintiffs and class members in the least separate, most integrated community setting.
73. The members of the class have all been denied rights under federal law as a result of the actions, inactions, policies, and practices of defendants. Plaintiffs seek for themselves and for all members of the class declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate those actions, policies and practices and to require defendants to establish standards and procedures that do not arbitrarily deny to plaintiffs and the class their rights guaranteed by federal law.
7 4 . This is a proper class a c t i o n p u r s u a n t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 because (a) the class is so numerous as to make joinder of all members impracticable; (b) there are substantial questions of law and fact common to the entire class; (c) the claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the class; (d) the plaintiffs' attorneys have legal resources and experience adequate to protect all members of the class and the named plaintiffs will adequately and fairly represent the interests of the class; (e) defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; and (f) the prosecution of separate actions
- 23 -

by individual members of the class would create a risk of varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that might establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants in this action, and would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
75. The questions of law and fact common to the entire class and to the claims of the individual plaintiffs include but are not limited to:
(a) Have the d e f e n d a n t s failed to provide to plaintiffs services in an integrated c o m m u n i t y s e t t i n g , as alleged herein?
(b) Are the conditions and the ineluctable nature of Hissom Memorial Center as alleged herein?
(c) Does segregation at Hissom violate, among other rights, plaintiffs' entitlement to: the equal protection of the laws; habilitation in the least separate, most integrated community setting; freedom of association; freedom of expression; the right of family integrity; and the participation as they are able in programs and activities receiving federal assistance regardless of the severity of plaintiffs' handicaps?
(d) Do the defendants have an obligation under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to provide
- 24 -

necessary services to plaintiffs and their class in the least separate, most integrated community setting?
(e) Have defendants provided an appropriate public education, including the integration with nonhandicap p e d children, to handicapped children living at Hissom?
(f) Have defendants subjected residents of Hissom to abuse and neglect and unnecessary physical anl chemical restraint and deprived the residents of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and habilitative training?
(g) Are there s t a n d a r d s for the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s in the community that the defendants, under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, must respect and implement?
Defendants 76. Defendant Hissom Memorial Center is a state-owned and o p e r a t e d institution in which approximately 600 retarded citizens are incarcerated. It is certified as an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR) under Title XIX of the Social Security Act and receives federal funds under the Act, in addition to other federal financial assistance. 7 7 . Defendant George Nigh is Governor of O k l a h o m a . He is responsible for executing the laws of the State of Oklahoma and for appointing the members of the Commission for Human Services. He has statutory authority under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 56, Section 131 to order the commitment of retarded
- 25 -

persons to state facilities and to designate the facility most appropriate for their admission.
78. Defendants Reginald Barnes, William Farha, Albert Furr, Leon Gilbert, Robert Greer, Jane Hartley, John Orr, David Walters, and Carl Ward are the members of the Oklahoma Commission fdr Human Services. They are responsible for selecting the Director of the Department of Human Services and for formulating the policies of the Department.
7 9 . Defendant Department of Human Services is charged with executing the functions of the State of Oklahoma pertaining to the care and treatment of retarded persons, the administration and operation of Hissom Memorial C e n t e r , and other s t a t e f a c i l i t i e s for the care, support, and training of persons with retardation, and for contracting with private agencies to provide residential and other services to retarded persons in the community. The Department has the statutory duty to ensure that all residents at Hissom are given humane care and treatment, that they receive no severe physical or emotional punishment, and that the rules and discipline at Hissom are designed to promote their well-being. It is further charged by statute with ensuring that the testing, diagnosis, care and treatment of residents is in accordance with the highest standards accepted in private and public practice. The Department of Human Services is responsible for ensuring, for each retarded child at Hissom, that adequate records are kept and that the child's abilities and potential are assessed
- 26 -

annually, and that children discharged from Hissom are placed in appropriate facilities. The Department has the authority to enter into an agreement with a county or a nonprofit public or private agency for the operation of a Community Mental Retardation Complex where services beneficial or necessary for retarded persons and their families may be provided. The Department is responsible for enforcement of the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act in O k l a h o m a . The Act requires independent review of the needs of persons placed in intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded to e n s u r e that inappropriate placements are not made and to identify persons inappropriately placed in such facilities. T h e Act also requires that an intermediate care facility be operated in conformance with a set of standards to be eligible for federal financial participation or reimbursement.
80. Defendant Robert Fulton is Director of the D e p a r t m e n t of Human Services. He is the executive and administrative officer of the Department and is responsible for ensuring that Hissom Memorial Center and other retardation facilities are operated in compliance with the policies and procedures of the Department. He is responsible for monitoring, reviewing and evaluating the professional and administrative activities at Hissom, for consulting with the Superintendent of Hissom concerning the facility's needs, for determining the number of employees to be appointed there, and for preparing and submitting to the legislature budget requests suffi-
- 27 -

cient for Hissom to carry out its functions. The Director is responsible for approving the admission of retarded persons to institutions within the Department, for designating appropriate facilities for those persons and for transferring residents of an institution when the person's welfare, care and treatment can more effectively be provided at another facility. The Director is also responsible for preparing long-range plans and recommendations concerning the care and treatment of retarded persons. Additionally, he is responsible for the provision of vocational rehabilitative services to handicapped Oklahomans, including Kissom residents.
81. Defendants Burl Bartlett, E. L. Collins, Barbara Johnson, Seay Sanders, Jimmy Scales, and C. B. Wright are the members of the Oklahoma Board of Education, and defendant John Folks is the Oklahoma Superintendent for Public Instruction. They are responsible for the administration and supervision of the public school system of Oklahoma. They also are responsible for the formulation and adoption of curricula for the adequate instruction of all pupils in the public schools. The Oklahoma Board of Education is the agency designated to receive monies appropriated by Congress pursuant to the Education of the Handicapped Act, and to carry out the terms of that Act.
82. Defendant Jean Cooper is the Assistant Director for Developmental Disability Services of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. She is responsible for planning, program
- 28 -

development and evaluation of mental retardation services within the Department of Human Services.
8 3 . Defendant James West is the Assistant Director for Rehabilitative Services of the Oklahoma D e p a r t m e n t of Human S e r v i c e s . He is r e s p o n s i b l e for ensuring that severely handicapped Oklahomans , including Hissom residents, receive vocational rehabilitation services on a priority basis so that such individuals may prepare for and engage in gainful employment to the extent of their capabilities.
84. Defendant Julia Teska is the Acting Superintendent of Hissom Memorial Center. She is responsible fc1" the operation, administration, supervision and inspection of all parts of Hissom Memorial Center, for the custody, care, control of all persons admitted to Hissom, and for directing their care and t r e a t m e n t . She also is responsible for ensuring the humane management of Hissom; for enforcing adherence to its governing rules and regulations among employees; for assuring adequate staff training; and for reporting i n c i d e n t s of abuse of residents to the local a u t h o r i t i e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , she is responsible for admission of individuals to Hissom, with the approval of the Director of the Department of Human Services; for discharge of residents; for recommending a resident's transfer to another facility to the Director of the Department of Human Services; and for notifying relatives of persons who have escaped from the institution.
- 29 -

8 5 . Defendant Wendell Sharpton is the Superintendent of the Sand Springs School District. He is responsible for administrative direction and supervision of all schools in his district, including the public school program at Hissom. He is charged with coordinating the programs, curricula and activities of the schools in his district and for supervising the classification of pupils and methods of instruction ia the schools of his district.
The Facts How Plaintiffs and the Class Ccme to Be Incarcerated at Hissom
86. Hissom was established in 1961, as an outgrowth of the oii^inal "Oklahoma Institution for the F e e b l e Minded," created on March 27, 1909 when the state legislature parsed "AN ACT to establish an institution for the care, training and custody of feeble-minded, idiotic, and imbecile children; and the care and custody of feeble-minded, idiotic, and imbecile female adults." 1909 Okla. Sess. Laws 534, ch. 34, art. 2. The facility was created for "all imbecile and idiotic persons of whatever grade who are not insane." Id. Sec. 4. Thus, a regime of segregation was commissioned, and public and private attitudes and actions reinforcing that regime were legitimated and evoked.
8 7 . O k l a h o m a o f f i c i a l s actively inculcated fear of retarded people as not only dangerous, but a threat to the purity of the race, and directed that a "preference of admission" be given to retarded women of childbearing age. 1909
- 30 -

Okla. S e s s . Laws. 534, S e c . 5. S t a t e o f f i c i a l s d i r e c t e d
t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r e t a r d e d people and t h e i r r e m o v a l from
t h e community, and e n l i s t e d the a s s i s t a n c e of the p u b l i c i n
doing s o . The government undertook major o u t r e a c h e f f o r t s t o
find p o t e n t i a l c a s e s to be i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and a u t h o r i z e d a
v a r i e t y of p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g " t h e t r u s t e e s of any township i n
O k l a h o m a , " t o s e e k a c o u r t o r d e r , a g a i n s t t h e w i l l of t h e
parents if necessary, to incarcerate "feebleminded" people in
t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i f t h e p a r e n t s r e f u s e d t o do s o . 1909
Okla. S e s s . Laws 538, c h . 34, a r t . 2, Sec. 8. In t h e case of
women of c h i l d b e a r i n g a g e , "any p e r s o n " was a u t h o r i z e d t o
i n s t i t u t e commitment p r o c e e d i n g s . ZA: Sec. 1 5 .
88. Once i n c a r c e r a t e d , " t h e f e e b l e - m i n d e d " were k e p t
for l i f e . As Dr. William L. K e n d a l l , the f i r s t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t
of t h e Oklahoma I n s t i t u t i o n for Lhe Feeble-Minded, e x p l a i n e d :
"Many t i m e s t h e f r i e n d s of t h e s e p a t i e n t s naturally believe that they ought to leave the i n s t i t u t i o n s a f t e r they have become s t r o n g , a b l e - b o d i e d workers and have s e t t l e d down to steady good conduct under i n s t i t u t i o n l i f e . We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s e c h i l d r e n should be kept i n the i n s t i t u t i o n for the reason that if allowed to r e t u r n home t h e d e f e c t i v e p e r s o n s in t h e s e communities are very l i k e l y to be a t t r a c t e d by e a c h o t h e r and t o m a r r y or t o inter-marry, thus intensifying the degenerative process. Feeble-mindedness is highly h e r e d i t a r y , for that reason the h i g h - g r a d e feeble-minded boys and g i r l s a r e the most dangerous to the community."
K e n d a l l , T r e a t m e n t , Care and T r a i n i n g of Feeble-Minded C h i l -
d r e n , J . Okla. S t . Med. Ass'n ( J u l y , 1914), a t 3 .
- 31 -

89. The Oklahoma Commissioner of Charities and Corrections announced the official state policy as follows: "[T]here is not yet sufficient room [at the Institution] to care for all those who should be committed.... If they are not cared for, they oft times become a menace to the community, and soon add to the burden of other State Institutions, as well as to the sum of human misery in the world." Report of the State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections 23 (1926).
90. Throughout most of this century, the state continued to seek "control" through incarcerating all "mentally defective person," by certifying them for custody not just for their "own welfare," but also if incarceration was deemed appropriate solely for "the welfare of others or of the community." 1949 Okla. Sess. Laws 230, tit. 35, ch. 2, Sec. 2.
91. The regime of segregation reached to and was reinforced by systematic exclusion of retarded children from public schooling, e.g., 1949 Okla. Sess. Laws 559, art. 10, Sec. 10; forced sterilization for those "afflicted with" such conditions as "idiocy" or "imbecility," in order to prevent the parenting of "socially inadequate off-spring likewise afflicted," 1931 Okla. Sess. Laws 8 0 , ch. 26, art. 3; peonage, see 1909 Okla. Sess. Laws 536, Sec. 5; and bans upon ex ercise of the franchise, 1907 Okla. Sess. Laws 341.
92. As a result of the above state policies, the Oklahona Institution for the Feebleminded became "filled" to capacity. Report of the State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections
- 32 -

89. The Oklahoma Commissioner of Charities and Corrections announced the official state policy as follows: "[T]here is not yet sufficient room [at the Institution] to care for all those who should be committed.... If they are not cared for, they oft times become a menace to the community, and soon add to the burden of other State Institutions, as well as to the sum of human misery in the world." Report of the State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections 23 (1926).
90. Throughout most of this century, the state continued to seek "control" through incarcerating all "mentally defective person," by certifying them for custody not just for their "own welfare," but also if incarceration was deemed appropriate solely for "the welfare of others or of the community." 1949 Okla. Sess. Laws 230, tit. 35, ch. 2, Sec. 2.
91. The regime of segregation reached to and was reinforced by systematic exclusion of retarded children from public schooling, e.g., 1949 Okla. Sess. Laws 559, art. 10, Sec. 10; forced sterilization for those "afflicted with" such conditions as "idiocy" or "imbecility," in order to prevent the parenting of "socially inadequate off-spring likewise afflicted," 1931 Okla. Sess. Laws 80, ch. 26, art. 3; peonage, see 1909 Okla. Sess. Laws 536, Sec. 5; and bans upon exercise of the franchise, 1907 Okla. Sess. Laws 341.
92. As a result of the above state policies, the Oklahoma Institution for the Feebleminded became "filled" to capacity. Report of the State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections
- 32 -

69-70 ( 1 9 2 8 ) . In order to provide room to incarcerate increased numbers of retarded p e o p l e , in the s a m e s p i r i t , additional institutions were legislatively authorized, one especially for epileptics at Pauls V a l l e y , see 1945 O k l a . S e s s . Laws 4 9 1 , and another at Sand Springs, see 1961 Okla. Sess. Laws 685, Sec. 2. The latter institution, named Hissom Memorial Center, is the subject of this case.
93. Retarded people continue to be i n c a r c e r a t e d at Hissom because defendants have failed to provide alternative services for them in their communities. When a crisis occurs in the family of a retarded person, inadequate services are available to support hhe family or to assist in the care and treatment and the raising of the child at home or in a community residence near the home.
9 4 . Retarded persons remain incarcerated and segregated at Hissom for the same reasons: the failure of defendants to provide sufficient alternative services, including residences in the community. Although the living conditions are unconstitutionally deficient and dangerous at Hissom, retarded persons and their families are forced to rely upon the i n s t i t u t i o n , with all of its strictures, as the only 'setting available to them. The Institutional Environment at Hissom
95. Hissom is located near Sand Springs, Oklahoma, a small town on the outskirts of Tulsa. The location is remote and inaccessible by public transportation, which limits the
- 33 -

ability of families and friends to maintain frequent contacts with residents there. The hardship is greater for persons with limited means, but in all cases the sheer isolation of Hissom acccelerates the decline of a f f e c t i o n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , stripping from the incarcerated individual those supports, both emotional and m a t e r i a l , that are normally available in the community.
9 6 . Hissom's isolation prohibits the use of community resources to establish training programs, to meet health needs, to provide employment or recreation, or to aid in the development of those diversified activities that non-incarcerated p e r s o n s take for granted. Resources in Sand Springs are insufficient to absorb the social needs of Hissom's population.
9 7 . The location of Hissom militates against effective programming. To be segregated in a huge facility, with the closest neighbors the residents of an institution for adjudicated juveniles, and completely isolated from society, accentuates differences and devalues the individuals within its walls. Like a prison, Hissom is neither a pleasant place to work nor one to visit, and access to skilled professional and volunteer resources is curtailed. The environment renders the learning and maintenance of lifeskills practically impossible.
98. Hissom's policies, procedures and practices discourage maintenance of ties between residents and their families and loved ones, and precludes the establishment of new ties and friendships. Visiting hours at the institution are unrea-
- 34 -

sonably limited, and parents are denied visiting privileges with their children at Hissom during the first three weeks of the child's stay.
99. Living and activity space at Hissora is inadequate in design, insufficient in area, inappropriate in setting, and dehumanizing in condition. Buildings are not functional for modern needs. Buildings are dirty and unsanitary, exposing p l a i n t i f f s to physical health hazards in addition to the discomfort of constant odors and filth. Diseases such as s h i g e l l a , hepatitis, and chicken pox are transmitted through the unsanitary, crowded conditions.
100. Hissom was designed for mass management and custodial convenience. Plaintiffs spend almost all of their time in large groups in multi-function rooms that do not permit the separation of activities that would be found in private or group homes or in normal work or recreation places. Plaintiffs are not provided the opportunity to experience a variety of environments during the day, as are community members, and thus are deprived of important learning opportunities.
101. The physical layout is devoid of warmth, individuality, or dignity. The living and sleeping areas are sparsely furnished and are without the lamps, sofas, rugs, tables, comfortable chairs, pictures, m a g a z i n e s , toys, or other age-appropriate furnishings associated with normal, active living. Plaintiffs are denied the development, sensory and intellectual stimulation, comfort, and pleasure that community
- 35 -

residents obtain from the usual physical accoutrements in homes, schools, restaurants, workplaces, and recreational facilities.
102. The physical setting at Hissom does not permit privacy, individuality, or freedom of association to plaint i f f s . Residents spend their days in large, concrete-walled dayrooms, seated in identical chairs or on the bare floor. They are deprived of their freedom to choose or reject their associates and to determine when and in what ways they relate to their f r i e n d s . As a result, numerous residents have regressed, mentally and physically.
1 0 3 . Inadequate closets or chests for nersonal possessions are available, and those that exist often are not accessible or permitted to be used by residents. Because of the shortage of staff and the lack of facilities for storage of personal items, the few belongings plaintiffs own are too often lost, stolen or destroyed within a short period of time. These conditions deprive plaintiffs of their dignity and identity,and also fail to help them develop the self-respect, consideration for o t h e r s , and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of property relationships necessary to functioning in the community.
104. Toilet facilities are inadequate. Toilet seats are missing and washing facilities lacking. Bathrooms frequently lack walls, partitions or curtains between toilets or doors on stalls. Toilet and bathing facilities are not appropriately equipped for the use of persons with physical handicaps—for
- 36 -

example, there are no shampoo facilities for wheelchair-users. In some buildings potty chairs are located in the midst of sleeping or living areas. Many living areas have a definite stench of urine. Plaintiffs are deprived by these conditions of rights taken for granted by other citizens, to exercise their bodily functions in privacy and to observe proper hygienic measures.
105. Clean clothing, bed linen, and towels are frequently not available. Plaintiffs' personal clothing is routinely lost, and plaintiffs are frequently required to wear improperly fitting clothes and u n d e r c l o t h e s , and sometimes even to go e n t i r e l y w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r y items of clothing. Clothing modified to fit handicapped residents' particular physiques and to help them learn to dress themselves properly are not provided. Plaintiffs are deprived of the personal development, comfort and satisfaction that accompany the right to choose among a decent selection of appropriate, clean, f i t t i n g , seasonable, and attractive personal clothing and to present an appearance similar to other citizens.
106. Soap, wash cloths, towels, toilet paper, toothbrushes and toothpaste are frequently not readily accessible to r e s i d e n t s . P l a i n t i f f s do not learn to utilize hygienic supplies or to exercise self-care skills necessary for personal health and comfort, as well as for acceptance within the larger community .
- 37 -

107. Upon information and belief, buildings at Hissom were constructed with materials containing asbestos. Any amount of asbestos poses a threat of serious, possibly deadly injury to the residents forced to live and work in buildings constructed with that material. The serious health problems associated with exposure to asbestos include pleural mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. The danger to residents is compounded by the fact that they rarely are able to leave their b u i l d i n g s , and that many of those subjected to the long-term effects of the asbestos are children. The Institutional Staff at Hissom
108. Staff-to-resident ratios and staff training are inadequate to provide mere custodial care, let alone to evoke development and habilitation or even to protect plaintiffs from harm. The staffing requirements of recognized authoritative minimum standards are not met.
109. Plaintiffs are not provided with the habilitative s e r v i c e s , stimulation, and attention necessary to prevent d e t e r i o r a t i o n of and injury to their physical c o n d i t i o n , psychological well-being, and personal development. Staff-toresident ratios and the gross scale :>f institutional living operate to discourage personal, intimate, primary relationships like those enjoyed in normal living situations.
110. Defendants have failed to recruit, employ and train direct care and professional personnel in sufficient numbers, and have failed to place personnel in an environment making it
- 38 -

possible for them to stimulate and assist in the daily life activities of plaintiffs.
1 1 1 . D e f e n d a n t s ' failure to provide adequate trained staff to assist residents in the activities of daily living has denied plaintiffs the opportunity to retain basic self-care skills such as dressing, feeding and toileting.
1 1 2 . Defendants have failed to provide plaintiffs with adequate medical care. There are insufficient numbers of physicians and nurses at Hissom to provide for residents' medical needs. Plaintiffs, because they are handicapped, are treated by practitioners certified for institutional practice only, rather than fully qualified physicians practicing the standard of medicine adhered to by community physicians .
113. Defendants have hired persons to practice medicine at Hissom who have no medical credentials.
114. Because of the severe shortage of registered nurses and other trained medical personnel, residents' health problems are unrecognized and untreated. Health assessments are done by aides with no medical training.
1 1 5 . In place of active h a b i l i t a t i v e programming, defendants administer to residents heavy dosages of tranquillizing m e d i c a t i o n s , in amounts grossly inconsistent with accepted medical practice and harmful to the residents.
116. Defendants neglect to supervise the administration of medications to residents. Residents are given prescribed
- 39 -

medications erratically, sometimes receiving too much, sometimes not receiving prescribed medications at all, thus endangering their health and safety.
117. Staffing is even more inadequate in the buildings where persons with severe and profound retardation live. These persons, whose handicaps prevent them from exercising the most basic self-care skills, need more attention from staff than the more mildly handicapped residents do; in fact, they receive even less. The Institutional Program at Hissom
118. Programs for Hissom exist, if at a l l , chiefly on paper c n l y . Idleness there is ubiquitous, regression is rampant.
119. Adequate and regular evaluations of each resident's physical, social, psychological, and personal development are not made. Defendants have not uniformly utilized a standard process for assessment of each resident. I n d i v i d u a l i z e d habilitation plans and programs are not appropriate for each recipient. Defendants have failed to provide periodic review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the plan or program for each resident. Programs and services required by *esid e n t s ' individual program plans are not implemented or provided .
120. Defendants have failed to provide necessary and appropriate services, including medical and dental care and treatment, nursing care, psychological services, personal care
- 40 -

and protection, social work services, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology and audiology services, recreation, and vocational and rehabilitative training, despite professional judgment that residents require these services.
121. Defendants have failed to prepare residents for or assist them in securing gainful e m p l o y m e n t , despite professional judgment that residents require these services.
122. Defendants have failed to provide for each resident an individualized exit plan for placement in an integrated community setting, despite professional judgment that resid e n t s ' needs would most appropriately be met by such placements .
123. Although limited programs are provided them, plaintiffs spend most of their time in a dayroom adjoining their communal sleeping quarters, without planned activity, often wandering aimlessly or sitting or lying alone, and often without adequate clothing. Many residents languish in cribs or on mats all day with no stimulation except when they are changed or fed. There is very little interaction between staff and residents on the wards. Age-appropriate activities are u n a v a i l a b l e . Lighting is often diminished and noise levels fluctuate wildly.
124. Activities such as eating, toileting, and bathing are often conducted en masse, at predetermined and unchanging times chosen for the convenience of the institution. This regimentation deprives plaintiffs of the normally experienced
- 41 -

f r e e d o m and d i g n i t y of choosing when to attend to their individual daily tasks and interests, and arranging their appearances according to their personal tastes.
125. Physical and pharmaceutical restraint procedures and tranquillizing medications are frequently utilized for restraint of residents and as a s u b s t i t u t e for a p p r o p r i a t e care and programs of habilitati>n. Plaintiffs are subjected to punishment and to medication prescribed without a specific therapeutic goal.
126. Residents are required to perform work for the facility without being paid. These activities are not part of any individual program plan.
1 2 7 . R e s i d e n t s are subjected to undue restraint in their freedom of movement, by excessive locking of doors, locking of residents into chairs, wheelchairs and onto toilets, and failing to put leg braces on individuals who need them to walk.
128. The Individual Program Plans (IPPs) developed for residents do not provide adequate, appropriate active programming. Programs listed in residents' individual plans are not actually delivered or implemented but exist on paper only. IPPs are poorly integrated, and many residents do not have IPPs at all.
129. Programs to deal with residents' behavioral probleds are absent. Staff are not trained to understand the causes of
- 42 -

residents' aggressive or self-abusive behavior nor to intervene and modify it.
1 3 0 . Defendants' failure to provide plaintiffs with professionally-devised programs and activities to help them maintain fundamental skills has caused plaintiffs to experience regression and the loss of skills they possessed when they entered the institution.
131. Plaintiffs have been excluded from the opportunity to attend public school with children who are not h a n d i capped. They are provided a separate but unequal educational opportunity within the confines of Hissom. The education at the institution does uot provide appropriate, individualized programs for the residents, nor does it provide appropriate levels of related services such as physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy or psychological services.
1 3 2 . Insofar as programs and services exist at Hissom, they are directed primarily to mildly and moderately handicapped residents, and not to residents with severe and profound retardation and multiple handicaps. Programs, therapies and services for the more severely retarded residents of Hissom are almost nonexistent. The Persistence of the Institutional Conditions
133. As the persistence of these conditions throughout H i s s o m ' s e x i s t e n c e and the presence of these conditions universally among institutions demonstrate, these conditions are endemic to large, segregated, isolated, "total institu-
- 43 -

t i o n s " such as H i s s o m . A total institution is one that attempts to service all of the inmates' needs, as defined by the institution, within its own confines. Hissom inherently denies to plaintiffs the experiences, interactions, enjoyment, and opportunity for growth and development enjoyed by other members of society. Because of its mass nature, the institution operates according to the exigencies of the moment and maintains control of its inmates based on the limitations of the least able individuals.
134. The behavior of retarded persons may differ from that of other persons, but those differences can be diminished substantially. By segregating retarded persons from the rest of the community and congregating them t o g e t h e r , H i s s o m reifies, compounds, and aggravates these deviating behaviors, which ultimately yield total devaluation of the individuals.
135. Staff at institutions such as Hissom view and relate to residents primarily in large, massed numbers, in warehouse environments. Because of population density and because of the forced institutionalized appearance of r e s i d e n t s , staff are deprived of the ability to perceive and relate to residents as human beings.
136. Retarded persons, like other persons, vary in their needs, wishes, and abilities, and at different points of life different activities and environments are appropriate to each person. Large institutions classify residents once, and in the gross, based on a few salient characteristics, with little
- 44 -

opportunity for re-evaluation or challenge. The large, total institution deprives plaintiffs of their individuality, of the possibility of habilitation, and of living freely.
137. Hissom, segregated and isolated from the rest of society, deprives residents of the opportunity to interact with non-retarded people in non-custodial relationships and in normal community settings. Plaintiffs are denied the experiences of observing how other people behave and interact and of learning to carry out age-appropriate and acceptable social behavior and of experiencing the dignity and freedom of living in the community as normally as they may. Normalisation, Liberty, Integration, and Equality
138. Persons with retardation grow and gain skills and overcome institution-imposed regression when provided with opportunities to learn, in practice, basic skills in small, well-structured, supervised community settings.
139. Professional knowledge, research and the experience of states across the country confirm that retarded persons, subject to destructive environments such as Hissom, progress and gain skills when provided community services.
140. In a five year study commissioned by the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services comparing the growth and development of severely retarded persons moved from an institutional facility, older but much like Hissom, to community living arrangements, researchers systematically monitoring residents for five years found:
- 45 -

Severely retarded persons placed in community living arrangements increased in skills and developmental growth while residents of the institution did not; and Severely retarded persons were receiving and benefiting from greater a m o u n t s of s t r u c t u r e d s e r v i c e s than those at the institution even though the cost of community services was less than the per client institutional cost. 141. The federal government study concluded that retarded persons moved from the institution to community s e r v i c e s were "better off in every way." J. W. Conroy & V. J. Bradley, The Pennhurst Longitudinal Study; A Report of Five Years of R e s e a r c h and Analysis , Temple Univ., Philadelphia, PA; A Project of the U. S. Department of Health ana Human Services, Office of Human Development Services, Washington, DC (1985). 142. "Normalization" is a fundamental, widely accepted principle in the habilitation of retarded persons. It is based on the recognition of retarded persons as full human beings with rights to liberty and self-actualization and on the practical experience and observation that retarded persons car. best achieve these goals in life patterns that are integrated with and similar to those followed by other p e r s o n s . The normalization principle has been accepted as a guiding principle for p r o g r a m s s e r v i n g retarded people by retardation professionals, including the American Association on Mental D e f i c i e n c y , the President's Committee on Mental Retardation, and the Association for Persons with Severe H a n d i c a p s ; by
- 46 -

consumers, including the Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States; and by the defendants themselves.
143. The normalization principle requires that retarded persons be treated alike and permitted experiences like other persons of the same age in their own community to the greatest possible extent. Their similarity to normal persons is to be eaphdsized and their deviant aspects deemphasized and diminished through appropriate habilitative programming. They are to be enabled to live in a culturally normative community setting, in typical housing, to communicate and socialize in age- and culturally-appropriate ways, and to utilize community resources as other citizens do. Normalization requires that habilitation occur in the settings in which acquired skills will be utilized and that habilitation be attained by the use of generic services in the community.
144. Plaintiffs and members of their class are human beings who have feelings, needs, and motivations like all other people. They h a v e , to varying degrees, the potential for growth, development, and achievement of self-care and self-support. They are capable of benefiting from treatment and h a b i l i t a t i v e services to maximize their potential and to satisfy their social, emotional and economic needs.
145. Experience in Oklahoma and throughout the country demonstrates that these needs can be met and a normalized, free and equal life in the community assured to retarded persons. Experience shows that a normalized life in the community can be
- 47 -

assured to retarded persons while satisfactorily guaranteeing to parents the continued care and security of the person, after the parents' death, after the person has reached majority, and when, before age eighteen, circumstances contrive to require that the person reside apart from the family. Experience also shows that a normalized life, outside the institution, can be assured while satisfactorily guaranteeing to present employees at the institution job security and employment in community
* services.
146. Services in the community to support a normalized life for retarded people can be secured at a cost no greater than the current per capita annual expenditure at Hissom; it is likely that it can be provided for less. Moreover, the cost of providing such services in the community is enormously less than the cost of providing the services in the institution that are necessary to actually meet the needs of retarded persons.
147. Learning (and much else) by retarded people requires the example of other non-retarded people and in real-world environments where what is learned is done. As for all people, but relatively more so for retarded people (it is one of their "differences"), learning by retarded people during all of life proceeds in significant part by imitation and example and in the concrete, rather than by generalization from one context into a n o t h e r . Learning by retarded people flourishes in properly structured and integrated environments; in isolation it is destroyed.
- 48 -

148. As members of the community, retarded people of all
ranges of ability can and do maintain not only steady but
productive jobs. Retarded people can and do significantly care
for themselves, keep clean and even pleasing rooms, and respect
the rights of others, for in the community you never know when
a friend whose respect you wish to keep may drop in. Retarded
people do make good neighbors, to their orfn benefit and their
neighbors'. The abysmally ignorant stereotypes to the contrary
do not withstand the facts or a correct understanding of what
difference being retarded makes. Retarded people need assis-
tance, as do all persons, often relatively more, but that mecns
not exclusion from the community but participation in it.
149. In recognition of these facts, the U. S. Congress
has concluded:
"It must be recognized that the vast majority of developmentally d i s a b l e d persons and the vast majority of persons institutionalized should not be in these institutions at a l l . Efforts to assure proper treatment, education, and habilitation services in large institutions should not deflect attention from the fact that most of these institutions themselves are anachronisms, and that rapid steps should be taken to phase them out. Many of these institutions by their very n a t u r e , their size, their isolation, their impersonality, are unsuitable for treatment, education, and habilitation programs." S. Rep. No. 94-160, 94th Cong., 1st sess. 32-33 (1975).
The Failures of Defendants,
150. As early as 1964, the Oklahoma Department of Public
Welfare convened a state-wide conference to plan for services
- 49 -

to retarded p e r s o n s . The goals of the Department for the development of retardation services in Oklahoma, were presented as follows:

" 1. Institutional care should be restricted to those

whose specific needs can be met best by this type of services.

" 2. The following objectives for residential care

should be considered ...:

(1) Every such institution, including those that

care for the seriously retarded, should be basically therapeu-

tic in character and emphasis, and closely linked to appro-

priate medical, educational, and welfare programs in the

community.

* * *#

(6) The goal of every r e s i d e n t i a l program should

be the e l i m i n a t i o n or amelioration of as many symptoms as

possible and the achievement of independent, semi-dependent or

even a sheltered extramural l i f e for every person under care in

accordance with his p o t e n t i a l . * *

* *

" 5. [L]ocal communities, in cooperation with Federal and State a g e n c i e s , [should] undertake the development of community services for the retarded. These services should be developed in coordination with the State comprehensive plan for the retarded, and plans for them should be integrated with those for construction and improvement of services in residential facilities."

- 50 -

1 5 1 . Defendants have utterly failed to progress toward the goals they set for themselves more than two decades ago.
152. Despite their own policies, prevailing professional opinion, and clear standards, and in violation of the Constitution and federal law, defendants have not acted to provide to retarded persons the necessary conditions for a free and equal, normalized life in the community. Oklahoma ranks 50th among the states in per capita services provided to retarded persons in the community.
153. Defendants have committed resources available for relocating persons incarcerated at Hissora to facilities at the institution and have permitted the transfer of residents to similar large-scale, isolating institutions such as skilled nursing facilities, rather than to the development and use of community living facilities and community services.
154. In particular, defendants have made costly renovations to certain existing s t r u c t u r e s at H i s s o m and have transferred Hissom residents to those facilities. In addition, defendants have requested and obtained millions of dollars from the Oklahoma Legislature for further renovations.
155. Defendants have failed or refused to implement plans and programs for alternative community living facilities and other group homes despite explicit legislative authorization to provide them.
156. Defendants have failed to implement a range of programs and services to prevent needless s e g r e g a t i o n of
- 51 -

retarded persons. Instead, Hissom's population has been reduced by transferring residents to other institutions so that costly building programs on-grounds at Hissom might continue. Community home development has fallen far below needed levels. At present, there are only 40 community residential facilities for persons with retardation in Oklahoma, and none of them serve severely and profoundly or multihandicapped retarded people.
Claims Count I; Rehabilitation Act
Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class secured by Sections 100 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1 9 7 3 , 29 U.S.C. Sections 720 and 7 9 4 , and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 45 C.F.R. parts 84 and 1361, by:
A. E x c l u d i n g r e t a r d e d people from participation in state-operated federally funded programs;
B. Failing to provide retarded people federally funded services that are effective and m e a n i n g f u l and that are delivered in less separate, more integrated settings;
C. Denying retarded people the benefits of federally f u n d e d a c t i v i t i e s on the basis of the severity of their handicaps;
D. Segregating residents at Hissom on the basis of their physical handicaps;
E. Failing to accessibly accommodate facilities at Hisson for persons with physical handicaps;
- 52 -

F. Denying training and habilitation to residents at Hissom because of the severity of their retardation or their associated physical handicaps;
G. Denying community services to residents because of the severity of their handicaps; and
H. Failing to provide vocational rehabilitation services to severely handicapped residents of Hissom on a priority basis so that such individuals may prepare for and engage in gainful
ft
employment to the extent of their capabilities. Count II: Social Security Act
Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class secured by Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396 and 1396a, and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 42 C.F.R. part 42, subpart G, by:
A. Failing to provide training and habilitation services to all residents regardless of age, degree of retardation or accompanying disabilities or handicaps;
B. Failing to provide professional services to residents in physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology and audiology, psychology, dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy;
C. Failing to allow residents to manage their own personal financial affairs;
D. Requiring residents to perform work for the facility without pay;
E. Failing to allow residents to retain personal possessions and clothing in their living areas;
- 53 -

F. Failing to provide for individual privacy in toilets, bathtubs, showers and living areas generally;
G. Accommodating more than four residents per bedroom; H. Failing to provide living areas equipped for use by persons with physical handicaps; I. Using physical and chemical restraints as punishment, for convenience of staff and as a substitute for activities or treatment; J. Failing to develop adequate activities for residents, thereby forcing them to spend the greater part of each day in their cottages in unstructured activities; K. Failing to provide sufficient, appropriately qualified and trained staff in resident living areas, especially in living areas for severely and profoundly retarded and severely physically handicapped persons; L. Failing to provide adequate, integrated individual treatment plans for residents; M. Failing to perform adequate individual interdisciplinary assessments of residents; N. Failing to review or evaluate the appropriateness of the continued residence of retarded persons in Hissom and other Title XIX facilities or the feasibility of meeting their needs through alternative institutional or noninstitutional care; 0. Failing to develop discharge plans and referral to appropriate community resources; • P. Failing to monitor residents' medications;
- 54 -

Q. Failing to have written agreements with qualified professionals and hospitals outside the facility to provide required services not furnished by the facility;
R. Subjecting residents to emotional and physical abuse; S. Refusing to permit residents communication, association, and private meetings with individuals of their choosing; T. Failing to permit residents to participate in social, religious, and community group activities; U. Segregating residents on the basis of their physical handicaps; V. F a i l i n g to treat p l a i n t i f f s and the class with consideration, respect, and full recognition of their dignity and individuality; W. Failing to assure that services are provided pursuant to the state's Title XIX Plan in a manner consistent with the best interests of plaintiffs and the class. Count III: Education of the Handicapped Act Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class secured by the Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1401-15, and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 34 C.F.R. part 300, by: A. Failing to insure that to the maximum extent appropriate, plaintiffs and the class are educated with children who are not handicapped; B. R e q u i r i n g H i s s o m r e s i d e n t s to be segregated in separate schools even though their handicaps are not unifor-ly
- 55 -

of such a nature or severity that attendance in a more integrated environment, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily;
C. Failing to provide or arrange for the provisions of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals and recess periods, in a way that insures that each class member participates with nonhandicapped children in those services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child;
D. Failing to make individualized determinations for each class member of the appropriateness of placement in a separate school;
E. Failing to establish various alternative placements to insure that all class members receive an integrated education appropriate to their individual needs;
F. Failing to provide adequate transportation and such development, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist each class member to benefit from special education, including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities, counseling, medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes, social work services, parent counseling and training, and other related services;
G. Failing to evaluate each class member to determine the nature and extent of the special education and related services
- 56 -

that the child needs by providing and refining assessments that distinguish precisely each individual student's strengths and needs, learning style, behavioral needs, and life-skill needs;
H. Failing to provide written notice to or to obtain the consent of the parents of each class member before conducting evaluations of or placing the class members in a program providing special education and related services;
I. Failing to assign a surrogate parent to insure that the rights of each class member is protected when no parent can be identified, the whereabouts of a parent cannot be discovered, or the child is a ward of the state;
J. Failing to group students in age appropriate classes or locating classes in age appropriate schools where nonhandicapped students also attend, and precluding opportunities for interaction between handicapped and nonhandicapped students;
K. Failing to provide a functional curriculum; L. Failing to provide to teachers instructional advisors, functional materials or appropriate equipment; M. Failing to reduce routinized instruction by creative teaching techniques, high levels of expectations for students, individualized planning and instruction, and knowledge, command and use of promising educational practices and materials; N. Failing to assess, evaluate and train in natural environments, thereby wrongly relying on skills to be transferred from one environment to the other;
- 57 -

0. Failing to task-analyze skills to be taught in such a way that they are broken down into each component and subcomponent part for instruction;
P. Failing to develop and apply a relevant data system, giving staff an accurate assessment of successes of cues and reinforcers, interactions and external stimuli;
Q. Failing to provide a variety of instructional arrangements, including one-to-one, small group, student-to-student interactions;
R. Failing to provide systematic concurrent teaching strategies to reduce "dead time";
S. Failing to seek, encourage, and Ir."orporate advice, consultation and information from the family and friends of individual students in order to evaluate and program plan; and
T. Failing to provide effective sequencing and integration of instructional tasks, settings, personnel and disciplines in assessment and in the planning, design, delivery, evaluation and redesign of each child's education. Count IV: Equal Protection
Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t by establishing, encouraging, subsidizing, and otherwise sanctioning in de jure fashion enactments, programs, policies and practices that have excluded, separated, and segregated retarded people from the rest of us.
- 53 -

Count V: Expression and Association Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the
class to the freedoms of expression and association secured by the First Amendment, by:
A. Preventing class members from associating and assembling with others of their choice;
B. Diminishing and failing to protect the capacity o.7 class members to produce ideas by thinking and learning, and to express those ideas through communication;
C. Failing to permit residents the free exercise of their religious beliefs; and
D. Failing to utilize less restrictive alternatives when impinging upon the above rights. Count VI: Privacy, Dignity and Family Integrity
Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class to the privacy, dignity, and family integrity secured by the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, by:
A. Stripping the residents of Hissom of their individuality;
B. Requiring that they exercise the most personal of bodily functions under the constant intrusive stares of staff and other residents in a way that is patently offensive to a reasonable person;
C. Affording them little or no opportunity to be alone when they want to be, or to be with others of their choosing;
- 59 -

D. Failing to provide them normal opportunities to express love, warmth, affection, and sexuality; and
E. Forcing them to live their lives congregately, according to the demands of the institution rather than according to their personal preferences. Count VII; Due Process
Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs and the class to the liberty and property interests secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by:
A.. Failing to provide adequate shelter, clothing, food and health care;
B. Imposing unnecessary restraints, physical or chemical; C. Subjecting class members to abuse, neglect and other harmful conditions, including the injury stemming from regression and the stigma caused by segregation and incarceration; D. Failing to place class members in settings that are more integrated and less separate, and that would enable them to enjoy the liberties normally associated with one's citizenship; E. Failing to provide habilitative services to enable each class member to enjoy the rights enumerated in Counts I through VII(D). F. Failing to give consideration to the habilitative, placement, and other needs and rights of each individual class member, treating him or her in accordance with his or her own situation;
- 60 -

G. Conclusively presuming that residents of Hissom cannot benefit from particular services or cannot live in noninstitutional settings;
H. Denying class m e m b e r s ' rights to the property and liberty interests created by Oklahoma state law to services in integrated settings;
I. Denying class members an adequate opportunity to be heard on the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of their habilitative plans, programs, and environment; and
J. Failing to provide a friend-advocate to assist each class member to live safely in freedom, and to exercise their rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments, and under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count VIII: Imposition of Unconstitutional Conditions
Defendants have violated the right of plaintiffs and the c l a s s to freedom from the imposition of unconstitutional conditions by forcing.them to submit to violations of the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t — v i o l a t i o n s c r e a t e d by defendants themselves — as a condition for the receipt of services provided by the state.
Relief WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
- 61 -

1. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants to provide all plaintiffs and members of the class effective services in the least separate, most integrated community setting appropriate to their needs.
2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from admitting persons to Hissom or from transferring present residents from Hissom unless such transfer is to the leest separate, most integrated community setting appropriate to their needs, with appropriate related ancillary services provided.
3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants to e k e available in advance of that time and with dispatch the necessary alternative residential facilities and services in the community.
A. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants to safeguard plaintiffs' right to freedom from abuse., neglect, and unnecessary physical and chemical restraints, and to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and habilitative programming to plaintiffs.
5. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants to develop written individualized habilitation and exit plans for each plaintiff and member of the class and to provide an individualized habilitation program for each.
6. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants to make available a friend-advocate and surrogate parent to each
- 62 -

plaintiff and member of the class to assist each in securing the substantive and procedural protections aforesaid.
7. Declare unconstitutional, and unlawful under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its accompanying regulations, the failure of defendants to provide plaintiffs and members of the class with effective services delivered in the least separate, most integrated community setting, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin them to provide such services.
8. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from failing to perform their duties under other federal statutes: to wit, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396 and 1396a, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1401-1415, and 29 U.S.C. Section 720, and their accompanyiu£ regulations .
9. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants to submit to plaintiffs and to the Court for its approval a plan for implementation of the aforesaid.
10. Enter a final judgment certifying the class of individuals the plaintiffs represent to include all persons who are now at Hissom or who may be transferred there in the future; retarded persons residing at home who, because effective community services to assist their families are unavailable, are in jeopardy of being sent to Hissom; and persons who have been transferred to skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, homes for the aged, and similar facilities, yet remain Hissom's responsibility, and who, because of
- 63 -

defendants' failure to provide alternatives in the community, may be forced to return to Hissom.
11. Award plaintiffs their costs and attorneys fees. 12. Award plaintiffs and the members of the class such other relief as is necessary to effectuate their rights to effective services in an integrated community setting.
Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS K. GILHOOL FRANK J. LASKI JUDITH A. GRAN TIMOTHY M. COOK Public Intercut Law Center
of Philadelphia 1315 Walnut Street Suite 1632 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215)735-7200

ALLEN MITCHELL Post Office Box 190 Sapulpa, OK 74067 (918)224-5720
RAYMOND YASSER
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104 (918)592-6000

LOUIS BULLOCK
Bullock & Bullock 406 South Boulder Suite 700 Tulsa, OK 74103 (918)584-2001
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class
May 2, 1985

- 64 -

 
 Homeward Bound v. Hissom Memorial Ctr. MR-OK-002-004

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HOMEWARD BOOND, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

) Case No. 85-O437-E

v.

)

)

THE HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

CONSENT DECREE Plaintiffs, representing the class of present and certain former residents of The Hissottr Memorial Center (THMC), and defendants hereby agree to the entry of this Decree in settlement of this litigation, and in order to establish an agreed-upon framework for a community service system as an alternative to institutional care for class members.
BACKGROUND Suit was filed on May 2, 1985, on behalf of THMC class, to secure relief from alleged unlawful treatment while in the care of the Department of Human Services. The Court entered certain interim orders pertaining to services provided at THMC. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a final

- 2-
Order containing the Court Plan and Order of Deinstitutionalization ("1-987 Order") were entered on July 24, 1987, and became effective upon the entry of judgment on October 21, 1987. Following an application for stay by defendants, the Court entered further Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and its Order denying a stay on May 20, 1988. By order dated May 20, 1988, the Court appointed a Monitor to facilitate implementation of the Decree.
Defendants have appealed the Court's 1987 Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which appeal is still pending. Pursuant to the Court's Decrees defendants have submitted a number of plans for carrying out * various elements of the order.
At the direction of the Court in its May 19, 1989, Order, the Department of Human Services devoted substantial resources to the development of plans to secure for class members the relief of the Orders of the Court. This planning effort has resulted in a comprehensive series of detailed plans designed to afford the present and former residents of THMC quality habilitative care in community settings. In addition, the parties have now had almost two years of experience under the Court's 1987 Order, and based on that experience they have a much better understanding of the difficulties involved in the transition from a system of care for individuals who are mentally retarded based primarily on institutional treatment to a system based primarily on community

- 3-
service, of the amount of time required to effect transitions of THMC population to community settings, of the-resources that are available to support a service delivery system based primarily on community service, and of the costs involved in such a system.
The plaintiffs and defendants now desire to terminate the litigation concerning care and treatment of THMC class, including the pending appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and to move forward under an agreed-upon structure for carrying out a service program that will provide appropriate relief to the class consistent with the deinstitutionalization* goal of the 1987 Order. Accordingly, this Consent Decree is intended to supersede or modify the Court's 1987 Order and those orders that have been entered by the Court pertaining to implementation of the Decree.
This Consent Decree utilizes the dichotomy in the makeup of THMC class previously established by the Court. The "focus" class consists of all persons now extant who are presently residing at THMC or who were resident at THMC at any time after May 2, 1985. The "balance1* class consists of all other members of THMC class.
I. PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE "FOCUS" CLASS
A* Discharge from THMC and Provision
of Community Services and Supports 1. The central obligation on defendants imposed by this Decree is to adopt and implement a realistic program

- 4-

for discharging residents from THMC and placing them in appro-

priate community settings, as defined below, and to provide or

facilitate an appropriate regime of services and supports for

the focus class in accordance with their Individual Habilitation Flans (IHPs). As part of this program, no new admissions will

be made to THMC and all present residents will be discharged. The target date cor completing the discharge or all present residents is October 1, 1993. Defendants' planning and implementation efforts will be designed to meet this target. After the discharge of all present residents, THMC will cease to

operate as an ICF-MR facility.

-«.

2. In addition, there are approximately 100 persons-'

now residing in Oklahoma who were residents of THMC at the

commencement of the suit but who have since been discharged

from THMC. The obligation to place class members in appro-

priate community settings applies to any of these persons who

is not already placed in an appropriate community setting.

3. The following constitutes the minimum number

of class members to be placed in appropriate community

settings and provided services and supports identified by

their IHPsx

a. 80 persons during the first year ending October 1, 1990

b. 100 persons during the second year ending October 1, 1991
c. 120 persons during the third year ending October 1, 1992

- 5 -
d. 130 persons during the fourth year ending October 1, 1993
e. All remaining class members for whom community placements are required under this Decree during the year ending October 1, 1994
Notwithstanding these minimums, defendants will make every effort to meet the target date for discharge of present residents from THMC into appropriate community settings.
4. The range of residential options to be considered for each client includes independent living, natural home, adult companion program, shared living arrangements, foster home, supported living arrangements, small group homes -» and small ICFs-MR (up to six residents). A placement will be arranged in one of these options, preferably in an apartment, home, or a shared living arrangement, where the clients agree to share a residence.
B. Safety Net Provisions 1. At any time after an exit IHP has been prepared, including cases where clients are in community placements, if a client or parent/guardian believes that placement in a different setting (other than THMC) (such as an ICF-MR of more than six beds) would be most appropriate for the class member, the client or the parent/guardian may request an exception to the approved residential options listed in paragraph I.A.4. above. The Hearing Officer, in accordance with the procedure outlined below, shall decide all requests for residential exceptions.

- 6-
2. Nothing in this Decree prohibits the use of generic services (such as hospitals, rehabilitation centers or psychiatric facilities) on a temporary basis for a class member to treat a specific medical or emotional condition or episode.
3. Additional safeguards are set forth in the 1989 Plan objectives referred to below.
C. Placement Process 1. Dpon the adoption of an exit IHP by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for a particular client and following departmental review and approval, the exit IHP shall be sub- mitted to the parties and the Review Panel (established by this Decree) for certification recommendation. The parties and review panel shall be asked to respond by recommending:
a. Approval; b. Approval on the condition that listed
issues be addressed at the 30-day IHP review; c. Conference; or d. Non-approval and request for a hearing before the Hearing Officer. The client and parent/guardian will be given notice of the conference or hearing and will have an opportunity to attend and fully participate. An exit IHP shall be deemed certified automatically in the absence of a response within five working days of receipt by the parties and the review panel. Placement

- 7-

may proceed upon certification of the exit IHP (either automatic, or atter approval.by the .Review Panel or decision by the

Hearing Officer).

2. The parties and the Review Panel shall meet for

the purpose of identifying all issues which must be addressed

in an exit IBP for certification.

3. No class member shall be discharged from TEMC

merely to meet a placement timetable. First priority for

discharge from THMC shall be given to class members who

request, or whose parents or guardian request, placement in

community settings.

»

4. On or before January 15, 1990, defendants shall -

'provide community placements, as defined above, to all named

i » U'W y plaintiffs still residing at TEMC.

/ i^j

D. Case Management

1. Defendants agree to utilize a system of inde-

pendent case management in carrying out this Decree, whose

duties and responsibilities shall be those described in the Plan attached hereto and the court's 1987 Order. All focus

V^A class members shall have a case manager on or before June 30,

,A\'\ 1990. All case managers will be QMRP qualified within one

year of the effective date of this Decree. DHS shall review

the salary scale to ensure that sufficient numbers of quali-

fied case managers are available.

2. Defendants will follow a caseload standard

during a class member's transition process, and for at least

- 8-
one year thereafter, of one case manager for every ten class members, ^ t such.time as a class member has been in his/her community setting and his/her program has been stabilized for at least one year, he/she will be subject to a caseload standard of one case manager for every twenty class members. After one year from the effective date of this Decree, the parties with approval of the Court may agree to modify the point in time at which the standard increases from ten to twenty class members per case manager. The standard for supervisors will be no more than eight cas.e__managers for each supervisor.
E. Focus Class Members Discharged From THMC Since Commencement of Suit
I. Focus class members now residing in Oklahoma who were residents of THMC at the commencement of the suit but who have since been discharged from THMC shall have case managers in accordance with the caseload standards set forth above. IHFs shall be developed for these class members on or before June 30, 1990. Services and supports are to be provided in accordance with the IEPs.
II. PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE "BALANCE" CLASS A. Identification and Assessment
1. The members of THMC class have been identified in a submission to the Court dated August, 11, 1989. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Decree, all class members shall be designated as either focus or balance and the Court shall then certify the list of class members as

- 9so designated. Balance class members should further be categorized as-(a) residing .in a.private ICF-MR, (b) residing in. an institutional setting other than a private ICF-MR, or (c) residing in community settings.
B. Balance Class Members Residing in Private ICFs-MR
1. Case managers shall be assigned to all balance .class members residing in private ICFs-MR by December 31, 1989. IHPs shall be prepared for these class members by October 1, 1990.
2. Balance class members residing in private ICFs-MR shall be offered the opportunity to transfer to community settings. For those electing such transfer, defendants will provide appropriate assistance utilizing the placement process described in paragraph I.B.I, above. Community placement of all balance class members residing in private ICFs-MR who elect community placement will be completed within the schedule established in paragraph I.A.3. above.
3. For balance class members residing in private ICFs-MR who do not elect community placement, there shall be no obligation on defendants under this Decree to effect community placement. However, these class members, or representatives acting on their behalf, will be entitled to seek supplementary relief from the Court based on a showing that the care and treatment provided to them by their private ICF-MR violates applicable constitutional or statutory requirements. In any such supplementary proceeding, plaintiffs will bear the

- 10 -

burden of proof. Such supplementary proceedings may be initiated

at any time after.April, l, 1992, provided that no relief with

respect to community placement of ICF-MR residents will be effective prior to three years from the effective date of this Decree.

C. Balance Class Members Residing in Institutional Settings Other Than Private ICFs-MR

M i* \

1. Case managers shall be assigned to all balance

.yr -y class members residing in institutional settings other than

jhk

private ICFs-MR by December 31, 1989. IHPs shall be prepared

I |P
\y\
vo,\

for these class members by October 1, 1990 2. Balance class members residing in institutional -
settings other than private ICFs-MR will be placed in community

settings, as defined in paragraph I.A.4., subject to the provi-

sions of section I.B. Transfer of these class members to

community settings will be completed by October 1, 1994. 3. At any time after an exit IHP has been prepared

for a class member in this category, including cases where clients are in community placements, if a client or parent/ guardian believes that placement in a different setting (other than THMC) (such as an ICF-MR of more than six beds) would be most appropriate for the class member, the client or the

parent/guardian may request an exception to the approved residential options listed in paragraph I.A.4. The Hearing Officer,

in accordance with the procedure outlined below, shall decide all requests for residential exceptions.

- 11 -

4. The placement process for these class members

shall follow that set out in-paragraph, I.C.I, above.
D. Balance Class Members Residing in Community Settings

1. Case managers will be assigned to all balance

class members residing in community settings by December 31,

1989. IHFs for class members shall be completed by October 1,

1993.
2. For class members in this category whose assessment indicated a need for community service and/or supports/ defendants will develop and implement a plan for such services and supports within the schedule existing in paragraph I.A.3

above.

E. Case Management

1. Defendants agree to utilize a system of independent case management for the balance class in conformity with the provisions of paragraph I.D.I, above.

2. The caseload standard for balance class members

residing in institutional settings shall be one case manager

for every twenty class members, provided that during a class

member's transition process to community placement, and for at

least one year thereafter, the standard shall be one case

manager for every ten class members. This standard shall be

maintained until the client's program has been stabilized for

at least one year. After one year from the effective date of

this Decree, the parties may with Court approval agree to

modify the point in time at which the standard increases from

- 12 -
ten to twenty class members per case manager. The standard for supervisors will be no more than eight case managers for each supervisor.
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO ENTIRE CLASS A. Role of Parents and Families
1. Parents and guardians of clients will be members of the Interdisciplinary Team and will be actively involved in all team decisions. The IDT process will be utilized to develop an IHP for each class member. Clients, parents and guardians are expected to play significant roles in the IDT process, in the development oc an exit I H P , ana in the selection or the residential setting, services and supports for the particular client. The parties recognize that the development and implementation of effective IHPs requires the meaningful consultation with, input from, and participation by the individual class member, his or her parents, or guardian. Professional judgments on individual programs and community placement alternatives under this Consent Decree should reflect whenever possible the views, preferences and advice of the individual, his or her
parents or guardian. 2. Clients and their families will have the right
to select all service providers from the State-approved provider lists to implement IHPs.
3. Any client, parent, guardian, team member or party to this action who disagrees with an IDT determination

- 13 -
as to placement or services may seek review of the determination by the Hearing Officer, in accordance with the procedures outlined below.
B. Safeguards and Advocacy 1. A system of safeguards as outlined in the attached 1989 Plan shall be implemented. The defendants will secure outside technical assistance from a person chosen by the parties to assist in the development and implementation of the quality assurance program, including those provisions relative to compliance with ACDD standards. 2. The office of the Guardian Ad Litem shall con- .tinue to carry out its advocacy functions in accordance with the Court Order of December 23, 1988, until such time as the parties and Review Panel, with approval of the Court, agree that the needs of the class members no longer require this office. All annual budgets for the office shall be submitted to the parties for review and to the Court for approval.
C. Training 1. In order to accomplish the goals of this Consent Decree, training of staff at THMC and in the community, including case managers and contract service providers, must continue. Upon completion of the review presently being performed by TCI, the defendants will prepare a training plan for review by the parties, recommendation by the Review Panel, and approval by the Court.

- 14 -
D. Model Placements _1. The Court Monitor's Model team program shall continue for the peTiod specified in the Court Order of October 14, 1988, subject to the terms of that Order. The responsibility of the Monitor under that Order for recommending the transition of Model placements into the defendants' service system shall be discharged by the Administrator of the Developmental Disabilities Division, consistent with
paragraph 3 below. 2. An independent review of the Model program
and placements shall be performed by a person selected by the « parties utilizing criteria and standards approved by the parties. A written report shall be filed with the parties, the Review Panel and the Court.
3. It is the intention of the parties that the termination of the Model not adversely affect the programs of those persons served by the Model. To that end, upon the termination of the Model, if requested by the clients and/or parents/guardians, the defendants shall contract with the service providers who are providing services to the class members in the Model, or such other providers selected by the client or a parent/guardian, subject to reasonable terms and conditions, to continue those services. Prior to the termination of the Model the defendants shall file with the Court the signed provider agreements between DHS and the service providers, In the event that the defendants are unable to contract with

- 15 -
the providers selected by/for the Model participant, they shall notify the Court in writing why they are. unable to contract with the provider and identify what providers are available to assume the program. The Model program for any Model
participant shall not terminate until the defendants have assumed the responsibility for the Model placement, and the Court has approved the transition IHP.
E. Services at THMC Pending Discharge of Residents
1. As long as class members are residents at THMC, it is the defendants' obligation to maintain and operate the ' facility in accordance with state and federal ICF-MR require** ments. Defendants are required to ensure a safe living environment to all residents, to provide proper medical care,
and to provide habilitation services to residents prior to their discharge in accordance with IHPs developed through the IDT process.
2. Defendants may make reasonable expenditures ror renovation, repair or capital construction at THMC pending discharge of residents, which they believe are necessary to maintain the integrity of the physical plant, and adequately to provide for the remaining class members at THMC pending
their transition to community placements. 3. Defendants will comply with the orders and
stipulations of the parties previously entered, with respect to the following supports and services at THMC:

- 16 -
a. The Feeding Assistance Program (Stipulation of May 30, 1989)
b. Progressive Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. (PTT) (Order of August 27, 1986)
c. Therapeutic Concepts, Inc. (TCI) (Order of February 11, 1987)
In the event the defendants can ensure timely payment for the Court-ordered remedial services at THMC, DHS may enter into contracts with PTT and TCI, and the Trustee's fund presently utilized will be discontinued. The parties to these contracts
may agree to modify any of the obligations imposed in the
above-referenced orders. 4. Defendants will continue to take those efforts
presently in effect for staff recruitment programs and outside medical and therapeutic experts who provide support services
at THMC.
5. Defendants will prepare a phase-down plan for
THMC within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Consent Decree. The phase-down plan will include, but not be limited to, the following issues: medical care, health and sanitation, staffing (professional, direct care and support), training and programming. In closing living units on campus, consideration shall be given to limiting the number of oncampus moves prior to transition into the community, and moving clients with identified community living companions. The plan
will be submitted to the parties and the Review Panel. The parties and the Review Panel will have fifteen (15) working days to comment in writing on the plan. The parties and the

- 17 -
Review Panel shall meet and attempt informally to resolve any differences. The plan will then be filed with the Court for approval. Any disputes as to the plan will be resolved by the
Court following an evidentiary hearing. IV. PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO OVERSIGHT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. Informal Dispute Resolution
1. The parties agree to use their best efforts to
resolve differences on an informal basis. However, in the event that the plaintiffs or parent-intervenors believe that the defendants are failing adequately to carry out this Consent Decree or any other Orders of the Court, they may give written
notice of such alleged non-compliance to all parties and the
Review Panel specifying with particularity the facts and grounds relied upon to demonstrate such failure. The Review
Panel may on its own motion also initiate such a notice.
2. Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the
notice of alleged non-compliance, the defendants shall serve a response to the notice of non-compliance on all parties and the Review Panel. The parties should make every attempt to resolve the issue through informal discussions, with the assistance of the Review Panel as appropriate. If, after a reasonable period, plaintiffs, parent-intervenors or the Review Panel believe that defendants have not either cured the alleged default or made a good faith effort to implement procedures to correct the alleged default, the issue, if it involves a system issue affecting more than one individual

- 18 -

class member, will be heard and decided by the Review Panel.

In the event that the issue involves only an individual class

member, the issue will first be presented to the Hearing

Officer, in accordance with the procedures outlined below. in either case, any party dissatisfied with the resolution by the Review Panel or Hearing Officer may bring the matter before

the Court.

3. No effort by the defendants to resolve a claim of non-compliance shall be construed to limit the defenses

available to the defendants, in the event the matter is

brought before the Court.

»

B. Homeward Bound Review Panel

1. There shall be established a panel of three persons, who will have primary responsibility for assisting

the Court and the parties in carrying out the purposes of this

Consent Decree. It is intended that the panel and its staff

will pursue a problem-solving policy to the end that litiga-

tion, argument and fault-finding can be minimized and the

energies of all interested persons focused on the task of

meeting the needs of class members.

2. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of

this Consent Decree, the plaintiffs and defendants shall submit
to the Court a recommended list of Review Panel members for appointment by the Court. One person snail be selected By tne plaintiffs, subject to approval of the defendants. One person
shall be selected by defendants, subject to approval of the

- 19 -

plaintiffs. The third person shall be jointly selected by the parties, or if they-cannot.agree, by the first -two Panel

members. The advice of the parent-intervenors shall be sought and considered in the selection of the Review Panel members.

The Panel appointees should be recognized experts in the field of mental retardation. Upon the inability of any of the Panel

members to continue to serve, his or her replacement shall be

selected in the same manner as the person to be replaced.

3. The Panel will function as follows: (a) The Panel should operate informally and
should meet whenever it deems it appropriate. The Chair of - -*

the Panel will rotate among the members*

-

(b) The Panel is authorized to hire up to three

staff members with appropriate experience in mental retardation and/or community or institutional administration. The Panel

is further authorized to hire up to two clerical staff members.

(c) The function of the Panel is to oversee and facilitate defendants' compliance with this Consent Decree and the 1989 Plan attached thereto, as well as earlier Orders of

the Court referenced in this Decree. The Panel should become

sufficiently informed about the program and sufficiently

familiar with the defendants' implementation and the results

thereof to provide meaningful assistance and resolve any issues

of compliance that may arise. To that end, the Panel shall

develop a plan for oversight covering client services at THMC,

review of community placements, and implementation of this

- 20 -
Consent Decree. The Panel should invite any party to submit recommendations on how it~should carry out its oversight function. The Panel may from time to time modify its methods of oversight as appropriate in light of experience and the stage of implementation of this Decree, and any party may at any
time recommend such modification to the Panel.
(d) The Panel shall compile semiannual written
reports on the degree of progress with respect to the implementation of this Decree and the attached 1989 Plan, client
services at THMC, and community placements, and provide
recommendations to the defendants concerning the steps deemed *
- necessary to maintain compliance with the terms of this Decreeor other referenced Court Orders. All such reports shall be submitted to ail parties and the Court. (e) Members of the Panel and its staff shall
have reasonable access to all information/ records, buildings and areas, including those of providers, and shall be permitted
to interview any member of the class, employee of the defendants or employee of a provider, at reasonable times and places, to the extent necessary to discharge their duties under this
Decree. (f) The Panel and its staff may conduct any
additional and reasonable inquiries they deem necessary or
appropriate with respect to matters to be covered by the semi-
annual reports and, where appropriate, may draw upon and employ
experience of recognized experts, within the limits of the

- 21 annual budget. The parties will be advised in advance of any such empl&yment, and will, be permitted to attend any exitconferences and receive copies of any written reports.
(g) The parties strongly encourage the Panel members ana staff to make informal suggestions to the defendants, in whatever form they deem appropriate, which in their
opinion will facilitate compliance with this Decree. (h) Any class member or his/her representative,
parent, foster parent, guardian, or employee may bring a
situation or disagreement related to the provisions of this
Decree or other referenced Court Orders, or individual pro- •«• gram, to the staff of the Panel for guidance, interpretation, or resolution by the staff or by the Panel. Efforts should be
made to resolve any such matter informally, including resort
to available administrative processes.
(i) The Review Panel shall provide to the parties all information provided to the Court by the Panel or its staff, in any form.
(j) Panel members and staff shall receive appropriate compensation from the defendants, on a monthly basis, and shall promptly be reimbursed by defendants for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in performing their duties. Defendants shall provide appropriate office space in a mutually
agreeable location, telephone service, postage, clerical staff and support equipment to enable the Panel to carry out its duties.

- 22 -
(k) Within thirty (30) days of the appointment of the fuil Panel, the Panel shall prepare and submit to the parties and the Court an annual budget which describes in sufCicient detail the proposed expenses for the operations of tne Panel. The annual budget Cor the Panel shall be approved by the Court.
4. The Review Panel and the parties shall meet on a regular basis with the Court, monthly at the outset. The
Court, Review Panel, or parties may request a meeting at any time, and may request discussion on any issue by providing a written request at least five (5) days prior to the conference* The purpose of these conferences will be to facilitate communication and problem-solving.
C. Hearing Officer 1. A Hearing Officer shall be appointed by the
Court, upon the recommendation of the parties, who shall have
the responsibility to resolve disputes concerning individual
placement and services, subject to Court review. The Bearing Officer shall be an attorney, who will be trained in and sensitive to the needs of class members and their families. Tne Hearing ottlcer snail be independent of the Review Panel, but may seek the advice of the Review Panel if he/she deems it appropriate.
2. It is anticipated that the Hearing Officer will not be required to devote full time to his/her responsibilitits

- 23 -
under this Decree* The Hearing Officer shall receive appropriate compensation.from defendants-for such time as he/she does devote to matters under this Decree, on a monthly basis,
and shall promptly be reimbursed by defendants for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in performing his/her duties.
D. Resolving Disputes About Placement or Services
1. Whenever a class member, his/her representative, or a parent/guardian disagrees with an IDT decision as to
placement or services, or is dissatisfied with any service or support provided by defendants pursuant to this Decree or the referenced Court Orders, he/she must first utilize whatever ** administrative appeal and review procedures that defendants have made available in an effort to resolve the difference amicably and without the need to resort to hearing procedures.
2. If after utilizing the procedures referred to in the previous paragraph, or after the passage of a reasonable time without any response from defendants, a class member, his/her representative, or a parent/guardian may apply to the Hearing Officer for a hearing to resolve the dispute. Upon receipt of a request for a hearing, the Hearing Officer shall
immediately notify the class member, his/her parent/guardian, the Review Panel, and the parties of the date for the hearing,
which hearing will commence within ten (10) worJcing days from the date on which the hearing request is received.
3. The Hearing Officer shall have the power to fix the time and place for beginning and closing the hearing, and

- 24 -
shall conduct the hearing in as informal a manner as possible consistent, with protecting the rights and needs of the class member.
4. The class member, parent/guardian, the Review Panel and parties shall have the opportunity to present such
evidence as the Hearing Officer may determine relevant to the issues. The Hearing Officer may question witnesses and request additional information, if he/she deems it necessary. A court reporter will be available, if requested by any party; otherwise, the proceedings will be tape recorded. Attendance of
witnesses at the hearing may be procured by the issuance of ** subpoenas, as provided in the FRCP. The Hearing Officer may -
attempt to mediate the dispute, or otherwise encourage resolution by agreement of the parties, before issuing his/her decision.
5. Within ten (10) working days from the completion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall serve on the parties and file with the Cleric of this Court a written report setting forth the decision with findings and reasons* In preparing
the report, the Hearing Officer shall take such measures as
may be necessary for the protection of the class member's privacy.
6. In the event any party to the hearing wishes to
seek Court review of the Hearing Officer's decision, exceptions must be filed with the Court within ten (10) working days from the date the Hearing Officer's report is filed with the Court.

- 25 -
7. In the event of Court review, any party may submit additional evidence or arguments--to the Court and shall not be precluded from doing so because of failure to present the evidence or arguments to the Hearing Officer.
E. Court Monitor Transition Provisions
1. The parties acknowledge the positive contribution
of the Court Monitor, Mr. Powell. In light of this agreement, the development of plans as a result of the Court's May 19,
1989, Order, and the establishment of a Review Panel and Hearing Officer to assist the Court and parties to implement the Consent Decree, there is a need for transition from the exisitng Monitorship to the Review Panel and other monitoring processes established herein. Therefore, the Court Monitor shall continue to exercise his powers and fulfill his obligations until the Review Panel has been appointed and has commenced functioning. At that time the obligations and powers of the Court Monitor shall terminate.
2. Within thirty (30) days of the termination of the monitorship, the Monitor shall settle all affairs of the office. The defendants shall continue to fund the office until such affairs are settled. The Court Monitor, with notice to the parties, may apply to the Court for such orders as may be necessary to settle the affairs of the office.
V. FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
This Decree does not require the expenditure of more funds on an average per-capita basis to maintain and serve

- Z6 -
clients in community settings than is currently being spent to maintain and serve clients on an average per-capita basis at THMC. This standard shall- apply on an aggregate basis to expenditures for all clients, rather than on a case-by-case
basis.
VI. MISCELLANEOOS PROVISIONS
A. Access to Record, Facilities and Information 1. The parties shall have reasonable access to class members' records, residential and employment sites and
information in the possession of the defendants. Access to private residence or private sector employment site shall be
subject to consent of the class member. Within thirty (30)
days of the effective date of this Consent Decree, the parties shall meet for the purpose of determining what documents and information will be provided on a regular basis. The parties w i n periodically reassess the need for documents and information production.
B. 19B9 Plan
1. Attached to this Consent Decree is a set of
plans (referred to as the 1989 Plan) to be used by defendants in carrying out their obligations under this Decree. The plans are the goals and objectives developed by the Planning
Committee formed pursuant to the Court's Order of May 19, 1988, refined based on the modifications to defendants' obligations effected by this Consent Decree. The Planning Committee also developed detailed action steps for implementing

- 27 -
the goals and objectives. The action steps are not part of the plan appended hereto and defendants are not obligated to fulfill their obligations by adherence to the action steps (although defendants anticipate that the action steps will provide significant guidance in their implementation of the appended plans). Nevertheless, the action steps help to elaborate the outcomes intended by certain of the objectives, and to that extent are relevant in interpreting the objectives.
2. Defendants will carry out the objectives set forth in the 1989 Plan. In the event any party believes that defendants have failed to do so, he/she may invoke the- dispute** resolution process set forth in section IV.A. above, in which -
case the standard for decision shall be whether the defendants are in substantial compliance with the objectives taken as a whole.
3. Defendants will report quarterly to the parties,
the Review Panel and the Court on the status of their accomplish-
ment of the objectives contained in the 1989 Plan. In any case where an objective has not been accomplished, or has been significantly delayed, defendants will also report on the extent to which their implementation has differed significantly from that envisioned by the action steps, and how the defendants intend to deal with the situation. The reports should be
developed in a manner that least interferes with continued implementation of the 1989 Plan and progress toward meeting the obligations of the Decree.

- 28 -
4. Any party not satisfied with the defendants' report may invoke the dispute resolution process set forth in section IV.A. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter, the Review Panel shall issue recommendations to defendants for resolving the matter. Defendants agree to carry out the Review Panel's recommendations. Any party may appeal the Review Panel's disposition to the Court, in which case the defendants may defer carrying out the recommendations pending decision by the Court.
C. Termination Provisions 1. Within three (3) months following advice from defendants of the placement in community living arrangements of the last focus class member and the last balance class member required by this Decree to be transferred from an institutional setting, the Review Panel shall file with the Court and the parties a final report, which will evaluate community placements and compliance with this Decree. The Review Panel may include any recommendations to defendants concerning continued steps to maintain the purposes of this Consent Decree following termination of the Decree. Any party may comment on the report of the Review Panel, and may raise any question about compliance with any aspect of this Decree or other referenced Court orders. If, upon review of the report and any comments of the partiest the Court is satisfied that defendants have complied with the Decree, including

- 29 -
substantial compliance with the 1989 Plan objectives, it shall terminate its active supervision at that time.
2. The provisions of this Decree pertaining to the maintenance of a system of community services and supports shall remain in effect as long as the Department maintains a program of assistance for the mentally retarded.
3. Any class member who permanently moves or is transferred permanently out of the State of Oklahoma at the request of the class member, his/her representative or parent/guardian shall no longer be considered a member of the plaintiff class.
D. Definitions For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions apply: 1. "Parties" refers to the Plaintiffs, Guardian Ad Litem, Parent-Intervenors, and Defendants. 2. "Stabilized" means a continuing program providing an appropriate level of services necessary to achieve the habilitation goals in the IHP. 3. "Effective Date" of this Decree shall be the date on which the Court enters it as an Order of the Court.
E. Legal Provisions 1. The following provisions of the 1987 Order have been superseded by the provisions of this Consent Decree: Introduction and Class Focus of This Order, pp. 1-4; General Terms and Timetables, pp. 4-7; Court Monitoring, pp. 7-10;

- 30 -

Systems Safeguards, pp. 13-19; Development of Community

Supports/Involvement, pp. 19-21; Infrastructure, pp. 21-23;

case Management, pp. 24-27 and Exhibit A; Home and Community

Supports and Services, pp. 27-30; Hissom Services Pending Closure, pp. 31-32; Employment Services, pp. 38-43. The

following provisions of the 1987 Order shall be regarded as

vacated: Prevention and Early Intervention, pp. 10-11;

In-Home and Family Supports, pp. 11-13; Budget Plan, pp.

43-53"; Financing Questions, pp. 54-58. The Orders appointing

and funding of a Court Monitor are vacated, subject to the

provisions of this Decree concerning termination of the

*-

monitorship and to the full compensation of the Monitor and

his staff. The Order of October 14, 1988, authorizing the

Model program is modified to the extent required by this consent Decree. The Order of May 19, 1989, is vacated.

2. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on July 24, 1987, and on May 20, 1988, are withdrawn,

to the extent that they may not be utilized as res judicata, stare decisis or collateral estoppel, except as between the parties in this action. They may be used in interpreting this

consent Decree and as a basis for this Consent Decree should

any party seek to vacate or amend its terms.

3. Except as provided in paragraph 2 above, the defendants shall not be bound by any of the Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law previously entered by the Court in this

- 31 -
case with respect to any other lawsuit or proceeding involving any person who is not currently a member of the THMC class.
4. All prior plans submitted by defendants in compliance with the Orders of this Court are superseded by this Consent Decree, and defendants shall be under no further obligation to carry out the superseded plans. AGREED TO:

Counsel for Plaintiffs ORDERED this

Counsel for Defendants

day of

, 1989.

U.S. District Judge

 
 Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1466 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/01/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

THE HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 85-C-437-E

AMENDED PERMANENT INJUNCTION This Court has previously ruled that, although active Court supervision should terminate once there was substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, the intent of the parties in entering into the Consent Decree was to impose a permanent obligation to provide a system of community services and supports for the Plaintiff Class. A permanent injunction is therefore warranted under the specific terms of the Consent Decree. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. The obligation of Defendants under this Permanent Injunction is to maintain the placement of class members in appropriate community settings and to maintain a system of community services and supports as agreed to by the parties. Defendants’ system is to provide individualized services appropriate to class members’ needs. 2. To minimize the possibility that class members who are currently receiving services and supports in appropriate community residential settings may in the future be admitted to an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded, Defendants are ordered

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1466 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/01/2005 Page 2 of 3
and directed to continue to administer and submit timely requests for renewal of the “Homeward Bound” home and community-based services waiver for mentally retarded individuals who meet the intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded level of care, in accordance with the federal law and regulations promulgated by the Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
3. Defendants are directed to continue to make available to class members in the community all necessary services as administered and authorized under the rules and procedures for the Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, and the Department of Rehabilitation Services. The services will include residential services, medical services, employment services, transportation services, nutritional services, case management services, advocacy services offered through the Office of Client Advocacy, architectural modifications, assistive technology, and professional therapy services. Defendants must also continue to make available to class members both administrative and legal review of agency decisions that affect them.
4. Defendants are directed to continue funding the supported living program for class members, said funding to include the daily room and board payment, medical supplement, property replacement supplement, residential size supplement and transportation supplement. Defendants are directed to diligently pursue adequate funding for the program, and to regularly analyze rates and pursue increases when necessary.
5. If Defendants fail to offer or make available to class members this system of community based services and supports, but otherwise continue to maintain a program of
2

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1466 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/01/2005 Page 3 of 3 assistance to persons with mental retardation, Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of the Permanent Injunction before this Court. In any such enforcement proceeding, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants have failed to make available a system of community based services and supports and that the violation or violations have injured the Plaintiff Class as a whole. In other words, a violation of this Permanent Injunction must be systemic in order to be actionable. 6. The Court finds that the directions and time line set out in the Order for the Transition of Responsibilities and Phase-out of the Combined Office of the Homeward Bound Review Panel and the Guardian Ad Litem have been followed. This action shall be terminated and the case removed from the active docket of this Court. DATED this 1st day of FEBRUARY, 2005.
3

 
 Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1507 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Case No. 85-CV-437-TCK-SAJ

)

HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

SECOND AMENDED PERMANENT INJUNCTION

This Court has previously ruled that, although active Court supervision should

terminate once there was substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, the intent of the

parties in entering into the Consent Decree was to impose a permanent obligation to provide

a system of community services and supports for the Plaintiff Class. A permanent injunction

is therefore warranted under the specific terms of the Consent Decree.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. The obligation of Defendants under this Permanent Injunction is to maintain the

placement of class members in appropriate community settings and to maintain a system of

community services and supports as agreed to by the parties. Defendants’ system is to

provide individualized services appropriate to class members’ needs.

2. To minimize the possibility that class members who are currently receiving

services and supports in appropriate community residential settings may in the future be

admitted to an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded, Defendants are ordered

and directed to continue to administer and submit timely requests for renewal of the

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1507 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
“Homeward Bound” home and community-based services waiver for mentally retarded individuals who meet the intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded level of care, in accordance with the federal law and regulations promulgated by the Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
3. Defendants are directed to continue to make available to class members in the community all necessary services as administered and authorized under the rules and procedures for the Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, and the Department of Rehabilitation Services. The services will include residential services, medical services, employment services, transportation services, nutritional services, case management services, advocacy services offered through the Office of Client Advocacy, architectural modifications, assistive technology, and professional therapy services. Defendants must also continue to make available to class members both administrative and legal review of agency decisions that affect them.
4. Defendants are directed to continue funding the supported living program for class members, said funding to include the daily room and board payment, medical supplement, property replacement supplement, residential size supplement and transportation supplement. Defendants are directed to diligently pursue adequate funding for the program, and to regularly analyze rates and pursue increases when necessary.
5. If Defendants fail to offer or make available to class members this system of community based services and supports, but otherwise continue to maintain a program of assistance to persons with mental retardation, Plaintiffs may seek enforcement of the
2

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1507 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/06/2007 Page 3 of 3 Permanent Injunction before this Court. In any such enforcement proceeding, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants have failed to make available a system of community based services and supports. In other words, a violation of this Permanent Injunction must be systemic in order to be actionable. 6. The Court finds that the directions and time line set out in the Order for the Transition of Responsibilities and Phase-out of the Combined Office of the Homeward Bound review Panel and the Guardian Ad Litem have been followed. This action shall be terminated and the case removed from the active docket of this Court. ORDERED this 6th day of FEBRUARY, 2007. ______________________________________ TERENCE KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1496 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
vs. THE HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. 85-C-437-TCK-SAJ ) ) ) )

AGREED ORDER AND JUDGMENT

On December 6, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Application for an Attorney Fee

Award. (Dkt. #1441). In that Application, among other requested fees and expenses,

Plaintiffs requested fees for 41.45 hours of time expended by Philadelphia attorney,

Thomas Gilhool (“Mr. Gilhool”), at a rate of $375 an hour. All fees and expenses

requested by Plaintiffs as part of the Application for an Attorney Fee Award, aside from

Mr. Gilhool’s fees, were subsequently resolved pursuant to stipulation. Defendants

continued to contest the reasonableness of the requested hourly rate for Mr. Gilhool’s

services.

On May 4, 2006, the dispute over Mr. Gilhool’s hourly rate was settled through

the Court’s formal settlement process under the auspices of Adjunct Settlement Judge

Terry Thomas. Specifically, the Parties have agreed that in exchange for Plaintiffs’

dismissal of their Application for an Attorney Fee Award, Defendants would pay

Plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, for Mr. Gilhool’s

attorneys fees in the amount of $12,435.00 ($300 per hour expended).

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1496 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 3

1. Plaintiffs’ December 6, 2004 Application for an Attorney Fee Award (Dkt. #1441) is dismissed; and
2. The Defendants, the Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the Department of Rehabilitation Services are each jointly and severally liable for payment to Plaintiffs’ lawyers, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, for attorneys fees incurred in the amount of $12,435.00 ($300 per hour expended).
And a judgment in the amount of $12,435.00 is hereby granted on this 2nd day of June, 2006.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________ United States District Court Judge

s/ Louis W. Bullock Louis W. Bullock, OBA #1305 lbullock@mkblaw.net Patricia W. Bullock, OBA #9569 pbullock@mkblaw.net Robert M. Blakemore, OBA #18656 bblakemore@mkblaw.net MILLER KEFFER BULLOCK PEDIGO LLC 222 South Kenosha Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 (918) 584-2001 (918) 743-6689 (facsimile)
Tom Gilhool Judith Gran PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA 125 South Ninth Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
2

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1496 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 06/05/2006 Page 3 of 3
s/ Guy Hurst Guy Hurst, OBA #4509 guy_hurst@oag.state.ok.us Senior Assistant Attorney General Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office Litigation Section 4545 North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 260 Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3498 Phone: 405-521-4274 Fax: 405-528-1867 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION SERVICES
s/ Lynn Rambo Jones Lynn Rambo Jones, OBA #4785 rambojl@ohca.state.ok.us Deputy General Counsel Oklahoma Health Care Authority 4545 North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 124 Drawer No. 18497 Oklahoma City, OK 73154-0497 Phone: 405-522-7403 Fax: 405-530-3438 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY
3

 
 Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1506-1 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/24/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 85-CV-437-TCK-SAJ

FINAL STIPULATION

On August 10, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered an Order and Judgment, reversing and remanding the district court’s December 1, 2004 order regarding the Amended Permanent Injunction with instructions for the district court to determine whether circumstances have changed since January 2002 when it denied modification of the Decree to warrant the class as a whole requirement.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an application for fees, to which Defendants objected. On December 4, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered an Order finding that Plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable attorney fee and remanded the matter to the district court for a determination of a reasonable amount of attorney fees to be awarded.
The parties agree that further litigation on these matters is unnecessary and request that this Court enter judgment amending the Amended Permanent Injunction to delete the language referencing the “class as a whole” (a Second Amended Permanent Injunction which is acceptable to all parties is attached as Exhibit 1), awarding Plaintiffs’ counsel, Miller, Keefer, Bullock &

Case 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ Document 1506-1 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
Pedico, LLC, fees and expenses in the amount of $28,000.00 and finding that this action should now
be terminated and the case removed from the active docket of this Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ Louis W. Bullock LOUIS W. BULLOCK, OBA #1305 PATRICIA W. BULLOCK, OBA #9569 Miller, Keefer, Bullock & Pedico, LLC 222 South Kenosha Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120 Tele: (918) 584-2001 Fax: (918) 584-6689 lbullock@mkblaw.net pbullock@mkblaw.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS (Filed by Kindanne C. Jones with Permission of Louis W. Bullock and Patricia W. Bullock)
s/ Kindanne C. Jones KINDANNE C. JONES, OBA #11374 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Tele: (405) 521-4274 Fax: (405) 521-4518 kindanne_jones@oag.state.ok.us
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES & OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION SERVICES
s/ Lynn Rambo-Jones LYNN RAMBO-JONES, OBA #4785 Deputy General Counsel Drawer No. 18497 Oklahoma City, OK 73154-0497 Tele: (405) 530-3403 Lynn.Rambo-Jones@OKHCA.org ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY (Filed by Kindanne C. Jones with Permission of Lynn Rambo-Jones)
2

 
 PILED

IN THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE NORTHERN D I S T R I C T OF OKLAHOMA

u n n± <QQ7 ^ O U L ^ - 1*0/

HOMEWARD BOUND, I N C . , e t a l . , )
)

J « k C Silver Clerk
U.«> uiv>ifii^-i v,ouxi,

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

•

)

No. 85-C~437-E^

HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al". , )

Defendants.

)

COURT PLAN AND ORDER OF DEINSTITOTIONALIZATIOH

Memorial Ctr. M R-OK-002-003

COURT PLAN AND ORDER OF DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
INTRODUCTION, VALUES, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Court has entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which reflect the factual and legal basis of its intervention into the state system for delivery of care to the mentally retarded, (hereinafter referred to as "State").
The Court recognizes and appreciates the responsibility of the State to administer its own policies and programs. It is the intent of the Court that the State exercise its natural leadership role in the implementation of this Order. Should the State not actively and in a timely manner fulfill the terms of this Order, the Court will be prepared to immediately intervene, on behalf of the members of the class to fulfill such terms of the Order.
This Plan of Community Integration establishes how the members of the class will be moved into the life of the community. The conflicts before the Court deal with complex systems, detailed public policy and conflicting administrative remedies. This case brings into full public and judicial view the conflict which occurs when bureaucratic remedies to human problems violate societies' legal, moral and ethical values.
As Americans and citizens of Oklahoma, we believe in rugged individualism, the sanctity of the family and in taking care of

our own. We grow from the experience of living together in che community. We admire those who work and we work hard so that our children can have the best life and education possible. We have sacrificed to maintain our freedom and a life which is nonrestrictive. These values are our heritage which we preserve so that it can be passed down to our children - all of our children.
The qualify of life made available in the United States as a result of this value base is the best in the world for those who are allowed to share in it. The "American Dream" rests at the foundation of the values we defend.
From the evidence presented it is apparent that these values have been denied to that portion of the citizens of Oklahoma who carry the label of "mental retardation". Therefore, this Order shall include "Guiding Principles" which are intended to direct the remedy developed by the parties as they create community alternatives for persons with mental retardation in Oklahoma. These guiding principles are as follows:
* All persons are capable of growth and development. * All persons deserve to be treated with dignity. * All persons have value. * All persons must be involved in and carry the primary
responsibility for the decisions which affect their lives. * All persons should live and work in the mos; natural settings. * All children should live with families.
-2-

* All children have the right to a free and appropriate education.
* All persons should live in and be a part of the community.
* All citizens have the right to fully exercise their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
CLASS FOCUS OF THIS ORDER
For the purposes of this initial Order, the focus shall be on all persons who at the time of the filing of the complaint were at The Hissom Memorial Center (hereinafter referred to as "Hissom") and all persons who become clients of Hissom during the pendency of this action.
The Court wishes to make it known to all persons with mental, retardation, their families, and the parties that the entire class as certified in the Court's Order of August 1, 1986 are of great and equal concern to the Court.
The record shows that a sense of great urgency exists with respect to the class members residing at Hissora. Therefore, this Order primarily addresses the needs of those individuals. The Court will issue other Orders which will directly affect the remaining class members.
This Order should not be construed to prevent the State from implementing the same supports and services for all of the Dersons in the class. All Oklahoma citizens with mental
-3-

retardation deserve such consideration. It is the Court's hope that this Order will act as a positive stimulus as the 3ta^e strengthens its leadership role in the development and design of supports a.nd services to persons with mental retardation throughout Oklahoma.

FAMILY FOCUS DEFINED

For the purposes of this Order, family for children shall mean the natural/biological family, an adoptive family or a surrogate family with specific responsibilities to love and nurture the child as if he/she were their own.
For the adult person with mental retardation, family shall mean that (those) significant other(s) with whom an adult chooses to live.
GENERAL TERMS AND TIMETABLES

The time period for the accomplishment of the terras of this

Order shall be four years. The first year of this four year

period shall begin the date Judgment is entered in this case.

During the next four years, persons with mental retardation

who are the focus of this Order shall be placed into an

appropriate community alternative at the following rates:

Year I Year II Year III Year iY

75 persons shall be placed into the community 125 persons shall be placed into the community 125 persons shall be placed into the community 125 or the remaining persons shall be placed into the community

Individual class members or their families who wish to

volunteer to move to the community shall be placed first. During each year of this Order, individuals with ail levels
of needs shall be placed into appropriate supports and services in the community. This includes individuals who are multiply handicapped, have medical needs or who have positive behavioral skill acquisition needs (behavioral problems).
Individuals will be placed only if the appropriate services and supports are available as outlined in their Individual Habilitation Plan (hereinafter referred to as "IHP"). The Court's Representative will review and determine appropriateness and adequacy of each individual's IHP as developed and designed by the Interdisciplinary Team (hereinafter "IDT").
From the date of this Order, no further admissions shall take place at Hissora.
From the date of this Order no further capital construction or renovation shall take place at Hissom without approval from the Court in advance.
Existing State regulation which would serve as a barrier to this Order will be brought to the attention of the Court for remedy.
Any plan called for in this Order shall, at a minimum, include provision for staffing, training, contracting for services, administration and support adequate to meet the terms of the Order.
Any plan called for in this Order shall include specific attention to a system of internal and external safeguards vhich will be designed to successfully implement that plan. These

shall include consumer, family and community participation a~ each level.
Any plan called for in this Order shall include provision for emergency procedures and protocols to be utilized on behalf of the class members served in the plan.
The Court is aware of approximately one hundred individuals who were living at Hissom at the time this action was filed but who have left the institution during the pendency of this action. It is the order of the Court that the State of Oklahoma:
1 . Develop a plan to serve all one hundred of these individuals during this four year time period.
2. This plan shall be submitted to the Court within thirty days of the entry of Judgment in this case.
3. This plan shall specify the exact numbers to be served during each of the four years. Some individuals must be served each year beginning with the first year until all of these persons have been served.
4. All relevant assessments/evaluations shall be completed on all one hundred individuals the first year.
5. All one hundred individuals shall have case managers at the Ordered ratio of 1:10 the first year of this Order.
6. All Interdisciplinary Teams shall meet and develop Individual Habilitation Plans for these approximately one hundred individuals during the first year cf this Order.
7. If any of these individuals are at hone, in-hcme and family supports shall begin within ninety days of tne
-o-

entry of Judgment in this case. The Court is also concerned with the identification, location, and needs assessment of the balance of the class members. Such balance of class members has been defined, in -his Court's Order of August 4, 1986, as persons who have been transferred to skilled nursing facilities or intermediate care facilities, yet remain Defendants' responsibility. Accordingly, the State shall immediately proceed to identify and locate these class members and shall develop a plan to serve these individuals. Such plan will include provisions for assessment and placement in conformity with the principles contained in this Order and shall propose an adequate time table to insure expeditious placement. Such plan shall be filed with the Court no later than March 1, 1988 and shall include all information gathered regarding the identity and location of ail such class members.
COURT MONITORING
The amount of monitoring necessary to assure compliance with the Court's Order will be decided by the behaviors of the parties involved. The Court will initially take a de minimis approach to such monitoring. A Court Representative will be appointed to act as "eyes and ears" in assisting the Court to monitor the progress being made in implementing the Court's Order. The Court Representative will secure and assist the Court in reviewing renorts from the State on such topics as:
-7-

1. The first-year operational plan with appendices relating to (a) finding, assessing, and providing services to ths 100 Hissom class members who have been discharged since the complaint was filed and (b) development of an adequate administrative infrastructure, staffing, and training to implement the Court's Order.
2. Monthly reports on hiring and assignment of Case Managers at a 1:10 ratio to the 550 designated Hissoa class members.
3. Monthly reports on the conduct of the IDT assessments. 4. Monthly reports on finding all other Hissoa class
members located at home, in ICFs/MR, or in ICFs and IDT assessment of their needs. 5. Reports on the number of community placements by type of placement, within 10 days of each such placement. 6. Reports on all allegations of abuse or deaths that may occur among Hissom class members, with such reports to be made within 24 hours of such alleged incident. 7. Reports to be provided to the Court's Representative by the State upon reasonable request of such Representative, regarding such areas in which additional information would prove helpful to the Representative. The Court Representative would also assist in educating the parties to the complaint and general public about the components of the Court's Order, the policy behind such Order, and such other details as the Court may deem relevant. If events dictate that the Court muse increase its
-8-

raonitorization, the Court's Representative will assume greater monitoring responsibilities over the details of the Stage's activities on behalf of Hissom class members. If necessaryadditional staff will be hired to assist the Court-appointed Monitor. More detailed reporting will be required, specific IDT assessments will be reviewed against the placements that are made, and certification by the Court that each such placement is in the best interest of the individual will be required. At this point, the Court would increaasingly draw on outside expertise in judging the appropriateness of the State's activities on behalf of individual class members.
In the event that this intermediate level of monitoring proves insufficient' to secure .compliance with the Court's Order, the Court would appoint a Master-Receiver to manage those Court initiatives necessary to bring about such compliance. At this juncture, the Court would move from the role of advising the parties and resolving differences among them to one of taking the initiative for the planning and direction of the State's programs as they affect Hissom class members. In essence, everything would be accomplished under the direct authority of the Court, including design of the operational details of the deinstitutionalization plan.
In securing, as the case may be, a Court Representative, Monitor, or Master-Receiver, the Court will request from all parties the names of persons with successful experience in organizing and delivering community based services to persons with mental retardation. The Court would then make its selection of the best candidate.

SYSTEMS SAFEGUARDS
It is the desire of the Court that every community placement be a successful one. To ensure such success, the community system must have appropriate safeguards built into it.
The Court directs the State of Oklahoma to present a plan for the development and implementation of an on-going system of

safeguards which will assure quality services. -This plan shall be submitted for Court approval ninety days after the date of entry of Judgment in this case and shall include precise details of a system of safeguards for persons residing in Hissom during the pendency of this act.ion. —
This Plan shall include the establishment of goals in areas pertaining to:
1. Regulation. Particular attention shall be paid to licensure, policies and procedures of the programs, supports and services which currently exist or those which will be developed. If there are conflicts in regulation or if there are regulations which would hamper the swift and effective implementation of this Order, such regulations should be identified and modified.
2. Accreditation. The Stata has indicated its desire to become accredited by the Accreditation Council on Services for People with Developmental Disablities. The Court commends the State for its leadership in this area and would request quarterly reports on its progress in becoming so accredited.
3. Systematic Communication. Advisory committees, _client advisory boards, human and legal right_s_ committees, behavior intervention teams, management teams, independent auditors and others have a. _ve_rj__Jjiipj^r_tant role to plan in any quality safeguard system, and communication should be openly maintained among all such
-14-

groups.

4. Procedural Projections. Independent case aanagsaer.: .

internal investigation procedures, self advocacy

training, interdisciplinary team planning, trouble-

shooting which identifies problems before they become

harmful, incident/ceath reviews/reports, policy and

procedural manuals for ail program functions are only a

few of the 'procedural protections which make an open

efficient system work. ' Such protective mechanisms

should be abundantly detailed in the State's plan.

5. Quality Assurance Mechanisms. Case file reviews,

service evaluations by clients/parents/guardians, public

education, employee evaluation, management information

systems, client fund audits, and health and safety

reviews are necessary parts of a comprehensive, annual

audit which should be conducted of all service

providers.

6. First Line Problem Solving.

All staff and the

management structure snouid allow for immediate problem

resolution. Staff must be made to understand that they

carry certain authority along with a great deal of

responsibility.

Safeguards, as a mere means to an end, are effective only

when the governing authority, advisory groups, staff and clients

are committed to an open, responsive system. If that commitment

should lapse, no methodology this Court could devise will achieve

a safe service system.

". Internal Safeguard Mechanisms: These sust provide for zhe systematic assurance of human and legal rights, along with programmatic and systems protections for'all persons who have mental retardation. a. The State shall require the establishment of internal mechanisms including policies, procedures, and committees as required by the regulations set forth in the Accreditation Council on Services for People with Developmental Disabilities and all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

b. All of these policies and procedures must be written, compiled and available to all interested persons in administrative policy/procedures manuals.

c. Mechanisms must be established which provide for the

routine monitoring of these policies and procedures

and which provide for periodic review and

revision.

These monitoring and reviewing

mechanisms should include the participation of

consumers, parents/guardians and community

representatives.

2. Education and Training: The State should provide for a systematic education and training ^process which will educate consumers, parents, staff, advisory committees,

and _g_o_vernlng_-bpa-TJl. members on the rights of persons with mental retardation as well as applicable local,

-16-

state and federal regulations, including the terms and

protections of this' Court's Order.

a. The State shall safeguard the rights __ cf

individuals, families and staff by providing a

written summary of rights and instruction in how to

exercise them in a simple and understandable form.

b. The State shall insure that policy manuals are

written and available through every service

provider,, and that the terms of those manuals are

in compliance with this Court's Order.

c. The State shall insure- that each person with mental

retardation receive citizenship training which

shall include training on voting rights and

responsibilities,

consumer

rights

and

responsibilities, organizational membership and

participation, and awareness and utilization of

advocacy services.

3. External Safeguard Mechanisms: These must provide for

the assurance of exercising human and legal rights for

all persons with men-tal retardation by supporting

external mechanisms which enable individuals to access

assistance in securing their rights,

a. The State shall support the development of "self

advocacy" organizations for persons with mental

retardation who are class members.

b. The State shall support the membership of parents,

families and interested citizens in "group

-•7-

advocacy" organizations such as "he Iccal Association fcr Regarded Citizens. The Staca shall orovida assistance So oersans -wi~h nerrcai retardation in obtaining legal counsel, legal advocacy services, and/or protection services as the need arises. d. The State shall support the development of syscass advocacy _groupsL- such as "legislative - action committees, which will pursue necessary review and revision of legislation •pertaining -to rights of retarded citizens.

^ *•> 7

Integration: The safeguard system should be an integral

par1; of the service delivery system, not a separate procedure.

wher.sver feasible. it should use existing structures and

procedures, so that maintenance of service quality is a cons-anc

effort.

Openness: A safeguard system should deliberately involve

clients, parents, interested professionals "and -community

representatives in monitoring service 'quality. It should involve

staff at all levels.

• -

Commitment of •Improvement: The stance of the service

delivery system must be an eagerness to improve. This involves a

willingness to correct problems. By incorporating a variety of

safeguards, and by channeling findings to management, a gcoa

sys-sra is able to oorrec: problems in a timely way. Internal Approach: The system must scrutinize and correc:
its own service problems. Procedural protections and first-line problem solving are two important internal safeguards components.
External Approach: The system must involve outside agencies or organizations in evaluation of all or part of the service system. Regulation and accrediation are two_external components.
-The key to both of these approaches -is an open system in which service delivery involves a wide variety -of people in solving problems. •. Through .internal.evaluations and systematic communication, first hand knowledge is combined with external objectivity.

INFRASTRUCTURE
The development of a complex" and comprehensive community service delivery system requires extensive administrative, programmatic, professional, and support staff if services are to be developed in a timely, efficient and effective manner and if supervision-, monitoring, and evaluation is to be done effectively.
Staff must be available to provide the planning, service development, reporting, monitoring, and evaluation requirements contained in this Order of the Court and in ail subsequent orders. To insure such staff availability, the State shall take the following action:
1. The Department of Human Services shall within thirty days of entry of Judgment in this case develop plans for the assignment or acquisition of staff to provide the following services: a. Case Managers for all 550 Hissom class members witn a ratio of one Case Manager for ten class members

and one supervisor for ten Case Department snail develop alternate plans for the development of Case Manager programs. Zr.e clan will involve a state organization and the other will maximize the use of contracts with independent contractors. Each plan will provide organizational charts reflecting lines of authority. b. Administrative staff to systematically locate other class members. c. Case Managers and area, professional assessment teams will begin to evaluate and identify needs of
wi
vlci^o cLi.^^r. C - i ^ » . j ^ 1 a U
estimates of h accurate, three to five assessment teams will be required and fifteen to twenty Case Managers will be required. d. Staff in the State office to develop plans required by this Order. e. Staff in the State office and area office for contracts administration. f. Staff in the State office and area office for resource development. g. Staff in the State office for developing and implementing a system for program and fiscal audits. h. Staff in the State office and area office for

program 2cr.it zr ing and quality assurance programs, i. Professional specialists in the Stare office and
area office for development of new pro'grar. initiatives. j. Administrative staff in the State office and area office for timely processing of client evaluations, plans-of care, contracts, billing ana processing of applications. k. Staff in the State office and area office for community education and staff/provider training. 1. Staff in the State office and area office for development and maintenance of information systems, evaluation systems, and client tracking systems. 2. The Department of Human Services shall secure space, equipment, clerical support, and operational funds for staff activities described above. 3. The Department of Human Services shall maintain sufficient staff/'providers to assure that staffing ratios and service levels are not reduced from projected levels for clients remaining at Hissom. 4. All staff training and development activities necessary to carry out the Court's Order shall be provided by contract services to insure the expertise requisite to a high quality program.
-23-

CASE MANAGEMENT

An active, rsscaroeful and independent Case Manager is™ the

single ?.os: important component of the system. Case management

i3 a system in which the responsibility for Locating,

coordinating and monitoring services needed by the person with

mental retardation rests with a designated individual. Specific

services ana activities of the Case Manager include:

'. Serving as the primary staff advocatejTor tjie^J^n^ivi^uai

with mental retardation to secure services, assisting in

the exercise of rights, choices^ and responsibilities,

and providing needed support services that enable the

individual jwith mental retardation to engare in

independent activity.

2. Linkage of the person with mental retardation with

appropriate community resources.

3. Responsibility

for ensuring the development,

implementation, monitoring, and modification of the IH?

through an Interdisciplinary Team process. .

4. Serving as chairperson/facilitator for the IDT.

5. Coordination of service providers responsible for

furnishing services to the person with mental

retardation.

6. Monitoring of services and programs included in the IHP

to determine effectiveness as it relates to individual

progress as well as determining if the individual's

well-being, health and safety are assured.

-24-

7. Accessing the IDT to revise or change programs as needed or requested by the individual with mental retardation.
3. Providing information, referral, follow-up and periodic services to individuals with mental retardation who may not require specialized services of the service delivery system.
General Princioles
1 . Case Managers must be independent so that they may be free to advocate for the needs of the individual with mental retardation.
2. Case Managers function in the most fundamental and essential monitoring role because they focus on the total needs, response, and well-being of the person with mental retardation.
3. Case Managers must have the authority to convene Interdisciplinary Team meetings if the needs and desires of the person with mental retardation indicate that changes are needed.
4. Case Managers should live in the same community as the person with mental retardation so as to facilitate quick response to client needs.
5. Case Managers must have the authority to access emergency or specialized intermittent services and be immediately accessible to their clients as the need

arises . 5. Case Managers ;aust; 'nave the authority to access or
procure services and ecuipraent as specified by the T~ZT. 7. The Court's view of the appropriate job description for
Case Managers is attached as Exhibit "A" to this section.
curt Objectives
The State shall insure the following: '. Case management services will be provided to class
members by either staff of the division of developmental disability services of the Department of Human Services or by contractually employed independent professionals, depending upon the Court's approval of one of the two plans submitted by the State pursuant to the requirements outlined in Infrastructure §l(a), supra. In the event the Case Managers are staff of DHS, these staff will have no other duties and will serve a specific caseload of individuals with mental retardation. 2. Case Managers will be assigned to all 550 class members with a ratio of one Case Manager to ten clients. This ratio may be increased over time, upon approval by the Court, after successful implementation of the Court's Order and development of the initial set of supports ana services.
-25-

3. The Department of Human Services shall develop policies and procedures that provide the Case Manager with "he authority to access emergency services, be on-oall and available to clients, and access the IDT when changes in client program and placement may be indicated.
HOME AND COMMUNITY SUPPORTS AND SERVICES
Each person who is the focus of this Order shall, within che time frame outlined, be provided home and family life in the community. Supports and services shall be provided for each person adequate to allow full participation in normal home and community life. The State shall develop ana present; to the Court, within sixty days of entry of Judgment in this case a plan which will accomplish this section of this Order, consistent with the following principles:
1 . Supports and services shall be provided for each adult or child in his/her home to the extent that such are needed to maintain and nurture the individual in home and community. Supports and services shall include but not be limited to: a. Respite as needed; b. In home workers; c. Family training; d. Reasonable architectural modification; e. Behavioral management; f. Family counseling; g. Adaptive and augmentative equipment, prothesis; and h. Transportation assistance.
2. Supports and services shall be no mere intensive than is necessary to achieve success. Individuals shall receive
-27-

no raors support:, service or other intervention than is necessary In order to allow the individual ~o participate in horse and community. 3. A person's place of residence is his/her home. The State shall advocate that he/she may not be arbitrarily removed from the home for reasons relating to his/her mental retardation, behavior or medical condition. The only exceptions should be removal for periods of intensive medical or behavioral treatment at which time resources and facilities shall be used which are the same as those used by the general public. 4. Adults shall live with people of their choice. Whenever possible, the building in which adults live shall be either purchased or rented by the persons residing- in it. 5. Consistent with normal adult living, no more than six adults shall live together. 6. Individual living planning and home selection shall focus on the individual, his or her- home, and affiliation needs, not on any approach which is "facility", "slot", or "bed" based. 7. Given the inherent rights of the self advocate, the parent/guardian, the IDT and all due process rights afforded by law, for children, home shall be the natural family. As is generically true, if the family has received any necessary supports and services but is no longer able to respond to the needs of the minor child
-23-

with ner.:ai r2z3.rz3.zion and requests placemen;; outside of che home, there shall be arranged a foster family which shall act in the place of the natural family.-" In all instances, supports and services shall be equally available. This provision shall be restricted so that fester families may receive no more than three children with mental retardation. That number may be further restricted if the home already has other children. If the home already has other children of a foster or adoptive nature, a full evaluation and review by the IDT will be required prior to placement to insure compatibility and appropriateness. Before an individual moves from his/her home to a more restrictive or less normal environment, the individual's Case Manager_ shall insure tJiat such more restrictive or less normal environraent is required and that the individual has been served but cannot presently be served in the normal home environment. Such subsequent placement plan shall be reviewed and approved initially by the IDT and then by 'the Court's Representative. The plan shall insure that all providers of home and community supports and services are free from conflict and independently able to respond to the individual's interests in being a part of the community. Providers who through any arrangement are providing service to more than one individual must agree to receive persons of any level of need or involvement. All providers must

supports and services without approvai of ;ne IDT. 10. The pian shall include a section on safeguards that -will
guarantee both internal and external controls and review, including consumer monitoring. 1 * . The plan shall insure that each person shall benefit from home and cc-mcunity experiences, .assigned to _enhar.ce quality qf_ .life . ...including. ..normal _.. friendships and affiliations-, recreation^ and..._._le.isure__..a.C-tivities, and access to the community resources. ".2. All determinations relative to home and community living and supports shall be subject to the appropriate due process procedures. 13- The pian shall insure that all Case Managers are free from conflict ana independently able to respond to _t.he individual's interest^ in being a part of the_ho_me and community. "4. For purpose of the plan and subsequent service development the Court considers the following to be a sequence from least to most restrictive home settings for an adult: independent living, independent living with in home and family supports, extended family living, adult family (foster) homes, supervised apartment living, supervised small group homes of 2-3 persons and supervised group homes of 4-6 persons. 5. The plan will provide for the State to advocate for the least restrictive, most normal environment for ail class
-30-

jrs .
HISSOM SERVICES PENDING CLOSURE
The Court is deeply concerned for pesons who will continue to resiie a; Hissorn pending closure. Unfortunately it is reasonable to expect that without intervention persons remaining there will be in greater jeopardy since staff, particularly chose with the greatest skill, will leave to seek other employment. This will leave Kissom with an even more greatly diminished ability to respond to the needs of its residents.
Therefore ' the Court requires that the State take all necessary steps to insure that residents of Hissom receive appropriate habilitation services prior to their movement from Hissom. The Court requires that Kissora residents be guaranteed a safe living environment pending their departure from Hissora.
With regard to Hissom's ongoing personnel needs, the Court orders the State to develop and present within twenty days of entry of Judgment a plan which will insure that the necessary personnel support is maintained so that residents will receive appropriate habilitative services prior to their movement from Hissom. Such plan may include incentive payments for employees who stay at Hissora, arrangements for contracting for professional services with experts, and any other means to insure adequate staffing. Such plan shall also include derivation of maximum benefit from the professionals employed by Progressive Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. and Therapeutic Concepts, as has
-3*-

ieer. previously directed in this Court's Order of Jar.uarv 1?37.

Such plan shall address the following:

" . Interdisciplinary teams able to integrate services based

on measurable behavioral objectives.

2. An administrative structure which supports the IDT and

professional services.

3. Personnel needed to provide effective IDTs.

'4. Documentative systems standardized to meet clients'

needs.

' '

5. Implementing and monitoring of physical management ana

positioning programs.

5. Appropriate full day education/day programs for ail

clients.

7. Medical and health issues which need to be addressed.

3. Providing physical management;, positioning and other

programmatic and care needs for clients who require

hospitalization.

To insure that limited resources are not wasted, the Court

directs that, effective the date of this Order, there shall be no

further capital construction at Hissom. If the State at any time

identifies any capital construction which it feels is required to

insure resident safety, it shall file a motion to allow specific

capital construction along with evidence substantiating its

request, including cost figures.

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
The Courc is cognizant ox" the radical change which z'r.s perception of employment capabilities of persons with severe disabilities has undergone in the past several years. .. Whereas sheltered workshops and wori< activity centers were previously considered the only possible place in which to employ people with disabling conditions, now many professionals consider these places the last resort when every other employment option has failed. The Court is similarly cognizant of the 1986 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 99-506) which creates a new formula grant to assist states in developing supported employment options for persons who are unable to function independently in employment without on-going support services for the duration of their employment. Such change in the perception of employment possibilities and the corresponding federal legislation afford Kissora class members substantial
-33-

The Cour^ directs tha~ all Hissca class ^enbers are io receive prevocationai and vocational services commensurate vith his/her need. This wil'i necessitate that the State accelerate and perhaps redirect its efforts to create employment options for persons with severe disabilities. The State will have to overcome resistance to employment of such persons based on the conventional arguments that limitations in physical and mental fitness lessen their ability to produce on the job and that employers prefer able-bodied workers, even if disadvantages, to workers vith disabilities. The State will have to engage business in a partnership to create a variety of supported and transitional job options for all Oklahoma citizens with severe disabilities who wish to work. In doing so, the Court directs the State to use the Medicaid waiver budget applicable to the Hissom class to assure that each member receives the kind and amount cf prevocational and vocational services which the IDT assessment deems appropriate.
Court Objectives
1. All Hissom class members are to receive prevocational and vocational services commensurate with his/her need.
2. Each IDT assessment will specify the kind and amount of prevocational and vocational services that appear acorooriate for the individual class member.

3. Children *4-*7 years old are to receive prevocacicr.al services as pare of cheir Individual Educational Plan (IE?) if possible; otherwise, Medicaid waiver funds are to be expended to this end.
4. The full array of supported ana transitional employment options capable of meeting the needs of Hissom class members with varying levels of disability are to be engineered in recognition that replicable models exist to meet the needs of persons across the entire severity spectrum.
5. Sheltered workshops and work activity centers are to be encouraged and assisted to develop supported and transitional employment options for Hissom class members, with the assistance of the State.
5. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency is to be engaged in the development of supported and transitional employment options for Hissom class members in recognition of its responsibilities for doing so pursuant to the 1986 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act: of 1973 (P.L. 99-506). '
7. The supported employment definitions and coordinating mechanisms proscribed by the federal regulations governing implementation of the new state formula grant are to be followed to assure not only compliance with the federal law but also cost-effective use of all employment service expenditures on behalf of Hissom class members.
-40-

General Principles
1 . The IDT assessment .should avoid stereotyping the employment capabilities of individuals with severe disabilities and rely instead on state-of-the-art knowledge in this regard.
2. Officials of the State of Oklahoma should set aside sufficient funds to bring in experts and trainers fron the university centers (e.g. the University of Oregon, Virginia Commonwealth University, and University of Maryland) that have been estblished by the U. S. Department of Education to provide technical assistance to states in building supported employment programs.
3. Officials of the State of Oklahoma should place emphasis on coordinating expertise and funding sources as prescribed by the federal regulations governing implementation of the new state supported employment formula grant, taking advantage of "the substantial leveraging opportunities that Medicaid waiver funds afford in this regard. Clarification should be sought from the U. S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services about which dollar will be considered the "first dollar" spent for purposes of obtaining the maximum leverage effect of Medicaid waiver funding.
4. Training efforts at all levels should include orientation to the provisions of the 1985 Amendment to
-41-

the Social Security Act, entitled "Economic Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act," which remove the substantial work disincentives that formerly existed in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid programs. • Earnings above the substantial gainful activity (SGA) level of $300 per month no longer cause loss of SSI and Medicaid benefits. 5. Sheltered workshop and work activity centers should be recognized as having a role to play in creating needed supported and transitional employment options for Hissom class members as -well as resources that can be reconfigured over time to embrace more supported and transitional employment options and less sheltered work and work activities. 5. Ths Specialized Training Program (ST?), developed by the university of Oregon, should be recognized not only for its potential to serve persons at the severe and profound levels of disability but for its applicability for cransx'orming the operations of sheltered workshops and work activity centers into a more productive work environment for such persons. 7. Concentration on development of a single kind of employment option for Hissom class members should be avoided in favor of attempts to create the full array of options — job coaches for competitive employment, shared jobs in the transitional employment program (TSP), the specialized training program (STP), mobile

work crews, sheltered enclaves in industry, e~c. 3. 3y requiring spending on prevocationai services for
children 14-17 years old, the Court is attempting to avoid the documented problems with federal and stace policy in addressing the vocational education needs of persons with disabilities while in school The failure to provide suitable vocational education to school age persons with-disabilities represents an opportunity cost not only for the individual-student but also for society which may have to spend more later to make up for the indifference of the past. 9. High priority should be directed toward development of a partnership with the business community to educate and obtain the assistance of not only the leadership but also rank and file workers in creating integrated employment options for persons with severe disabilities, including Hissom class members.

CASE MANAGER - JOB DESCRIPTION

To briefly summarize, a Case Manager performs responsible, professional work involving the planning, coordination, provision and monitoring of services for persons with mental retardation in a varies/ of community settings. The specific responsibilities include:
1 . Establishing' a positive relationship with the client and his/her family through regular contact to serve as a client's professional advocate in the agency and the community;
2. Working with referred individuals with aentai retardation, the individual's family, and community resources to secure and/or maintain employment and appropriate support services in natural settings so that intake into services is not completed unless investigation clearly determines that generic community services cannot meet the needs of the individuals;
3. Documenting all significant information involving a client by maintaining a client file. Such a file should provide a comprejie_ns_iye, up-to-date picture of the client* s__p_ro,grLe.s-S and needs and _ass_ure compliance with all applicable accrediting a_nd licensing standards;
4. Evaluating of the needs of the client by scheduling, chairing and serving as a team member of the Individual Program Plan (I?P) meeting with all involved persons to

—••»_-»_•» -r * ^ -r mm

1i1i "•*"* it

plan for the implementation and coordination of necessary services and support; 5. Serving as a liason between all persons involved ""with the client to coordinate services and to promote coordination; 6. Attending to medical, mental, psychological and psychiatric- needs of the client by identifying those needs, making referrals and scheduling appointments. The Case Manager should also accompany _the client as needed in order to work cooperatively with the pract it ioner_ _and. _.t..o.._. r_sque.s.t . th.e_mo.s t_._cpmpj?ejiens_ive and I e_a s t restrictive treatment; 7. Monitoring services received by the client th_ro_y_gh whatever means are necessary to insure implementation of
T pp
3. Assisting client financially by .securing benefits, reporting to funding sources, and aiding with or totally managing client accounts. The Case Manager should also monitor compliance with state and federal regulations to insure that benefits are rightfully received;
9 . 3e_c_ujring_ legal assistance for representation i n c o u r t, consultation or any service necessary to safeguard the client's legal rights. The Case Manager must maintain o n going involjvejne_nt in the judicial pjLOjc_e_ss__jto__ji. nsuj? e the implementation of an individual's justice^lan;
10. Providing training and assistance in daily living needs to those clients who have no programmatic services

available to then; 1 ', . Maintaining an awareness of currently available
community services through consistent contact with generic and public agencies to offer and obtain a wide range of services; 12. Performing outreach and intake duties by accepting referrals, analyzing needs and completing the intake process or securing alternative placement as needed to facilitate provision of services and/or supports; 13. Serving as a member of the Behavior Management Team and the Crisis Team; 1~. Attending staff meetings, in-service programs and training conferences to maintain awareness of policies and procedures and to improve job performance; 15. Performing duties on call as assigned to attend to client emergencies; 16. Performing other duties as assigned. DATED this J </-T^> day of July, 1987.
JAMES//). ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 1 of 62

CLOSED, LC-1, PROTO, SETCON
U.S. District Court Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:85-cv-00437-GKF-SAJ

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial, et al Assigned to: Judge Gregory K Frizzell Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner Demand: $0 Case in other court: USCA Tenth Circuit, 05-05023 Cause: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

Date Filed: 05/02/1985 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Homeward Bound, Inc. on behalf of its members

represented by Frank Laski 125 9th St Ste 700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-627-7100 Fax: 627-3183 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Werner Bullock Miller, Keffer & Bullock 222 S. KENOSHA TULSA, OK 74120 918-584-2001 Fax: 918-582-7302 Email: LBULLOCK@MKBLAW.NET LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Joseph Lissau Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa) 320 S BOSTON STE 400 TULSA, OK 74103-3708 918-594-0611 Fax: 918-594-0505 Email: mlissau@hallestill.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Whittaker Bullock Miller, Keffer & Bullock 222 S. KENOSHA TULSA, OK 74120

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 2 of 62

V. Defendant Oklahoma Health Care Authority

918-584-2001 Fax: 918-582-7302 Email: PBULLOCK@MKBLAW.NET LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Murray Blakemore Miller, Keffer & Bullock 222 S. KENOSHA TULSA, OK 74120 918-584-2001 Fax: 918-582-7302 Email: BBLAKEMORE@MKBLAW.NET LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kindanne Carole Jones Office of the Attorney General (OKC313) 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-521-4274 Fax: 405-528-1867 Email: kindanne_jones@oag.state.ok.us
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Clyde Kirk Office of the Attorney General (OKC313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-521-3921 Fax: 405-521-6246 Email: clyde_kirk@oag.state.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard J Pallotta Oklahoma Health Care Auth (OKC-PO)
General Counsel P O Box 18497 Oklahoma City, OK 73154-0497 405-522-7431

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 3 of 62

Defendant
Oklahoma Department of Human Services

Fax: 405-530-3440 Email: Howard.Pallotta@okhca.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn Susan Rambo-Jones Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OKC-4545) 4545 N LINCOLN BLVD STE 124 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-522-7403 Fax: 405-530-3438 Email: lynn.rambo-jones@okhca.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kindanne Carole Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Clyde Kirk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Lee Hurst Oklahoma Tax Commission (OKC) P O Box 53248 Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3248 405-319-8550 Fax: 405-601-7144 Email: ghurst@oktax.state.ok.us TERMINATED: 06/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kindanne Carole Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela Thedford Hardwick address unknown 405-528-4035 TERMINATED: 03/26/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert John Holland Office of the Attorney General (OKC313)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 4 of 62

Defendant Hissom Memorial Center
Defendant Gatesway Foundation, Inc.
Defendant Panel Liaison

313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-521-4274 Fax: 528-1867 TERMINATED: 02/10/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Clyde Kirk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Lawton Jones Office of the Attorney General (OKC313) 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-521-4274 Fax: 405-528-1867 Email: Mark_Jones@oag.state.ok.us TERMINATED: 06/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Joseph Arthur McCormick McCormick Field & Cinocca PLLC 6440 S LEWIS AVE STE 100 TULSA, OK 74136 918-481-7030 Fax: 481-8751 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Lawrence Andrew Andrew Williams & Ikenberry 125 W 3RD ST TULSA, OK 74103-3427 918-583-1111 Fax: 918-587-4414 Email: Steve@awlaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Ann Casus P O BOX 25352 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73125-0352 918-582-8035 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 5 of 62

Defendant Guardian Ad Litem TERMINATED: 11/17/2000 Defendant Department of Rehabilitation Services
Defendant All Defendants Defendant Joseph A McCormick

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pat Wear 5001 Briar Hill Rd Lexington, KY 40516 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William Sagona address unknown 00000 TERMINATED: 11/17/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Edward Clyde Kirk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Grant E Moak Office of the Attorney General (OKC313) 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405-521-4274 Fax: 528-1867 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy Lee Hurst (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kindanne Carole Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Lawton Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Joseph Arthur McCormick

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 6 of 62

Trustee
Date Filed 05/02/1985 10/21/1987 02/04/1998 02/06/1998 02/06/1998 02/09/1998 02/12/1998 02/17/1998
02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/25/1998

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued); (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/1998)

273 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison terminating case (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/1998)

REMARK - ALL PREVIOUS ENTRIES ON PAPER DOCKET (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/1998)

813 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock and Bullock for 12/31/97 to 1/31/98 (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/13/1998 (Entered: 02/10/1998)

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Ellison: both sides to file status report w/n 10 days for all pendings mots (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/10/1998)

814 STATUS REPORT by Trustee Joseph McCormick and req/funds (Oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/13/1998 (Entered: 02/10/1998)

815 STIPULATION re: pltf's 1/6/98 applic/atty fees for $81,645.33 (j2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 02/13/1998 (Entered: 02/12/1998)

816 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs [813-1] for Bullock and Bullock for $81,645.33 from DHS, OHCA and DRS (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/19/1998)

817 STATUS REPORT of pending mots by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant Department Rehab Svc , see report for details (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/1998)

818 NOTICE by defendant All Defendants of transition of last class member... (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/1998)

818 MOTION by defendant All Defendants for order for final report and term consent decree (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/1998)

819 BRIEF by defendant All Defendants in support of motion for order for final report and term consent decree [818-1], of notice [818-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/1998)

820 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to [0-0] ct's order of 2/6/98 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/23/1998)

821 NOTICE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of monthly progress report on development of health care policy for classmembers (mail,

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 7 of 62

03/02/1998 03/03/1998 03/11/1998 03/12/1998 03/13/1998 03/16/1998 03/19/1998 03/20/1998 03/25/1998 03/26/1998 03/27/1998
04/02/1998

c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
822 STIPULATION re [813-1] 2/6/98 application (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
823 ORDER and Judgment by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs [813-1], for Bullock & Bullock for $42,966.76 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
824 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to dfdt's ntc of transition of last class member [818-1] and motion directing the filing of a final rpt and termination of consent decree [818-1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/12/1998)
828 EXHIBITS (FILED UNDER SEAL) to Plts's resp to Dfdts' ntc of transition of last class member and mtn directing the filing of a final report and termination of consent decree (C2J) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
825 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison that report of Dr. Rubin sealed. Only ct, panel, cnsl for parties, parties and guardian ad litem shall have access to the report (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
826 CERTIFIED COPY of Order from USCA remanding for limited purpose of considering prop stlmnt. 10th retains jurisdiction (cc: JOE) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/1998)
827 NOTICE by defendant Joseph A McCormick of report of trustee and req/funds - oversized document (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: By Judge Ellison: This matter is set for telephone conference for Friday, 10:00 on 3/27/98 at the request of the guardian ad litem to discuss the issue of non-emergency consents for medical and dental care (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/20/1998)
829 REPLY by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc re ntc of transition of last class member [818-1], re mo/terminate consent decree and for final report [818-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/26/1998)
REMARK - per Lucinda at Health Care Auth, do not need to mail to Pam Hardwick (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/26/1998)
MINUTES:by Senior Judge James O. Ellison.Phone conf in regard to apptg special Gdn for parties needing non-emergency medical & dental care. Statements made & agreement reached. Parties to prepare O on agreement to procedure & submit in 5 days T Copeland-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/27/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: By Judge Ellison: Defendants' Notice of Transition of Last Class Member; Motion for Order Directing Review of Panel to File Final Report; and Motion to Terminate Consent Decree (Docket #818) is set for hearing on Thursday, the 7th day of May, 1998, at 10:00

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 8 of 62

04/09/1998 04/13/1998 04/13/1998 04/15/1998
04/21/1998 04/21/1998 04/22/1998
04/27/1998
04/29/1998 04/29/1998 05/01/1998 05/01/1998 05/05/1998 05/06/1998

a.m. (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/02/1998)
830 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant All Defendants for order approving defts' plans/ assurances and prop stlmnt agrmnt (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/1998)
831 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for order approving defts' plans/ assurances and prop stlmnt agrmnt [830-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/14/1998)
832 STATUS REPORT of hearing officer re: Timothy Sanders (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/14/1998)
833 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison that #742 obj to prop budget for ofc/Guardian is granted. budget approved in part; ptys to address all addtl pending matters at hrg 5/7/98 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/16/1998)
834 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock for 2/1/98 to 3/31/98 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
835 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue 5/7/98 hrg , and for PT conf/ hearing (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
836 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue 5/7/98 hrg [835-1], granting motion for PT conf/ hearing [835-2] ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 9:30 5/14/98 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: By Judge Ellison: IN-COURT HRG set for 10:00 on 5/11/98 in the Court Clerk's Conference Room, Room 333, 224 S Boulder, to discuss Dr. Ruben's report and subsequent reviews. (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
837 REPORT OF TRUSTEE and MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/30/1998)
838 NOTICE of report of hearing officer re: Carmen Perrymore (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/30/1998)
PROPOSED Order re guardian ad litem's oral appl to consider need for legal representatives to give consent for medical/dental procedures (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
839 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. of noncompliance on case management (c2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
840 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison re: 3/27/98 hrg on oral applic/legal rep re: consent for non-emergency medical and dental procedures (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/1998)
841 RESPONSE by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc to motion for attorney fees

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 9 of 62

05/07/1998 05/07/1998 05/11/1998
05/14/1998
05/14/1998 05/14/1998 05/15/1998 05/21/1998 05/22/1998 06/01/1998 06/01/1998 06/01/1998

and costs [834-1] (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/07/1998)
PROPOSED Pre-trial Order Received from defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
842 NOTICE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. of non-compliance (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/08/1998)
MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison Statements made & Dr Robert Brown discusses medical care. Deft co presents"notebook"- care forms, medications, etc placed UNDER SEAL(w/Judge) until further O of Ct. Ct directs Dr Brown to provide parties w/addl info disacussed & everyone to meet after they have reviewed & report back to Court on 7/9/98, 10:00 & be prepared also to discuss opening of reports to public or not. T Copeland-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/11/1998 (Entered: 05/11/1998)
MINUTES:by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; Pretrial conference held.Statements made. Court directs panel to prepare & file final report (approx 90 days). Ea side will have opportunity to attack final report. Pltf req to take depo of A Wilson granted. To be done in 90 days. Parties to prepare agreed PTO re:addressing final legal issues & submit to Ct by 8/3/98. T Copeland-CR (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/1998)
843 NOTICE by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of monthly progress report on health care policy for classmembers (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
844 NOTICE by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of amended monthly progress report on health care policy (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/1998)
845 CERTIFIED COPY of Order from USCA dismissing appeal and remanding to dist ct re: atty fees (cc: JOE) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/1998)
846 RESPONSE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to splmntl ntc/ noncompliance on case mgmt [839-1] (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
847 RESPONSE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to [842-1] pltfs' ntc of noncompliance (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/26/1998)
TRANSCRIPT of Pretrial Conf before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 5/14/98 (C/R T Copeland, 32 pgs) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/1998)
848 STIPULATION re [834-1] atty fees motion fld 4/21/98 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/1998)
849 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for appeals 97-5035 and 97-5037 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered:

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 10 of 62

06/02/1998 06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/11/1998 06/11/1998 06/15/1998
06/15/1998 06/22/1998 06/24/1998 06/26/1998 07/08/1998 07/09/1998

06/02/1998)
850 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock for 4/1/98 to 5/31/98 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
851 REPORT Of trustee and MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (c/j w/out exh) - oversized document (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
852 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting hearing on contested motion for attorney fees and costs [834-1] 10:30 6/15/98; uncontested fees of $39,741.92 granted (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/04/1998)
853 MOTION by defendants OK Health Care Auth, OK Dept of Human Svc and Department Rehab Svc to continue hrg on plas' motion for atty fees and costs (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
854 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting dfdts' motion to continue hrg on plas' motion for atty fees and costs [853-1]; resetting hearing on motion for attorney fees and costs [834-1] for 10:30 on 8/17/98 (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/1998)
855 ORDER AND JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting pla's motion for attorney fees and costs for appeals 97-5035 and 97-5037 [849-1]; court awards firm of Bullock & Bullock uncontested atty fees and expenses in amt of $30,000.00; Dept of HS, OK Health Care Authority and Dept of Rehav Srvcs each jointly and severally liable for $30,000.00 atty fees (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/1998)
856 STIPULATION by parties; atty fees/expenses to be awarded to Bullock & Bullock in amt of $30,000.00 [849-1] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/1998)
857 RESPONSE (OBJECTION) by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc to motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock for 4/1/98 to 5/31/98 [8501] (mail-cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
858 NOTICE (MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY FOR CLASSMEMBERS) by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc (mail-cpy rtnd) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/1998)
859 Report of Trustee and MOTION for funds (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/29/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: In-court hearing stricken from 7/8/98 as parties have resolved issue. (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
860 BRIEF of Understanding on Plan to Improve Medical Service Delivery to Members of the Class by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Panel Liaison, defendant Guardian Ad

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 11 of 62

07/23/1998 07/29/1998 07/29/1998 08/03/1998 08/03/1998 08/04/1998
08/04/1998
08/07/1998 08/12/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998 08/14/1998
08/20/1998

Litem (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
861 CERTIFICATE of Service by defendant Hissom Memorial Ctr (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/1998)
862 STATUS REPORT by defendant/Trustee Joseph A McCormick... (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/29/1998)
862 ...MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (c2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/29/1998)
863 STIPULATION re [850-1] mo/atty fees fld 6/2/98, stipulated amount $37,834.58. (j2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
864 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. and All Defendants to extend ddl to submit proposed pretrial ord (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
865 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend ddl to submit proposed pretrial ord [864-1] until 20 days after date review panel files final report (cc: mvts counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/05/1998)
866 ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Senior Judge James O. Ellison regarding motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock for 4/1/98 to 5/31/98 [8501]; Crt awards firm of Bullock & Bullock atty fees/expenses in amnt of $37,834.58; DHS, OK Health Care Authority and Dept of Rehabilitation Svcs are jntly and severally liable for pymnt to Pltfs' cnsl, Bullock & Bullock for atty fees/expenses $37,834.58 and jgm in amnt of $37,834.58 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/05/1998)
867 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and for costs for counsel associated w/ Bullock & Bullock (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/10/1998)
MINUTE ORDER: The panel is granted an extension of time in which to prepare a Final Report. The Final Report is due on or before September 18, 1998. (JOE-J) (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
868 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc (monthly progress report on development of health care policy for classmembers) (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
869 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue hrg on atty fees (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
870 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting plas' motion to continue hrg on atty fees [869-1]; setting hearing on for attorney fees and costs [834-1] for 10:00 on 9/17/98 (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
871 MOTION by defendant OK Health Care Auth to continue hrg on atty fees set 9/17/98(o/j) (mail-cpy mld) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/1998)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 12 of 62

08/21/1998 08/27/1998 08/28/1998 09/01/1998 09/09/1998 09/10/1998
09/24/1998 09/25/1998
09/25/1998 09/28/1998 09/28/1998
10/06/1998

872 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg on atty fees set 9/17/98 [871-1]; hearing on motion for attorney fees and costs [834-1] reset for 10:00 a.m. on 9/29/98 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
873 RESPONSE (objection) by defendants Department Rehab Svc, OK Health Care Auth and OK Dept of Human Svc to pltfs' motion for attorney fees assoc w/Bullock & Bullock [867-1] (mail-cpy mld) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/28/1998 (Entered: 08/28/1998)
874 REPORT OF TRUSTEE and MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/1998)
875 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of Health Care Policy for classmembers (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/02/1998)
876 STIPULATION re [867-1], re [867-2] mo/atty fees fld 8/7/98 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/1998)
877 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting jgm for pltfs' cnsl agnst DHS, OHCA, DRS for $28,341.94 on stipulated part of motions and setting hearing on contested parts of motion for attorney fees [867-1] 10:00 9/29/98, setting hearing on motion for costs [867-2] 10:00 9/29/98 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/11/1998)
878 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/1998)
879 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Hissom Memorial Ctr, defendant Gatesway Fdn, Inc., defendant Panel Liaison, defendant Guardian Ad Litem, defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant All Defendants, defendant Joseph A McCormick to set resp to review of final report , and to extend time/file PTO (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
880 STIPULATION re mots/atty fees [867-1], re [867-2], re [850-1], re [8341] (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
881 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to set resp to review of final report ddln to 10/17/98 [879-1], granting motion to extend time/file PTO [879-2] pretrial order ddl set for 12/17/98 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/1998)
882 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees [867-1], granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock for 4/1/98 to 5/31/98 [850-1], granting motion for attorney fees and costs [834-1] for total of $11,305.26, hrg 9/29 stricken (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/1998)
883 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 13 of 62

10/08/1998 10/29/1998 11/02/1998 11/02/1998 11/04/1998
11/04/1998
11/18/1998 11/19/1998 11/20/1998 12/02/1998
12/02/1998
12/08/1998 12/17/1998 12/21/1998

for Bullock & Bullock (c/j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/07/1998)
884 MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds and report of trustee (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
885 REPORT of trustee and MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (c/j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/1998)
886 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant All Defendants to change time/resp to final report , and to extend time/submit PTO (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/03/1998)
887 STIPULATION re: mo/atty fees fld 10/6/98 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/03/1998)
888 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs [883-1] for Bullock & Bullock agnst DHS, OHCA and DRS for $50,859.31 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
889 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time/resp to final report until 12/7/98 [886-1] granting motion to extend time/submit PTO until 1/6/99 [886-2] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
890 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider Community Access (o2j) (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/19/1998)
891 NOTICE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of monthly progress report on development of health care policy for classmembers (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/1998)
892 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve provider Community Access [890-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
893 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc to change resp to review of final rpt and mo/ext time/submit PTO (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
894 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change resp to review of final rpt until 1/15/99 and mo/ext time/submit PTO [893-1] pretrial order ddl set for 2/16/99 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
895 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
896 STIPULATION re [895-1] mo/atty fees, Bullock & Bullock shall be awarded uncontested atty fees of $34,831.25, expenses $6,712.19 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
897 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 14 of 62

12/31/1998 01/07/1999 01/15/1999 01/15/1999 01/15/1999 01/15/1999 02/03/1999
02/04/1999 02/08/1999 02/12/1999 02/16/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/22/1999 02/23/1999

attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock [895-1], on uncontested atty fees for $41,543.44 for Bullock & Bullock agnst DHS, DRS and OHCA (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/22/1998)
898 REPORT of trustee and MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
899 NOTICE by defendants of monthly progress report on the development of a health care policy for classmembers (mail-cpy mld) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/08/1999)
900 RESPONSE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to review panel final report (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
901 RESPONSE by defendant OK Health Care Auth to review panel's final report (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
902 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to review panel's final report (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
903 RESPONSE by defendant Department Rehab Svc to final report of review panel (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
904 NOTICE by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of monthly progress report on development of health care policy for classmembers (mail, c/ret, c/j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
905 REPORT of trustee and MOTION by defendant Joseph A McCormick for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
906 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for cnsl assoc w/Bullock & Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/09/1999)
907 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc., defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to extend time/submit prop PTO (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/16/1999)
908 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/submit prop PTO [907-1] pretrial order ddl set for 3/22/99 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: finding the motion for funds [884-1] moot. finding the motion for funds [898-1] moot., finding the motion for funds [885-1] moot. per law clerk (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: finding the motion for funds [905-1] moot. per law clerk (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
910 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing status conf. O-J (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
909 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for order to approve Magna Community Living Services Inc as provider (o/j) (mail-cpy mld)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 15 of 62

02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/25/1999 03/01/1999 03/03/1999 03/04/1999 03/05/1999
03/08/1999 03/09/1999 03/11/1999 03/11/1999
03/15/1999

(sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
911 MOTION by defendant Panel Liaison for preliminary injunction (in letter form from Panel Chair) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
912 RESPONSE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to motion for preliminary injunction [911-1] (in ltr form from OK Atty Gen) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: setting motion for preliminary injunction [911-1] reply to response to motion to: 3/4/99; conf on all pend issues set 3/18/99, 10:30 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
913 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for hearing [910-1] ; STATUS HRG set for 10:30 3/18/99 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
914 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to motion for order to approve Magna Community Living Services Inc as provider [909-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
915 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/01/1999)
916 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. in spprt of Panel's application to stay consideration of proposed policies (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
917 STIPULATION re [906-1] mo/atty fees filed 2/8/99 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
918 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting Bullock's motion for attorney fees and costs for cnsl [906-1] for Bullock agnst DHS, OHCA, DRS for $48,004.20 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
919 AMENDED RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to [914-1], to [909-1] DHS' req/approve provider (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
920 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting dfdt's motion for order to approve Magna Community Living Services Inc as provider [909-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
921 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to dismiss review panel's appl for inj , and in the alternative to make appl for inj more definite statement (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
922 BRIEF by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc in support of their motion to dismiss review panel's appl for inj [921-1] and in the alternative to make appl for inj more definite statement [921-2] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
923 MOTION by defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant OK Dept of

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 16 of 62

03/16/1999 03/16/1999 03/16/1999 03/18/1999 03/19/1999 03/19/1999 03/19/1999
03/26/1999 03/30/1999 03/30/1999 04/06/1999

Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc for stlmnt hearing and appt of adj stlmnt jdg and brief (mail, c/ret, c/j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
924 NOTICE by defendant Joseph A McCormick of report of trustee and ntc/request to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
925 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider REM, Inc as successor to Enid Group Homes (o2j, mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
926 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve provider REM, Inc [925-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
MINUTES: STATUS CONF by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, ; STATUS HRG set for 10:00 3/19/99 before Senior Judge James O. Ellison Pltf Counsels have emergency, matter passed to 3-19-99. (Tina Hale, CR) (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/19/1999)
927 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Department Rehab Svc by Grant E Moak (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
928 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc by Guy Lee Hurst (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
MINUTES:Status conf & mot held by Senior Judge James O. Ellison denying motion for stlmnt hearing and appt of adj stlmnt jdg [9231];Court will contact MJ Eagan about doing settl conf. denying motion to dismiss review panel's appl for inj [921-1], setting hearing on motion for preliminary injunction [911-1] 10:00 4/5/99 Parties instructed to meet w/review panel members to discuss problems & to do in next 10 days. discovery ddl set for 7/19/99 ; motion filing ddl set for 7/19/99 ; pretrial ddl set for 5/14/99;PREL PRETRIAL CONF set for 10:00 5/21/99;Final PT conf set 8/20/99, TRIAL set for 9:30 9/20/99. List of issues to be tried due in 30 days; to exchg issues to be tried in 15 days B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
TRANSCRIPT of Conference before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 3/19/99 (C/R B Caslavka, 47 pgs) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
929 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 10:00 8/20/99 ; STATUS HRG set for 10:00 5/21/99 ; PTO 5/14, evid hrg 9/20 @ 9:30, disc 7/19, disp mots 7/19 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: finding the motion for preliminary injunction [911-1] moot per order this date (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
930 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue policy meeting (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/1999)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 17 of 62

04/06/1999 04/07/1999 04/07/1999 04/09/1999 04/12/1999 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/27/1999
04/29/1999 05/05/1999 05/10/1999 05/10/1999 05/10/1999
05/11/1999
05/11/1999

931 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting pltf's motion to continue policy meeting set 4/7 and 4/8 [930-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/1999)
932 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
933 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth on development of health care policy (mail, c/ret) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
934 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider National Mentor, Inc. (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
935 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting deft's motion to approve provider National Mentor, Inc. [934-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: By JOE: 5/21 PT stricken, stlmnt conf set 5/21/99, 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
936 ORDER by Magistrate Claire V. Eagan SETTLMT CONF set for 10:00 5/21/99 before Magistrate Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
937 RESPONSE by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock [932-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
938 NOTICE (REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS) by defendant Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/29/1999 (Entered: 04/29/1999)
939 STIPULATION re [932-1] mo/atty fees fld 4/7/99 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/05/1999)
940 MOTION by defendant OK Health Care Auth to appear at stlmnt conf w/ltd auth (c/j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
941 MOTION by defendant Department Rehab Svc to appear at stlmnt conf w/ltd auth (c/j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
942 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock [932-1]. DHS, Okla. Health Care Authority & Dept of Rehab. Services, jtly & severally liable for pmy to pltfs counsel, atty fees & exps. in amt of $54,828.32. [cc: all counsel] (cc: all counsel) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: referring to Magistrate Claire V. Eagan the motion to appear at stlmnt conf w/ltd auth [941-1], referring to Magistrate Claire V. Eagan the motion to appear at stlmnt conf w/ltd auth [940-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
MINUTE ORDER: granting motions to appear at stlmnt conf w/ltd auth

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 18 of 62

05/28/1999 06/04/1999 06/07/1999 06/08/1999 06/10/1999 06/16/1999 06/18/1999 06/23/1999 06/24/1999
06/30/1999 06/30/1999 07/02/1999 07/06/1999 07/08/1999 07/08/1999

[941-1] [940-1]. (cc: all counsel) (sjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
943 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
944 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for protective order re: docu from Enquist, Pelrine & Powell (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
945 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting DHS's motion for protective order re: docu from Enquist, Pelrine & Powell [944-1] (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 6/8/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/1999)
946 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick of trustee and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/1999)
947 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees , and for costs for counsel associated w/Bullock & Bullock (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/10/1999)
REMARK Cps of deft exhs back to deft this date (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/16/1999)
948 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison; ptys have 10 days to submit obj re: McGowan's ltr (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 6/21/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
949 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to compel ans/interrogs , and to refer disc matter to MJ (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/24/1999)
950 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison All discovery stayed due to ongoing stlmnt process ; STATUS HRG set for 11:00 9/9/99 to discuss trial date and sched any disc needed (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 6/25/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/1999)
REMARK Exhs from prev hrgs ret'd to Pltf wk of 6/21/99 (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/30/1999)
951 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/obj to per diem rates proposal (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/01/1999)
952 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/1999)
953 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting pltfs' motion to extend time/obj to per diem rates proposal [951-1] until 7/6/99 (cc: mvt counsel) (Entry Date 7/7/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
954 STIPULATION re [947-1], re [947-2] mo/atty fees (o2j) (Entry Date 7/8/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/08/1999)
955 ORDER & JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting pltf's motion for attorney fees [947-1], granting motion for costs [947-2]

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 19 of 62

07/09/1999 07/12/1999
07/20/1999 07/21/1999 07/21/1999 08/04/1999 08/04/1999 08/05/1999 08/05/1999 08/09/1999 08/30/1999 08/30/1999
08/31/1999 09/02/1999 09/03/1999

agnst DHS, OHCA and DRS for $30,733.11 (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 7/9/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/1999)
956 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time to file obj to per diem rates proposal (o2j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/1999)
957 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting pltf's motion to extend time to file obj to per diem rates proposal until 7/20/99 [956-1] (cc: mvt counsel) (Entry Date 7/13/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/13/1999)
958 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to seal obj to per diem rates (o2j w/obj) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
959 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting pltf's motion to seal obj to per diem rates [958-1] (cc: mvt counsel) (Entry Date 7/22/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/22/1999)
960 SEALED DOCUMENT (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/22/1999)
961 RESPONSE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to Pltfs' obj to per diem proposal... (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
961 ...MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to dismiss Pltfs mtn for declaratory relief and combined brf in supp (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
962 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc of request to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
963 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
964 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants on develop/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
965 STIPULATION re [963-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (Entry Date 8/30/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
966 ORDER and JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock & Bullock [963-1] for $49,798.70 (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 8/31/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
967 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider S-Q Specialists (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
969 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting DHS's motion to approve provider S-Q Specialists [967-1] (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 9/7/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
968 NOTICE (MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF A HEALTH CARE POLICY FOR CLASSMEMBERS) by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/1999)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 20 of 62

09/03/1999
09/15/1999 09/17/1999 09/21/1999 10/07/1999 10/12/1999 11/01/1999 11/01/1999 11/03/1999
11/16/1999 12/03/1999 12/10/1999 12/29/1999 01/04/2000 01/04/2000

MINUTE ORDER: By Judge Ellison: The Status Hearing set for September 9, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. is stricken. The Court will hear a status report from the settlement subcommittee in its conference room on 9/8/99 at 3:30 pm. Only the Settlement Subcommittee shall appear at that time. Further, the trial set for September 20, 1999 is stricken. (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 9/7/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
970 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
971 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider Care Dynamics, Inc (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
972 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting DHS' motion to approve provider Care Dynamics, Inc [971-1] (cc: all counsel) (Entry Date 9/22/99) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
973 NOTICE (Report of Trustee & Notice of Request to DHS for Funds) (OVERSIZED DOC) (fe, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/07/1999 (Entered: 10/07/1999)
974 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for cnsl Bullock & Bullock from 8/1/99 to 9/30/99 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
975 STIPULATION re [974-1] mo/atty fees fld 10/12/99 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
976 NOTICE (Monthly progress report) by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/1999)
977 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for cnsl Bullock & Bullock from 8/1/99 to 9/30/99 [974-1] for $42,510.23 agnst DHS, OHCA and DRS (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
978 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/request to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
979 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick, trustee and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
980 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for cnsl (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/1999)
981 Report of Trustee & NOTICE to DHS for Funds by defendant (trustee) Joseph A McCormick (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
982 STIPULATION re [980-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
983 NOTICE (Monthly Progress Report) by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/2000)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 21 of 62

01/04/2000 02/07/2000 02/14/2000 02/15/2000 03/08/2000 03/10/2000 03/13/2000 04/04/2000 04/06/2000 04/26/2000 04/28/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/31/2000

984 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs for pltf cnsl [980-1] agnst DHS, OHCA, DRS for $53,824.29 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
985 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of Health Care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
986 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2000)
987 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc of request to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/15/2000)
988 STIPULATION re [986-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/08/2000)
989 ORDER & JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [986-1] for $44,076.10 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
990 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
991 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
992 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick, trustee and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/2000)
993 NOTICE: Montly progress report by DHS (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/26/2000)
994 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: monthly progress report on dev/Health Care Policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
995 STIPULATION re [991-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
PROPOSED Order re: mo/atty fees to J (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
996 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/request to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/03/2000)
997 ORDER & JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [991-1] for $34,539.47 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/04/2000)
998 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/request to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/31/2000)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 22 of 62

06/06/2000 07/03/2000 07/05/2000
07/13/2000 07/31/2000 08/04/2000 08/09/2000 08/24/2000 08/24/2000
08/30/2000 09/01/2000 09/06/2000 09/13/2000 09/28/2000 09/29/2000

999 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs w/Bullock & Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2000)
1000 STIPULATION re [999-1] mo/atty fees (j2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 07/14/2000 (Entered: 07/03/2000)
1001 ORDER and JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs w/Bullock & Bullock of $41,591.08 [999-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 07/14/2000 (Entered: 07/05/2000)
1002 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick w/ ntc of request to DHS for funds (dcap, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/14/2000)
1003 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
1004 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock for 7/1/00 -7/31/00 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/07/2000)
1005 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/request to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
1006 STIPULATION re: 8/4/00 mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
1007 ORDER and JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock agnst defts for 7/1/00 7/31/00 [1004-1] for $40,238.38 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
1008 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider (o2j) (Premier Community Services, Inc.) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
1009 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve provider Premier Community Svcs [1008-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
1010 REPORT OF THE TRUSTEE & NOTICE OF REQUESTS TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/06/2000)
1011 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
1012 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider McCalls Chapel, Inc. (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/28/2000)
1013 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve provider McCalls Chapel, Inc. [1012-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2000)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 23 of 62

09/29/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/06/2000 10/06/2000 10/10/2000 10/18/2000 10/19/2000
10/20/2000 10/24/2000 10/24/2000 10/25/2000 10/25/2000

1014 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
1015 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to substitute guardian ad litem Casaus for Sagona (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
1016 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting hearing on motion to substitute guardian ad litem Casaus for Sagona [1015-1] 1:30 10/11/00 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
1017 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
1018 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/10/2000)
1019 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue hrg re: subst/guardian ad litem (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/10/2000)
1020 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg re: subst/guardian ad litem [1019-1], HRG set for 11:00 10/19/00 ; (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
1021 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to strike conf , and for hearing on mo/consolidate (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
1022 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to strike conf [1021-1] granting motion for hearing on mo/consolidate [1021-2] setting motion to substitute guardian ad litem Casaus for Sagona [1015-1] HRG set for 10:30 10/25/00 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
1023 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1017-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
1024 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to motion to substitute guardian ad litem Casaus for Sagona [1015-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
REMARK Parties advised by phone hrg time on 10/25/00 is moved to 11:15 a.m. (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
1025 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to strike defts' resp to mo/consol as in bad faith (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
1026 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison. Parties stipulate that Gdn Ad Litem office remain open & on combined office of review panel & GAL. Rule invoked,then withdrawn granting motion to substitute guardian ad litem Casaus for Sagona [1015-1] after testimony of Mary Ann Casaus; Any objs to budget by deft wb fld in 10 days Pltf to prepare O w/pproval of Deft & submit in 10 days re rulings. setting hearing on motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1017-1] 1:30 11/28/00; B

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 24 of 62

10/31/2000 10/31/2000 11/01/2000 11/01/2000 11/01/2000 11/02/2000 11/06/2000 11/06/2000
11/07/2000 11/07/2000 11/07/2000 11/08/2000 11/08/2000 11/08/2000
11/08/2000

Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
1027 STIPULATION re [1017-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
1028 NOTICE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. of submission of stip re: mo/atty fees (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
1029 NOTICE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. of non-compliance (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
1030 MINUTE ORDER: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; IN-COURT HRG set for 10:30 11/28/00 on ntc/noncompliance; defts to resp w/n 20 days of this order (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
1031 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison re: pltfs' mo/atty fees for $51,891.44 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
1032 REPLY by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to response to motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1017-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
1033 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
1034 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1017-1] on reasonable hourly rates for future applic for hrg 11/28/00, 1:30 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
1035 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and req/DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
1036 MOTION by defendant All Defendants to continue hrg on mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2000)
1037 MOTION by defendant All Defendants to continue hrg on pltfs' ntc/noncompliance (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
1038 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. by Michael Joseph Lissau (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
1039 REPLY by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to defts' obj to set hourly rates (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
1040 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg on pltfs' ntc/noncompliance [1037-1], and motion to continue hrg on mo/atty fees [1036-1] HRG set for 10:30 12/7/00 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
1041 RESPONSE by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to [1017-1] pltfs' req/set reasonable hourly rates for future fee applic (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/09/2000)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 25 of 62

11/09/2000 11/09/2000
11/13/2000 11/13/2000 11/15/2000 11/17/2000
11/20/2000 11/28/2000 12/01/2000
12/04/2000
12/05/2000 12/06/2000 12/06/2000 12/08/2000 12/08/2000

1042 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant Hissom Memorial Ctr to audit Office of Guardian Ad Litem's Office (o/j) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
1043 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1017-1] HRG set for 1:30 12/5/00, hrg on non-compliance set 12/5/00, 10:30 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
1044 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting mo/substit guardian ad litem Casaus w/ review panel (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
1045 MOTION by defendant All Defendants for reconsideration 11/6/00 order (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
1046 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to motion to audit Office of Guardian Ad Litem's Office [1042-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/15/2000)
1047 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to audit Office of Guardian Ad Litem's Office from 1/13/89 to 11/30/2000 [10421], to be conducted by 12/1/00 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
1048 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to [1029-1] ntc of noncompliance (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of Hearing before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date (s) of: 10/25/00 (C/R B Caslavka, 69 pgs) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
1049 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for reconsideration 11/6/00 order [1045-1] ; mo/set reasonable hourly rates stricken; hrg of 12/5/00, 1:30 ltd to objs on applic/atty fees (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
1050 MINUTE ORDER: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; In-court on noncompliance & atty fees is stricken from 12/4/00 as parties have agreed to stipulation on both matters. Papers will be in w/in 10 days (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
1051 STIPULATION of ptys (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
1052 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison re: ntc/non-compliance (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/06/2000)
1053 NOTICE (Report of Trustee & Notice of Request to DHS for funds) by defendant Joseph A McCormick (fe, Dpty Clk) Modified on 12/06/2000 (Entered: 12/06/2000)
1054 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for 10/1-11/30 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
1055 STIPULATION re [1017-1] mo/atty fees fld 10/4/00 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 26 of 62

12/11/2000 12/11/2000 01/08/2001 01/10/2001 01/10/2001 01/26/2001 02/06/2001 02/07/2001 02/12/2001 02/14/2001 03/05/2001 03/09/2001 03/13/2001 03/14/2001 03/20/2001

(Entered: 12/08/2000)
1056 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants of development of health care policy (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2000)
1057 ORDER and JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1017-1] fld 10/4/00 for $11,000 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
1058 STIPULATION re [1054-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
1059 ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for 10/1-11/30 [1054-1] (cc: counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
1060 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 01/12/2001 (Entered: 01/12/2001)
1061 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
1062 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to amend (modify) 4/10/98 ord (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
1063 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to amend (modify) 4/10/98 ord [1062-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/08/2001)
1064 NOTICE: Report of the Trustee & ntc of request to DHS for funds (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
1065 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
1066 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/2001)
1067 STIPULATION re [1065-1] mo/atty fees (j2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
1068 ORDER and JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock for $38,188.03 [1065-1] (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
1069 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/15/2001)
1070 NOTICE (MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT) by the State of OK on the development of a health care policy for classmembers (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 27 of 62

03/21/2001 03/21/2001 03/22/2001 03/28/2001 03/29/2001
03/29/2001 03/30/2001 04/09/2001 04/11/2001 04/12/2001 04/13/2001 04/18/2001 04/18/2001

1071 NOTICE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of completion of independent audit of guardian ad litem's office... (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
1071 ...MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing/ct conf (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
1072 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for hearing/ct conf [1071-1]; set 3/29/1, 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (no rptr or min clk) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/23/2001)
1073 REPORT AND NOTICE by defendant Joseph A McCormick of request to DHS for funds (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
1074 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison; Hrg on final audit; Counsel present for Pltf & Deft DHS, Mary Ann Casus, Pat Wear & other panel members. Wm Sagona not pres. Mr. Jones makes report to Court in regard to audit. After discussion of parties,Court sets hrg on 4/18/01, 10:00 on issue of software programs that Mr. Sagona has refused to turn over; No final payment is to be made to Sagona at this time & Court retains all isues of audit until hrg date. State is to subp Mr. Sagona & order him to bring programs to hrg. He is to be advised thqt he may purge himself prior to hrg date; Ct advised abt payment of producing the programs. Greg Eustice-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/29/2001 (Entered: 03/29/2001)
PROPOSED Order to J re prop Amended Annual Oper budget (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
1075 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison approving budget for Review Panel and Guardian Ad Litem's office for 2001 for $652,927 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
1076 CERTIFICATE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of svc of 3/22/1 order, CPA report and response to William Sagona (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
PROPOSED Order re: Sagona audit, forwarded to: JOE (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/11/2001)
1077 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees , and for costs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/12/2001)
1078 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison re: audit report and Sagona (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
1079 MOTION by defendant All Defendants for attorney fees and costs agnst Sagona and brf/spprt (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/18/2001)
1080 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; In-court hearing held 4/18/01; Statements by Deft co in regard to matters to be heard. Softrware Programs have been delivered to State by Mr Sagona. Sagona present for hrg. State wits testify & rest; exhs adm & ret'd to Deft. Only

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 28 of 62

05/02/2001 05/03/2001 05/10/2001 05/11/2001 05/22/2001 05/22/2001 05/25/2001
06/01/2001
06/01/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/13/2001

issue remaining is signing of release by Sagona; Sagona given 15 days to resp to States appl/fees & costs fld this date; Hrg set 6/1/01, 10:00 unless matter resolved prior to then; Parties to contact MJ Eagan to have conf on matter of fees; Exh & wits lists attached. Greg Eustice-CR (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/18/2001)
1081 STIPULATION re [1077-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
1082 ORDER and JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees for Bullocks for $34,758.01 [1077-1] (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
1083 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick of trustee and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
TRANSCRIPT of Hearing before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date (s) of: 4/18/1 (C/R G Eustice, 59 pgs) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/2001)
1084 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for clerk to enter default as to William Sagona (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
1085 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for default judgment against William Sagona (j2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
1086 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting hearing on motion for default judgment against William Sagona [1085-1] 10:00 6/1/01 setting hearing on motion for attorney fees and costs agnst Sagona [1079-1] 10:00 6/1/01 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
1087 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison; Called for hrg on fees of deft & mot/default; Deft co makes report to Ct in regard to possible settl conf on fees w/MJ Eagan. No resp to mot was fld by Sagona. Ct finds the motion for default judgment against William Sagona (j2j) [1085-1] moot., finding the motion for clerk to enter default as to William Sagona [1084-1] moot., granting motion for attorney fees and costs agnst Sagona in favor of deft in amt of $6,079.84 [1079-1], granting motion for costs [1077-2] Deft to prepare Order, get Sagona's signature & submit w/in 15 days. Elise Cruchon-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
1088 NOTICE (MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT) by State of OK on development of a health care policy for classmembers (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
1089 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees , and for costs for cnsl Associated w/Bullock & Bullock (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
1090 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
PROPOSED Order re: motion for attorney fees [1089-1] forwarded to: Judge Ellison (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 29 of 62

06/13/2001 06/15/2001 06/18/2001 06/29/2001 07/02/2001
07/05/2001 07/10/2001 07/12/2001 07/19/2001 07/20/2001 07/27/2001 07/30/2001 07/31/2001 08/01/2001 08/02/2001

PROPOSED Order re: motion for attorney fees [1089-1], motion for costs for cnsl Associated w/Bullock & Bullock [1089-2] forwarded to: JOE (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
1091 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison for defts agnst Sagona for $6,079.94 (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
1092 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
1093 STIPULATION re [1089-1], re [1089-2] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
1094 ORDER and Jgm by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees [1089-1], granting motion for costs for cnsl Associated w/Bullock & Bullock [1089-2] for $41,895.85 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
1095 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
1096 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
1097 MINUTE ORDER: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; STATUS HRG set for 2:00 7/27/01 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
1098 MINUTE ORDER: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; Status hearing stricken from 7/27/01 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
1099 MINUTE ORDER: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; STATUS HRG set for 10:00 8/14/01 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
1100 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants re: development of healthcare policy for classmembers. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
1101 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider Community Options (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
1102 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison apprvng budget for 2002 for $645,436 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
1103 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
1104 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve provider Community Options [1101-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/02/2001)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 30 of 62

08/08/2001 08/14/2001
08/14/2001 08/21/2001 08/29/2001 08/30/2001 09/04/2001 09/10/2001 09/13/2001 09/13/2001 09/14/2001 09/21/2001 09/21/2001 09/21/2001 10/09/2001

1105 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
1106 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison; Statements made by both sides on issues they are still working on to settle & what issues they may have that will need to be tried ; Parties given 30 days (9/13/01) to submit stipulations & suppl bfs on legal issues. Settl work w/MJ Eagan will cont til end of Nov. TRIAL set for 9:30 3/18/02 ; B Caslavka- CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
1107 SCHEDULING ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison; trial 3/18/2, 9:30 (see sched ord for further ddlns) (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
1108 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
1109 STIPULATION re [1105-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
1110 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1105-1] for $35,237.96 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
1111 STATUS REPORT of hrg officer re: Jon Richardson (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
1112 MOTION by defendant All Defendants, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/submit splmntl brfs (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/11/2001)
1113 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/submit splmntl brfs until 9/28 [1112-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
1114 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL of Jon Richardson hrg [1111-1] by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
1115 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
1116 MOTION by defendant All Defendants, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/submit splmntl brfs and stips (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
1117 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
1118 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/submit splmntl brfs and stips until 10/31/1 [1116-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
1119 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/09/2001)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 31 of 62

10/10/2001 10/29/2001 10/29/2001
10/30/2001
11/01/2001
11/05/2001 11/06/2001 11/09/2001
11/13/2001
11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/21/2001 12/04/2001
12/12/2001 12/14/2001 12/14/2001 12/19/2001

1120 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc of req/DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
1121 STIPULATION re [1119-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
1123 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1119-1] for $43,068.51 (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
1122 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend brf ddln re: compliance standards and perm inj (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
1124 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend brf ddln re: compliance standards and perm inj until 11/5/1 [1122-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
1125 SUPPLEMENT by defendant All Defendants in spprt of mo/terminate consent decree (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/06/2001)
1126 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/file briefs (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
1127 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/file briefs until 11/9/1 [1126-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
1128 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. re: standard of compliance and permanency of injunctions (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
1129 EXHIBITS/Attachments to #1128 (part 1) (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
1130 EXHIBITS/Attachments to #1128 (Part II) (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
1131 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
1132 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : directing parties to subm rply brfs re perm of injs by 12/14/01 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/05/2001)
1133 MOTION w/brf by defendant All Defendants to amend mtn/term consent decree (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
1134 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to motion to amend mtn/term consent decree [1133-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
1135 REPLY by All Defendants to response to motion to amend mtn/term consent decree [1133-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
1136 REPORT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 32 of 62

12/21/2001 12/27/2001
01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/15/2002 01/16/2002 01/23/2002 01/24/2002
01/24/2002
01/25/2002 01/28/2002
01/28/2002 01/30/2002
01/31/2002 02/04/2002 02/05/2002

defendant (trustee) Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
1137 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for order approving provider (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
1138 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for order approving provider Newcare LLC [1137-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
1139 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. by Robert Murray Blakemore (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
1140 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock and Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
1141 AFFIDAVIT of Robert Blakemore (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
1142 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve Star Care Corp (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
1143 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue/resched 3/18 hrg (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
1144 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue/resched 3/18 hrg [1143-1] ; TRIAL set for 10:00 5/13/02 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
1145 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to amend mtn/term consent decree [1133-1]; ct will enter perm inj when/if substantial compliance is made (see order/details) (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
1146 STIPULATION re [1140-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
1147 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs [1140-1] for Bullock for $65,124. (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2002)
PROPOSED Order re: motion to approve Star Care Corp [1142-1] forwarded to: JOE (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2002)
1148 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve Star Care Corp [1142-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
1149 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc of req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
1150 AMENDED MOTION by defendant All Defendants to terminate consent decree (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
1151 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 33 of 62

02/19/2002 02/20/2002 02/27/2002 03/08/2002 03/11/2002 03/15/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/28/2002 03/29/2002 03/29/2002
03/29/2002
04/03/2002 04/05/2002

(Entered: 02/05/2002)
1152 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to amended motion to terminate consent decree [1150-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
1153 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: development/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
1154 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/request to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
1155 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
1156 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
1157 STIPULATION of parties (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/18/2002)
1158 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for class member to comply w/prog or alt relieve/obligation (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
1159 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting hearing on motion for class member to comply w/prog or alt relieve/obligation [1158-1] 10:00 3/29/02 (cc: all counsel, Clemons) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
1160 STIPULATION re [1155-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
1161 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock [1155-1] for $31,512.50 (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
1162 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison setting motion for class member to comply w/prog or alt relieve/obligation (o2j) [1158-1] ; hearing held on 3/29/02;Statements by Deft & Pltf co. Clemons arrives & Judge questions him & advises if patient does not fully comply w/staff, assistance will be termed. In patient treatment recommended. Attys to prepare order setting out stages of treatment, etc. Hrg cont'd to 4/8/02, 10:00 a.m. deft exhs adm & returned to co.B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
1163 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : setting contd hearing on motion for class member to comply w/prog or alt relieve/obligation (o2j) [1158-1] 10:00 4/8/02 (ntc in Court all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
1164 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
1165 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 34 of 62

04/05/2002
04/25/2002 04/26/2002 04/26/2002 04/30/2002
05/08/2002 05/14/2002 05/17/2002 05/23/2002 06/12/2002 06/12/2002 06/18/2002 06/20/2002 07/02/2002 07/16/2002

(Entered: 04/05/2002)
1166 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : setting motion for class member to comply w/prog or alt relieve/obligation (o2j) [11581] ;Cont'd hearing stricken from 4/8/02 as class member is in drug treatment per pltf co. (phone call to pltf counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
1167 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison jt issue/case and pretrial order ddl set for 5/2/02 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
1168 MOTION by defendant All Defendants, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue/resched 5/13 hrg (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
1169 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
1170 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue/resched 5/13 hrg [1168-1] pretrial order ddl set for 8/15/02 ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 11:00 8/22/02 ; TRIAL set for 9:30 9/16/02 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2002)
1171 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison terminating motion for class member to comply w/prog or alt relieve/obligation [1158-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
1172 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: develop/ health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
1173 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (for 3/1/2 to 4/30/2) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
1174 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
1175 STIPULATION re [1173-1] mo/atty fees fld 5/17/2 (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
1176 ORDER and Jgm by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs for Bullock (for 3/1/2 to 4/30/2) for $43,976.01 [1173-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
1177 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc re: develop/ health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
1178 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
1179 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs 5/1/2-6/30/2 for Bullock & Bullock (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
PROPOSED Order re: 2003 budget forwarded to: JOE (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/16/2002)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 35 of 62

07/23/2002 07/25/2002 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 08/07/2002 08/08/2002 08/12/2002
08/19/2002 08/20/2002 09/03/2002 09/03/2002 09/10/2002 09/23/2002 09/25/2002
09/25/2002

1180 STIPULATION re [1179-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
1181 ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs 5/1/2-6/30/2 [1179-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
1182 MOTION by defendant All Defendants, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue/resched hrg , to lift stay , and to amend scheduling order (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
1183 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
1184 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; Phone conference set for 1:00 8/12/02 in re: mot/cont dates (notice phone) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
1185 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison approving budget for Homeward Bound Review Panel for $645,436 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
1186 MINUTES:Phone conf by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue/resched hrg [1182-1], denying motion to lift stay [1182-2], granting motion to amend scheduling order (o2j) [1182-3] ; proposed pretrial order due 9/10/02 ; PRETRIAL CONF reset for 10:00 9/27/02;NJ TRIAL reset for 10/29/02, 9:30 a.m.Parties to submit order re rulings. B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
1187 STATUS REPORT by defendant All Defendants on development/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
1188 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; TRIAL set for 1:00 10/30/02 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
1189 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison pretrial order ddl set for 9/9/02 , PT 9/27, trial 10/30 (see order/details) (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
1190 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; pretrial order ddl set for 9/25/02 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
1191 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs to Bullock for 7/1/2 to 8/31/2 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
1192 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant OK Dept of Human Svc by Robert John Holland (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
1193 JOINT MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by All Defendants to order pltfs to designate which proposed witns are to be called during case in chief and which are rebuttal witns (titled: Dfdts' jt mot objecting to pltfs' final witness list) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/26/2002 (Entered: 09/26/2002)
1194 JOINT MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by All Defendants to order

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 36 of 62

09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/26/2002
09/26/2002 09/26/2002 09/27/2002
09/30/2002 09/30/2002

pltfs'to label exhs (titled: Dfdts' jt mot objecting to pltfs' organization of exhibits) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/26/2002 (Entered: 09/26/2002)
PROPOSED Pre-trial Order Received from defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. forwarded to: Judge (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
1195 FIRST MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by All Defendants in limine (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
1196 SECOND MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by All Defendants in limine (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
1197 THIRD MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by All Defendants in limine (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
1198 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison: ptys directed to submit proposed PTO, witn and exh lists, on disc, in WordPerfect 8.0 format by noon, 9/26/02; ptys directed to deliver the disc to Clk's Off at 224 S Boulder; if Clk's Off is closed, ptys directed to leave disc in drop box outside Clk's Off (cc: all counsel) (pltfs' cnsl phoned by CRD on 9/26/02) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
1199 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to dfdts' obj to organization of exhs (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
1200 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to dfdts' obj to final wit lst (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
1201 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; Pretrial conference held 9/27/02 Deft case in chief, then Pltf case. Ct adopts report of panel subj to rebuttal; Trial wb 10 days, divided equally, 5 days ea.including rebuttal;Ct advises parties issues to be tried & those not 2b tried. Trial hours after 1st day wb 9:30-5:00. Parties to furnish Ct 3 trial notebooks.Granting in part & denying in part motion in limine [1197-1], finding the motion in limine [1196-1] Ct reserves ruling Pltf bf filed in 10 days; granting motion in limine to order pltfs'to label exhs [1194-1], finding the motion to order pltfs to designate which proposed witns are to be called during case in chief and which are rebuttal witns [1193-1] w/drawn. Parties to submit Agreed PTO, wit & exh list 10 days prior to trial; Ct allows testimony of James Conroy; Carl Fellen testimony limited; Deft summary charts can be used, deft wit Dean Goettehrer report wb made avail 10 days prior to trial; class member contact notes to be exchgd 2 wks before trial. B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/27/2002 (Entered: 09/27/2002)
1202 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
1203 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to motion for attorney fees and costs to Bullock for 7/1/2 to 8/31/2 [1191-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/01/2002)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 37 of 62

10/02/2002 10/02/2002 10/03/2002 10/10/2002 10/16/2002 10/18/2002 10/21/2002 10/22/2002 10/22/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002 10/24/2002 10/24/2002 10/25/2002 10/25/2002

1204 RESPONSE by defendant Joseph A McCormick to motion for attorney fees and costs to Bullock for 7/1/2 to 8/31/2 [1191-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
1205 STIPULATION re [1191-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
1206 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, and jgm grntg mo/atty fees in part for $22,169.95 for Bullock & Bullock (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
TRANSCRIPT of PT Conf before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date (s) of: 9/27/2 (C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 47 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
1207 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
1208 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to vacate 12/6/00 order and brf/spprt (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
1209 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/file PTO (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
1210 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to file resp to 2nd mot in limine out of time (o&resp/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
1211 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/file PTO [1209-1]; pretrial order ddl set for 10/23/02 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
1212 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to file resp to 2nd mot in limine out of time [1210-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
1213 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to [1196-1] (5cpys resp rtnd 2 mvt) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
1214 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to file pretrial order under seal (o&pto/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
1215 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to file pretrial order under seal [1214-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
1216 MOTION by defendant All Defendants to amend PTO (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
1217 REPLY by defendant All Defendants to response to 2nd mo/lim (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
1218 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to amend PTO [1216-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 38 of 62

10/28/2002 10/29/2002 10/29/2002 10/30/2002 11/07/2002
11/08/2002 11/15/2002 11/20/2002 12/09/2002 12/10/2002 12/11/2002 12/19/2002 12/20/2002 01/06/2003

1219 PRE-TRIAL ORDER approved by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ETT 10 days (cc: all cnsl) (SEALED DOCUMENT) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
REMARK Advised parties by phone, trial will start at 2:00 p.m. rather than 1:00. (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
1220 TRIAL BRIEF by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for hrg on 10/30/2 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
1221 TRIAL BRIEF by defendant OK Health Care Auth (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
1222 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ;NJ Trial held from 10/30/02 thru11/7/02; Statments made. Deft 2nd mot/limine O/R; all deft exhs adm; Pltf exhs adm except 5D & 6; deft obj to tD,13N&13R; 13N adm. 13R wb addressed later; Opening & deft presents case 1st. Report of panel 2b furnished to parties &Ct denies marking it as exh.Deft rests & reserves time for rebuttal. Pltf presents case & parts of exh 6 adm. Pltf rests & parties present rebuttal& rest; Parties to file prop F/F & C/L 45 days after transcript is filed in approx 30 days or so.Court will then set oral agrument & will have Mr. Wear here for questioning Parties may then file suppl F/F & C/L if desire after Mr Wear testimony.Court has set of both sides exhs;Exh & wit lists attached to min.B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 11/08/2002 (Entered: 11/08/2002)
1223 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
1224 MONTHLY PROGRESS STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
1225 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs for 9/1/2 to 10/31/2 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
1226 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to motion for attorney fees and costs for 9/1/2 to 10/31/2 [1225-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
1227 STIPULATION re [1225-1] atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
1228 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting atty fees to Bullock for pltfs for $14,586.40 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
REMARK - Mary Ann Casus' address updated to Ste 708 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
1229 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
1230 MONTHLY PROGRESS/STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 39 of 62

01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 02/06/2003 02/12/2003 02/14/2003 02/14/2003 02/18/2003 03/03/2003

Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Table/Contents before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 10/30/2-11/7/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 8 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol I before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 10/30/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 1-139 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol II before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 10/31/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 140-322 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol III before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 11/1/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 323-420 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol IV before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 11/4/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 420-602 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol V before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 11/5/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 603-776 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol VI before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 11/6/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 777-942 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of NJ Trial, Vol VII before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 11/7/2 ( Re: ) ( C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 943-1085 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
REMARK Pltf picked up notebooks of exhs from trial (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
1231 MONTLY STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development/health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
1232 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (oversized document) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
1233 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/file FF (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
1234 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/file FF to 3/10/3 [1233-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
1235 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/request to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/04/2003)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 40 of 62

03/07/2003 03/10/2003 03/10/2003 04/02/2003 04/07/2003
04/11/2003 04/17/2003 04/22/2003 04/23/2003 04/24/2003
05/01/2003 05/01/2003
05/02/2003
05/02/2003
05/13/2003
05/13/2003 05/14/2003

REMARK: Defts picked up trial exhs (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
1236 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by defendant All Defendants (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
1237 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
1238 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs (11/2/2 to 3/31/3) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
1239 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : Oral Argument & testimony of Pat Wear set for 10:00 5/14/03 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
1240 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
1241 STATUS REPORT of hearing officer re: Paula Cook (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
1242 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to motion for attorney fees and costs (11/2/2 to 3/31/3) [1238-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
1243 STIPULATION re [1238-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
1244 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting uncontested atty fees of $48,099.03 per 4/2/3 motion (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
1245 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/feil appeal in Cook decision (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/01/2003)
1246 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/file appeal in Cook decision until 5/2/3 [1245-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
1247 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL [1241-1] by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. and brf/spprt urging reversal/DHS decision to deny needed therapy svcs to Paula Cook (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
1248 EXHIBITS by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. in support of MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL [1241-1] [1247-1] (ovrszd doc) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
1249 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL [1241-1] [1247-1] re: Paula Cook (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
1250 EXHIBITS by All Defendants in support of response [1249-1] to Appeal re: Paula Cook (ovrszd doc) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
1251 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison Called for closing

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 41 of 62

05/21/2003 05/21/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003 05/28/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/10/2003 06/11/2003 06/16/2003 06/20/2003 06/24/2003 06/24/2003 06/25/2003
06/25/2003

arguments; Pat Wear, Court's Expert testifies; Parties waive closing Argument; Court will enter Order; Joanna Smith-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 05/14/2003 (Entered: 05/14/2003)
1252 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER Helen Kannady re Carla Fuller (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
1254 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time/reply to Paula Cook Appeal (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1253 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (overszd doc) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Hearing before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date (s) of: 5/14/3 (C/R: Joanna Smith, Pages: 51) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
1255 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time/reply to Paula Cook Appeal [1254-1] reply to: 6/3/03 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
1256 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time/reply to Paula Cook appeal (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
1257 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time/reply to Paula Cook appeal [1256-1] to: 6/10/03 ; (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
1258 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time/reply to Cook appeal (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
1259 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs (from 4/1/3 to 5/31/3) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
1260 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time/reply to Cook appeal [1258-1] to: 6/13/03 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
1261 REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER re Laura Eikenberry (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
1262 STIPULATION re [1259-1] (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
1263 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HEALTH CARE POLICY FOR CLASSMEMBERS by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
1264 RESPONSE (OBJECTION) by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to application for attorney fees and costs [1259-1] (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
1265 ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, granting motion for attorney fees and costs (from 4/1/3 to 5/31/3) [1259-1]; the DHS is liable for pymt of pltfs' cnsl Bullock & Bullock for atty fees and

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 42 of 62

07/03/2003 07/09/2003 07/09/2003 07/14/2003 07/16/2003 07/17/2003 08/05/2003 08/06/2003 08/13/2003 08/14/2003 08/14/2003 08/18/2003 08/18/2003 08/19/2003
08/19/2003

expenses in amnt of $42,982.66 and jgm in amnt of $42,982.66 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
1266 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to extend time/resp to prop budget (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
1267 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/resp to prop budget to 7/14/3 [1266-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
1268 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : HRG on the appeal of Paula Cook is set for 10:00 8/20/03 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
1269 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve Jones Health Care, succ to Enid Group Homes (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
1270 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve Jones Health Care, succ to Enid Group Homes [1269-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
1271 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
1272 STATUS REPORT of hrg ofcr re: Lisa Stenberg (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
1273 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees and costs from 6/1/3 to 7/31/3 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
1274 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
1275 NOTICE of report of hearing officer re: Tony Hudson (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
1276 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison approving 2004 budget for $634,471 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
1277 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; IN-COURT HRG is moved from 10:00 set for 11:00 8/20/03 (phoned all counsel 7 M Casus) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
1278 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc of development of health care policy for classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
1279 MOTION w/brf by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. urging reversal of DHS decision to deny needed therapy svcs to LS , including for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/04/2003 (Entered: 08/20/2003)
1281 EXHIBITS (FILED UNDER SEAL) (seal, Dpty Clk) (Entered:

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 43 of 62

08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/21/2003
08/25/2003 08/27/2003 08/27/2003 08/28/2003 08/28/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/05/2003 09/05/2003

08/20/2003)
1280 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : setting hearing on motion for temporary restraining order [1279-2] 2:00 8/21/03 ( all counsel adv in Ct this date) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
1282 TRIAL BRIEF by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
1283 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; Evid hearing held 8/20 & 8/21/03 Statements & argu as to matter to be heard today. Ct rules Paula Cook matter wb hear as sch today & TRO hrg on other matter is set 821/03, 2:00. Wits testify for both sides; exhs adm (Judge has set)Ct will enter prompt ruling;Pltf w/draws mot/TRO & prel inj & sets hrg to report of hrg officer; setting hearing on motion urging reversal of DHS decision to deny needed therapy svcs [1279-1] 9:30 10/8/03, finding the motion for temporary restraining order [1279-2] w/drawn, finding the motion for preliminary injunction [1279-3] w/drawn., ; On issue of non-compliance, HRG set for 9:30 9/30/03; Pltf to file more formal mot & parties to prepare PTO, Prop F/F & C/L; Sch O due in 10 days B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 08/22/2003 (Entered: 08/22/2003)
1284 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to motion for attorney fees and costs from 6/1/3 to 7/31/3 [1273-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
1285 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison terminating MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL re: Paula Cook [1241-1] [1247-1], see order/details (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
1286 STIPULATION re [1273-1] mo/atty fees (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
1287 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick of Trustee and ntc/req to DHS for funds (ovrszd doc) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
1288 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees and costs from 6/1/3 to 7/31/3 for $27,724.88 [1273-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
1289 RESPONSE by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to motion urging reversal of DHS decision to deny needed therapy svcs to LS [1279-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
1290 EXHIBITS by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth in support of response [1289-1], in support of motion urging reversal of DHS decision to deny needed therapy svcs to LS [1279-1] SEALED DOCUMENT (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
1291 AMENDED NOTICE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. of noncompliance of defts' reforming the community waiver program (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/08/2003)
1292 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison re: applic/finding of

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 44 of 62

09/08/2003 09/15/2003 09/16/2003
09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003 09/23/2003 09/24/2003 09/24/2003 09/25/2003 09/26/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003

noncompliance: pretrial order ddl set for 9/24/03 , see order for other dates (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/08/2003)
1293 STATUS REPORT by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc on development of health care policy for Classmembers (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
1294 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to [1291-1] amended ntc/noncompliance of program (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
1295 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison denying motion for attorney fees and costs (11/2/2 to 3/31/3) [1238-1], denying motion for attorney fees and costs for 9/1/2 to 10/31/2 [1225-1], denying motion for attorney fees and costs to Bullock for 7/1/2 to 8/31/2 [1191-1] as to contested amount w/out prej after rlg on term/consent decree (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 8/20,21/03 ( C/R: Greg Eustice, Pages: 321 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
1296 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Defendants to [1291-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
1297 REPLY by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. re [1291-1] resp to pltfs' ntc/noncompliance (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
1298 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/file FFCL re: noncompliance hrg (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
1299 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc for leave to file resp to reply to ntc/noncompliance (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
PROPOSED Pre-trial Order Received from defendant All Defendants, plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. forwarded to: JOE (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
1300 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : , ; PRETRIAL CONF set for 2:00 9/29/03 (phoned all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
1301 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for leave to file resp to reply to ntc/noncompliance [1299-1], due 9/25/3 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
1302 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/file FFCL re: noncompliance hrg until 9/29/3 [1298-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1303 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison Pretrial conference held 9/29/03 regarding the 'service authorization process.' Objs & modifications of PTO ruled on. As amended on the record by the Court, PTO signed. Trial to commence 9/30/03, 9:30 a.m. Ct will recess trial @ 4:30 p.m., 9/30, due to another appointment.[B.Caslavka-cr] (fe, Dpty

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 45 of 62

09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003
10/14/2003 10/15/2003 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/30/2003 11/19/2003 01/15/2004

Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
1304 RESPONSE by defendant All Defendants to pltfs' reply to resp to amended ntc/noncompliance of defts' reforming community waiver progr [1291-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
1305 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
1306 PRE-TRIAL ORDER approved by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
1307 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; In-court hearing held 10/3/03 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
1307 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ;Non compliance hrg held 9/30 thru 10/3/03 all exhs adm. Open stats. Deft presents wits 1st. Pltf presents wits; Deft rebuttal wits; Arguments; Parties given 15 days to supplement findings; Set of exhs w/Court; lists of exhs & wits attached. B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
1308 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to dismiss appeal of Lisa Stenberg (o/j) (TITLED: DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF LISA STENBERG) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
1309 REPORT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
1310 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to dismiss appeal of Lisa Stenberg [1308-1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
1311 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time/file splmnlt FF&CL (o2j) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
1312 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time/file splmnlt FF&CL [1311-1] until 10/27/3 (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
1313 SPLMNTL FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
1314 SPLMNTL FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by defendant All Defendants for hrg of 9/30/3 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
1315 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by defendant All Defendants re: amd ntc/noncompliance (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
1316 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req toDHS for funds (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
1317 REPORT of hearing officer re: John Larry Philpot (pll, Dpty Clk)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 46 of 62

01/15/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/29/2004 01/29/2004 02/26/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/10/2004 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004 03/19/2004

(Entered: 01/15/2004)
1318 STATUS REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick and ntc/req to DHS for funds (ovrszd doc) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Compliance Hrg, Vol I before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 9/30/3 (C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 1-183 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Compliance Hrg, Vol II before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 10/1/3 (C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 184-382 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Compliance Hrg, Vol III before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 10/2/3 (C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 383-583 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Compliance Hg, Vol IV before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 10/3/3 (C/R: B Caslavka, Pages: 584-672 ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
1319 SUPPLEMENT by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. re notice [1291-1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
1319 ... MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to enforce consent decree (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
1320 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER Helen Kannady re Barbie Carter (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
1321 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees pendente lite (o/j) (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
1322 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
1323 REPORT of the hearing officer re Chad Richardt & Alan Best (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
1324 MOTION (TITLED: APPEAL OF BRBIE CARTER, ALAN BEST AND CHAD RICHARDT SERVICE CUTS) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
1325 MOTION by Defendants to change ddln to file resp re m/atty fees Pendente Lite until 4/6/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
1326 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re Leonard Wormser (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
1327 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re Donna Thompson (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
1328 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 47 of 62

03/19/2004
03/19/2004 03/23/2004 03/29/2004
04/05/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/19/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/19/2004 05/20/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004

ddln until 4/6/04 [1325-1] to resp to motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
1329 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, re mot to terminate consent decree [818-1]; pty to meet w/stlmt jdg to attempt to draft agreed permanent injunction; ptys given 90 days from date of this or to attempt an agreed permanent injunction; pty directed to file status rpt re development of agreed perm injunc on/before 6/11/04; (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
1330 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, re pltfs' amd ntc of noncompliance of dfdts reforming the community waiver program (see order for details) (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
1331 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re Cheryl Brunner and Sherry Anderson (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
1332 MOTION (TITLED: APPEAL OF SVC CUTS TO PROGRAMS OF SHERRY ANDERSON, CHERYL BRUNNER & LEONARD WORMSER) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
1333 RESPONSE by Defendants to motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
1334 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time to rply re mtn/atty fees (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
1335 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
1336 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time to 5/17/04 [1334-1] to reply to motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
1337 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Claire V. Eagan : SETTLMT CONF set for 2:00 6/2/04 before Judge Claire V. Eagan (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
1338 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change ddln to rply re mtn/atty fee pendente lite (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
1339 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing (telephone conference) (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
1340 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change ddln to rply re mtn/atty fee pendente lite until 5/31/04 [1338-1] [1321-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
1341 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; IN-COURT HRG set for 10:00 6/15/04 on appeal of Barbie Carter of Pltf (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
1342 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : setting hearing on

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 48 of 62

05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004
05/28/2004
06/01/2004
06/01/2004 06/04/2004
06/04/2004 06/04/2004
06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/08/2004

motion for hearing [1324-1] 10:30 6/29/04 in re: appeal of Alan Best & Chad Richardt Services Cuts (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
1343 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : setting hearing on motion for hearing [1332-1] 10:00 7/16/04 re: appeal of Sherry Anderson & Cheryl Brunner all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
1344 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; IN-COURT HRG set for 10:00 7/29/04 re: appeal of Leonard Wormser (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
1345 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for hearing (telephone conference) [1339-1] ; STATUS HRG (telephone conf re class cnsl appeals) set for 11:00 5/28/04 before Senior Judge James O. Ellison (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
1346 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; Phone conf re class appeals hearing held 5/28/04; Mr Victor Hunt pressent by phone w/attys. Discussion re fair hrg, determined be thru OCA w/help of Victor Hunt. Terri Beeler-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
1347 MOTION by defendant All Defendants, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to continue hrg on pltfs' appeal of Hrg (o/j) Officer's decision pertaining to Barbie Carter's service authorization (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
1348 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time to 6/8/04 to rply to mot for atty fees (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
1349 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison: the ptys are granted until 8/17/04 to come up w/agreed permanent injunction; the ddl of 6/11/04 for a status rpt re development of agreed permanent injunction is stricken (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
1350 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time to 6/8/04 [1348-1] to reply to motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
1351 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, re four hrgs on appeals; ptys directed to exchg exhs and provide exhs to Crt no later than 5 days prior to hrg for each appeal (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
1352 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue hrg for Anderson & Brunner (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
1353 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time to rply re mtn/atty fees pendente lite (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
1354 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue hrg for Best & Richardt (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
1355 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 49 of 62

06/08/2004
06/08/2004
06/08/2004 06/10/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/17/2004 06/21/2004 06/29/2004 06/30/2004 07/01/2004 07/08/2004 07/09/2004

hrg for Anderson & Brunner [1352-1], the motion for hearing [1332-1] HRG is reset for 10:00 9/9/04 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
1356 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg for Best & Richardt [1354-1], the motion for hearing [1324-1] HRG is reset for 10:00 8/6/04 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
1357 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg on pltfs' appeal of Hrg Officer's decision pertaining to Barbie Carter's service authorization [1347-1]; MISCELLANEOUS HRG reset for 10:00 8/24/04 (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
1358 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time to rply re mtn/atty fees pendente lite until 7/7/04 [1353-1] [1321-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 5/28/04 ( C/R: Terri Beeler, Pages: 14 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
1359 REPORT by defendant Joseph A McCormick... (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
1359 ...NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (crp, Dpty Clk) Modified on 06/15/2004 (Entered: 06/15/2004)
1360 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to approve provider (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
1361 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to approve provider Elite Care, Inc. [1360-1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
1362 REPORT AND NTC OF RQST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
PROPOSED Order re: prop budget, forwarded to: Judge Ellison (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
1363 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison approving the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 in the amt of $633,562 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/02/2004)
1364 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time to 7/21/04 to rply to mot for atty fees (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
1365 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time to 7/21/04 to rply to mot for atty fees [1364-1], setting motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] reply to response to motion ddl to: 7/21/04 ; HRG set for 10:30 9/27/04 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/09/2004)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 50 of 62

07/14/2004 07/21/2004 07/21/2004 07/22/2004 07/22/2004 08/02/2004 08/04/2004 08/05/2004 08/06/2004
08/13/2004 08/13/2004 08/16/2004 08/16/2004

1366 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER by Helen Kannady (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
1367 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; IN-COURT HRG Re appeal of Leonard Wormser is stricken from 7/29/04 & re-set for 1:30 9/23/04 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
1368 REPLY by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to response to motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
1369 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; HRG re app of Robert Clay of svc cuts is set for 10:00 11/23/04 (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
1370 MOTION (TITLED: APPEAL OF SERVICE CUTS TO PROGRAM OF CLASS MEMBER ROBERT CLAY) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing de novo re Consent Decree re job coach services to class member Robert Clay (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
1371 REPORT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
1372 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; MISCELLANEOUS HRG on appeal of Barbie Carter is stricken from 8/24/04 due to Court's schedule & set for 10:00 9/10/04 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
1373 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendants on class members Alan Best & Chad Richardt app of hrg offcr's decision of 3/4/04 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
1374 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison Called fro hrg on appeals of Best & Richardt; Court denies testimony of Karen Green McGowen & plktf presents proffer of what testimony would be. wits testify,. all exhs of both parties adm & exhs w/Court; Transcript of Kannady hrg wil be subm or Pltf will file mot take depos by 8/10/04. Any argument is due by 8/30/04 in writing; taking under advisement [1324-1] Bee Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
1375 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re Michael Saunders (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
1376 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re Harold Exendine (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
1377 NOTICE (SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 19 2004) by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
1378 NOTICE (PLAN FOR THE TRANSITION OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND PHASE OUT OF THE COMBINED OFFICE OF THE HOMEWARD BOUND REVIEW PANEL AND THE GUARDIAN AD

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 51 of 62

08/16/2004 08/17/2004 08/20/2004 08/23/2004 08/24/2004 08/25/2004 08/30/2004
08/30/2004
08/30/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/03/2004 09/03/2004

LITEM) by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant Department Rehab Svc (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Nonjury Trial Vol I before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 8/2/04 ( C/R: Beebe Caslavka, Pages: 198 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
1379 NOTICE (SUBMISSION IN RESP TO CT'S ORD OF 3/19/04) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
1380 NOTICE (APPEAL OF SERVICE CUTS TO PROGRAM OF CLASS MEMBER HAROLD EXENDINE) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Appeal Hrg - Alan Best & Chad Richardt before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 8/6/04 ( C/R: Beebe Caslavka, Pages: 149 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
1381 MOTION by Defendants for approve rpt on implementation of jt stip of ptys (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/20/2004 (Entered: 08/25/2004)
1382 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
1383 MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to remand individual class member service disputes scheduled before the hrg officer and appeals of hearing officer decisions to this court to dfdts' administrative appeal process (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
1384 NOTICE (CLOSING STATEMENT ON CLASS MEMBERS ALAN BEST AND CHAD RICHARDT APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION ENTERED 3/24/04) by Defendants (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
1385 BRIEF (ARGUMENT CONCERNING NURSING SUPPORT FOR CHAD RICHARDT AND ALAN BEST) FILED by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
1386 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : setting hearing on notice [1380-1]appeal of Harold Exendine, 10:00 12/2/04 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) Modified on 09/01/2004 (Entered: 09/01/2004)
1387 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to take action on hearing officer's report (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
1388 MOTION by Defendants to continue hrgs on pltfs' appeals of svc auth decisions (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
1389 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re: Teresa Elizabeth "Betsy" Dale (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
1390 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER re: Jodi Fite (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/2004)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 52 of 62

09/03/2004 09/03/2004
09/09/2004 09/13/2004
09/13/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/17/2004 09/20/2004 09/20/2004
09/20/2004 09/20/2004 09/21/2004

1391 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time to file resp re mtn/apprv rpt in implementation of jt stip of ptys (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
1392 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrgs on pltfs' appeals of svc auth decisions [1388-1]; striking motion for hearing [1332-1] ; Miscellaneous hrg stricken (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
1393 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time to file resp re mtn/apprv rpt in implementation of jt stip of ptys [1391-1] [1381-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
1394 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to motion to remand individual class member service disputes scheduled before the hrg officer and appeals of hearing officer decisions to this court to dfdts' administrative appeal process [1383-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
1395 RESPONSE by Defendants to motion to take action on hearing officer's report [1387-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
1396 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to change time to resp re mtn/approve rpt on implementation of jt stip of ptys until 9/17/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
1397 MOTION by Defendants to continue hrg re pltfs app of svc auth decision (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
1398 REPLY by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to response to motion to take action on hearing officer's report [1387-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
1399 RESPONSE by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to motion for approve rpt on implementation of jt stip of ptys [1381-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
1400 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg re pltfs app of svc auth decision [1397-1] ; In-court hearing stricken (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
1401 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change time to resp re mtn/approve rpt on implementation of jt stip of ptys until 9/17/04 [1396-1] [1381-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
1402 MOTION (TITLED: APPEAL OF SERVICE CUTS TO PROGRAM OF CLASS MEMEBER JODI FITE) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for hearing (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
1403 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER by Helen Kannady re Bendena Cole (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
MAIL RETURNED: [1393-1] addressed to defendant OK Health Care

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 53 of 62

09/23/2004 09/23/2004 09/24/2004 09/24/2004
09/27/2004 09/27/2004
09/27/2004 09/27/2004 10/01/2004

Auth, Howard J Pallotta Genl Cnsl, PO Box 18497, OKC OK 73154 (RTS - no reason provided); remailed at the request of OK Health Care Auth to 4545 N Lincoln Blvd Ste 124, OKC OK 73105, the PO Box is a correct address but we are the 2nd complaint they've had of returned mail, hence no address change made in ICMS, OK Health Care is checking on the problem (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
1404 REPORT OF TRUSTREE & NTC OF RQST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
1405 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to adopt hrg officer's report re Elizabeth "Betsy" Dale (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/24/2004)
1406 MOTION by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant Department Rehab Svc to change ddln to rply re mtn/apprv rpt (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
1407 REPLY by defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth, defendant Department Rehab Svc to response to motion to remand individual class member service disputes scheduled before the hrg officer and appeals of hearing officer decisions to this court to dfdts' administrative appeal process [1383-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
1408 MOTION by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to strike their atty from pltfs' wit list (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
1409 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison; Hearing held on atty fees of Pltf. Ptys apear for hrg & Ct grs obj of atty Mark Jones to be called as wit. Ct finds & gr atty fees w/re to entitlement. Hrg held re hrgly rate, etc. wits called. Stip & prop order signed & filed in open Ct re fee appl filed 3/4/04. Deft obj & move to disqualify Tom Seymour as wit den. Bullock may file w/in 15 days, resp to defts' plan for transition & phase out fld 8/16/04; Stay of appeals cont'd pending final order. 2/1/05 is ddl set for admin closing.Pltf drops req for paralegals Grant & Firzgerald; Parties rest & may suppl if desire in 10 days; Evid hrg set 10/18/04, 10:00 on implementation of jt stipul & argument on perm injunct & will address appeal structure; Prop F/F&C/L due 10/15/04; If Pat Wear needed as wit, may be called by phone. B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
1410 STIPULATION CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' FEE APPLICATION FILED ON 3/4/04 [1321-1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
1411 ORDER AND JUDGMENT by Senior Judge James O. Ellison, the firm Bullock and Bullock are awarded atty fees (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Atty Fee Hrg before Senior Judge James O. Ellison for date(s) of: 9/27/04 ( C/R: Beebe Caslavka, Pages: 13 ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 54 of 62

10/05/2004 10/06/2004 10/08/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004
10/13/2004
10/15/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/27/2004
10/28/2004 11/02/2004

1412 RESPONSE by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to motion to adopt hrg officer's report re Elizabeth "Betsy" Dale [1405-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
1413 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
1414 MOTION by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to exceed page limitation of reply brf (o&brf/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
1415 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to continue (resched) hrg set 10/18/04 until 11/18-19/04 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
1416 BRIEF (COMMENTS UPON STATE'S PLAN FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM) FILED by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
1417 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : granting motion to continue hrg set 10/18/04 [1415-1]Hearing & argument is reset 11/9/04, 10:00;Proposed F/F & C/L are due 11/2/04 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
1418 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to change ddln to rply re mtn/apprv rpt until 10/12/04 [1406-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
1419 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to exceed page limitation of reply brf (1 cpy brf rtrnd/mvt) [1414-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
1420 REPLY by defendant All Defendants to response to motion for approve rpt on implementation of jt stip of ptys [1381-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
1421 REPLY by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to response to motion to adopt hrg officer's report re Elizabeth "Betsy" Dale [1405-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
1422 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison denying motion to adopt hrg officer's report re Elizabeth "Betsy" Dale [1405-1], denying motion to take action on hearing officer's report [1387-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
1423 REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER by Helen Kannady re Terry Stick (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
1424 MINUTE ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison : ; Appeal hearing on Robert Clay is stricken from 11/23/04 and the appeal hearing on Harold Exendine is stricken from 12/02/04 (cc: all counsel) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/02/2004)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 55 of 62

11/02/2004 11/03/2004 11/03/2004 11/04/2004 11/04/2004 11/04/2004 11/05/2004 11/08/2004 11/12/2004 11/15/2004 11/17/2004
11/22/2004 11/22/2004

1425 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to extend time to file ff&ccl until 11/4/05 (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
1426 MOTION by defendant All Defendants for leave to resp to plts' comments upon state's plan for term of ofc of the gdn ad litem (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
1427 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
1428 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to extend time to file ff&ccl until 11/4/05 [1425-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
1429 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
1430 FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by All Defendants (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
1431 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for leave to resp to plts' comments upon state's plan for term of ofc of the gdn ad litem [1426-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
1432 RESPONSE by Defendants to [1416-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
1433 MOTION by Defendants to continue hrg on mtn/apprv rpt on implementation set 11/15/04 until 1:30 same day (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
1434 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to continue hrg on mtn/apprv rpt on implementation set 11/15/04 until 1:30 same day [1433-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/16/2004)
1435 MINUTES: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; Evidentiary hearing on Deft mot/approve report on implementation of Jt stipul of ptys & argument on isu3 of perm injun held 11/9/04,11/10,11/15,11/16,11/17/04. Wits testify. Exhs adm. & returned to partis. Court has set to keep. Pltf w/draws obj to operation paycheck; Pltf obj to compliance of stip, Pltf #20 is w/drawn by pltf. Deft objs to allowing Steve Andrews to be added as a Pltf wit. Not allowed by Ct. Deft & Pltf rest; Deft's rebuttal case & rests & all parties rest. Arguments made & matter under advisement.wits & exh lists w/min sheet B Caslavka-CR (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
1436 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison finding the order [1052-1] moot, terminating/regarding motion for approve rpt on implementation of jt stip of ptys [1381-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
1437 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion for attorney fees pendente lite [1321-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered:

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 56 of 62

12/01/2004
12/01/2004 12/02/2004 12/06/2004 12/10/2004 12/13/2004 12/14/2004 12/14/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/27/2004 12/29/2004 01/03/2005

11/22/2004)
1438 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison for the Transition of Responsibilities and phase-out of the combined office of the Homeward Bould Review Panel and the Guardian ad Litem (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
1439 FINAL ORDER and PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Senior Judge James O. Ellison ; IN-COURT HRG set for 10:00 2/1/05 (cc: all cnsl) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
1440 REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND NOTICE OF REQUEST TO DHS FOR FUNDS by defendant Joseph A McCormick (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
1441 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. for attorney fees (oversized doc) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
1442 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to amend pltfs' mot for atty fees and costs (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
1443 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to amend pltfs' mot for atty fees and costs [1442-1] (cc: all counsel) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
PROPOSED Judgment re: Atty fees forwarded to: Judge Ellison (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
1444 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to amend pltfs' fee motion (o/j) (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
1445 ORDER by Senior Judge James O. Ellison granting motion to amend pltfs' fee motion [1444-1] (cc: all counsel) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
1446 JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge James O. Ellison re pltfs' atty fees (cc: all cnsl) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
1447 MOTION by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. to amend (alter) final ord entered 12/1/04 (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
1448 BRIEF by plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. in support of motion to amend (alter) final ord entered 12/1/04 [1447-1] (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
1449 RESPONSE by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc to motion for attorney fees [1441-1] (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
1450 JOINT MOTION by defendant Department Rehab Svc, defendant OK Dept of Human Svc, defendant OK Health Care Auth to change ddln to resp re mtn/alter final ord (o/j) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
1451 STIPULATION (Re: 1441 Motion for Attorney Fees) by Homeward Bound, Inc., All Defendants (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/04/2005)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 57 of 62

01/07/2005 01/11/2005 01/13/2005
01/14/2005 01/20/2005 01/21/2005
01/24/2005 01/24/2005 01/25/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/28/2005
01/31/2005 01/31/2005

1452 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1441 Motion for Attorney Fees) by Homeward Bound, Inc. ; (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
1454 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting 1450 Motion to Extend Deadline(s), setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): (Re: 1447 Motion to Amend) (bjm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
1455 RESPONSE to Motion (Re: 1447 Motion to Amend) by Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Department of Rehabilitation Services ; (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/17/2005)
1453 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison accepting the stipulation as to the uncontested fees only, granting 1441 Motion for Attorney Fees (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
1456 MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion Response (Re: 1447 Motion to Amend) by Homeward Bound, Inc. (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
1457 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting in part and denying in part 1456 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion Response, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): 1/25/05 (Re: 1447 Motion to Amend) (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
1458 REPORT by Joseph A McCormick (crp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
1459 NOTICE of Request to DHS for funds by Joseph A McCormick (crp, Dpty Clk) (submitted as part of Dkt #1458) Modified on 3/29/2006 to correct docket text (a-hc, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/25/2005)
1460 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 1447 Motion to Amend) by Homeward Bound, Inc. ; (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
1461 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, striking/terminating deadline (s)/Hearing(s) (JOE1, Chambers). Modified on 1/31/2005 To attach correct PDF w/Judge Signature (mcm, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/28/2005)
1462 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison approving final severance and closing expenses. (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
1463 MOTION for Order Directing Trustee to Pay Outstanding Obligations of the Review Panel/Guardian Ad Litem Office and to Pay Remaining Balance of Trust Account to the Department of Human Services and Discharge of Trustee by Oklahoma Department of Human Services (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification to attach correct PDF w/Judges Signature (Re: 1461 Order, Striking/Terminating Deadline(s)/Hearing(s)) (mcm, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
1464 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting 1463 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 58 of 62

02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005
02/01/2005
02/01/2005
02/01/2005
02/01/2005
02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005 02/10/2005

1465 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting in part and denying in part 1447 Motion to Amend (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
1466 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison Amended Permanent Injunction (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
1467 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing on Motion to Approve Report on Implementation of Joint Stipulation (Vol 1) held on 11/9/04 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 170) (Re: 1435 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1468 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing on Motion to Approve Report on Implementation of Joint Stipulation (Vol. 2) held on 11/10/04 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 171 thru 347) (Re: 1435 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1469 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing on Motion to Approve Report on Implementation of Joint Stipulation (Vol 3) held on 11/15/04 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 348 thru 450) (Re: 1435 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1470 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing on Motion to Approve Report on Implementation of Joint Stipulation (Vol 4) held on 11/16/04 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 451 thru 628) (Re: 1435 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1471 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Hearing on Motion to Approve Report on Implementation of Joint Stipulation (Vol 5) held on 11/17/04 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 629 thru 665) (Re: 1435 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1472 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Argument on Permanent Injunction held on 11/17/04 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 82) (Re: 1435 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1473 MOTION for Hearing Settlement Conference, MOTION to Assign Plaintiffs' Application for Attorney Fees and Costs to a Settlement Judge (Re: 1441 Motion for Attorney Fees) by Homeward Bound, Inc. (s-lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
1474 NOTICE of Change of Address by Patricia Whittaker Bullock by on behalf of Homeward Bound, Inc. (Bullock, Patricia) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
1475 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) by Oklahoma Department of Human Services (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
1476 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting 1475 Motion to Withdraw

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 59 of 62

02/15/2005 02/16/2005 02/18/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/02/2005 03/09/2005 03/10/2005 03/14/2005 03/17/2005 04/28/2005 04/29/2005 05/20/2005 07/19/2005
03/28/2006

Attorney(s), terminating attorney Robert John Holland (JOE2, Chambers) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
1477 MOTION to Extend Deadline(s) by Homeward Bound, Inc. (Blakemore, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2005)
1478 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting 1477 Motion to Extend Deadline(s) (JOE2, Chambers) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
1479 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Homeward Bound, Inc. (With attachments) (Bullock, Patricia) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
1480 NOTICE OF APPEAL to Circuit Court (Re: 1465 Order, Ruling on Motion to Amend,, 1466 Order, ) by Homeward Bound, Inc. (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
1482 APPEAL FEES Paid in Full (Re: 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) by Homeward Bound, Inc. (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
1481 PRELIMINARY RECORD Sent to Circuit Court (Re: 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (With attachments) (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
MAIL to William Sagona Returned - marked Not for Dept of Human Services. (Re: 1478 Order, Ruling on Motion to Extend Deadline(s), ) (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
1483 APPEAL NUMBER INFORMATION from Circuit Court assigning Case Number 05-5023 1480 ret fee (Re: 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
1484 STIPULATION re: Attorney Fees and Costs by Homeward Bound, Inc. (Bullock, Patricia) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
1485 ORDER by Judge James O Ellison, granting 1479 Motion for Attorney Fees, awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs and against Defendants (JOE1, Chambers) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
1486 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (Transcripts are not necessary or are already on file ) (Re: 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (agc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
1487 CLERK'S RECORD on Appeal Sent to Circuit Court (Re: 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (s-agc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
1488 REPORT of Trustee and Notice of Payment to Oklahoma DHS for Remaining Funds (With attachments) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
1489 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Attorney Fee Hearing held on September 27, 2004 before Judge James O Ellison (Court Reporter: Beebe Caslavka) (Pages: 152) (Re: 1409 Minutes - Miscellaneous,,,,,,, ) (kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
1490 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk at the direction of Chief Judge Claire

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 60 of 62

03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/05/2006
04/07/2006 04/11/2006 05/04/2006 06/05/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006

V. Eagan, randomly reassigning this case following Judge Ellison taking inactive senior status, reassigning case to Judge Terence Kern, Judge James O Ellison no longer assigned to case, changing case number to 85CV-437-TCK (a-hc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
1491 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk randomly assigning a Magistrate Judge to this case for referral purposes, reassigning case to Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner,, changing case number to 85-CV-437-TCK-SAJ (ahc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
1492 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, referring motion(s) to Magistrate Judge Joyner (Re: 1473 MOTION for Hearing Settlement Conference MOTION to Assign Plaintiffs' Application for Attorney Fees and Costs to a Settlement Judge) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 04/01/2006)
1493 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sam A Joyner : Unopposed Motion to Assign Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees and Costs to a Settlement Judge and to Set a Settlement Conference [Dkt.# 1473] is granted. The Application to Set Settlement Conference is hereby referred to the office of Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary for assignment to an appropriate settlement judge., granting 1473 Motion for Hearing, granting 1473 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (lmc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
MAIL to Mary Ann Casus Returned - marked Forward order expired updated our system with new address. Remailed on 4/10/06 - PO Box 25352 - OK City, OK 73125-0352 - new address obtained from envelope. (Re: [1492] Minute Order,, Referring Motion(s), Referring Motion(s), [1491] Minute Order, Reassigning Case, Changing Case Number) (s-tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
1494 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): Conference before ASJ Terry Thomas, Settlement Conference set for 5/11/2006 at 09:30 AM before Adjunct Judge (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
1495 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT by Adjunct Judge Terry Thomas, Parties advised ASJ plaintiff application for fees and costs has been settled., setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s):, Dismissal Papers due by 5/26/2006 (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
1496 JUDGMENT by Judge Terence Kern, awarding attorney fees to Plaintiffs and against Defendants, Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the Department of Rehabilitation Services (Re: 1441 Motion for Attorney Fees) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
***Remark: noticing has been turned off for attorneys Pamela Hardwick and William Sagona they were previously termed and the court does not have current addresses for them (s-tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
1497 First MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Guy L. Hurst by Oklahoma

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 61 of 62

06/06/2006 06/09/2006 06/12/2006 06/26/2006 09/05/2006 11/07/2006 12/04/2006 01/03/2007 01/24/2007 02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/07/2007

Department of Human Services, Department of Rehabilitation Services (Hurst, Guy) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
1498 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Edward Clyde Kirk on behalf of Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Hissom Memorial Center, Department of Rehabilitation Services (Kirk, Edward) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
1499 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1497 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s), terminating attorney Guy Lee Hurst (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
1500 MOTION to Withdraw Attorney(s) Mark Lawton Jones by Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Department of Rehabilitation Services (Kirk, Edward) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
1501 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, granting 1500 Motion to Withdraw Attorney(s), terminating attorney Mark Lawton Jones (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
1502 DECISION from Circuit Court reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court (Re: 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (s-kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
1503 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Kindanne Carole Jones on behalf of Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Department of Rehabilitation Services (Jones, Kindanne) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
1504 ORDER from Circuit Court re: attorney fees and costs (Re: 1502 Decision from Circuit Court, 1480 Notice of Appeal to Circuit Court) (stjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
1505 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern, setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): The parties' briefs are due to the Court by February 5, 2007., Miscellaneous Deadline set for 2/5/2007 (Re: 1502 Decision from Circuit Court) (JLW, Chambers) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
1506 STIPULATION of Dismissal, closing case, by Homeward Bound, Inc., Oklahoma Health Care Authority, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Department of Rehabilitation Services (With attachments) (Jones, Kindanne) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
1507 ORDER by Judge Terence Kern (Second Amended Permanent Injunction) (Re: 1506 Stipulation of Dismissal) (JLW, Chambers) (sac, Dpty Clk). Modified on 2/7/2007 to change PDF because case number showed CR rather than CV (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 02/06/2007)
1508 MINUTE ORDER per General Order, reassigning case to Judge Gregory K Frizzell, Judge Terence Kern no longer assigned to case, changing case number to 85-cv-437-GKF(SAJ) (cds, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
1509 NOTICE of Docket Entry Modification; Error: case number showed CR rather than CV; Correction: replaced with PDF that reflects correct case number (Re: 1507 Order, ) (sac, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/07/2007)

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:oknd - Docket Report

Page 62 of 62

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

03/22/2007 14:04:01

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

ddalton
4:85-cv-00437-GKFSAJ 2.40

https://ecf.oknd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?962702212978777-L_923_0-1

3/22/2007

 
 963 F.2d 1352 (1992)
HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., on behalf of its members; Bridget Becker, by her mother and next friend Mary Ann Becker; John Douglas Berry, by his parents and next friends John
and Judy Berry; Michael Brasier, by his parents and next friends John P. and Sharon Brasier; Deminkyn Martin, by his next friend Mary Ann Becker; Julie Marie Paulson, by her next friends Paul and Susan Paulson; and Susan Marie Thompson, by her mother and next friend Barbara Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER; Leon Gilbert; Robert M. Greer; Jane Hartley; John E. Orr; David Walters; Carl Ward, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma
Commission for Human Services; Department of Health & Human Services, of the State of Oklahoma; Robert Fulton, in his official capacity as Director of the Oklahoma Department
of Human Services; Burl Bartlett; E.L. Collins; George Nigh, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma; Barbara Johnson; Reginald Barnes; Seay Sanders;
William Farha; and Albert Furr, Defendants-Appellees, and Department of Education, of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma; Colorado Hispanic Bar Association; Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association; and Oklahoma
Employment Lawyers Association, Amici Curiae.
No. 91-5006.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 8, 1992.
1353 *1353 Louis W. Bullock (Patricia W. Bullock, with him on the brief) of Bullock & Bullock, Tulsa Okl., for plaintiffsappellants.
Charles L. Waters, Gen. Counsel (Roger Stuart, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Okl., Charles A. Miller and J. Gregory Sidak of Covington & Burling, Washington D.C., with him on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Gilbert M. Roman and Lynn D. Feiger of Feiger, Collison & Killmer, Denver, Colo., for amicus curiae Colorado Lawyers Committee.
Micheal Salem, Norman, Okl., for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma.
Delores S. Atencio, Denver, Colo., for amicus curiae Colorado Hispanic Bar Ass'n.
John W. Coyle, III of Coyle & Henry and Marilyn D. Barringer, Oklahoma City, Okl., for amici curiae Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Ass'n and Oklahoma Employment Lawyers Ass'n.
Before McKAY, Chief Circuit Judge, LOGAN and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 provides that, in a civil rights action, "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The presumptively "reasonable attorney's fee" contemplated by § 1988 is the "`product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate.'" Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1548, 79

L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1940, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). See also Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council (Delaware Valley I), 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). In the parlance of attorney's fee litigation, this figure is known as the 1354 "lodestar." See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. The narrow issue presented *1354 by this case is if and when "a reasonable attorney's fee" should include an enhancement to the lodestar for the risk of losing and not being paid.[1]

Plaintiff-appellant Homeward Bound, Inc. ("HBI") is an organization of parents of developmentally disabled children who resided at the Hissom Memorial Center ("HMC"), one of the three largest state institutions in Oklahoma for the developmentally disabled. HBI sought to reform the state's treatment of the residents through litigation. However, HBI had difficulty securing the services of an attorney. Eastern Oklahoma Legal Aid, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, and Protection and Advocacy all indicated that they did not have the resources to represent HBI in the large institutional reform litigation presented by the situation at HMC. Several private attorneys, both local and out of state, echoed similar concerns and expressed their unwillingness to represent HBI without a commitment of substantial resources. After nearly a two-year search for an attorney, HBI was referred to the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (PILCOP). In April 1985, PILCOP agreed to represent HBI and enlisted the assistance of the Tulsa, Oklahoma firm of Bullock & Bullock to serve as local counsel.[2]

Upon securing representation, HBI filed a class action suit on behalf of the residents of HMC. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief for constitutional and statutory violations by the state in its treatment of the residents.[3] After nearly two-and-one-half years of litigation, the district court entered a judgment for Plaintiffs, expressly finding them to be the prevailing party and entitled to attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' attorneys submitted an application for attorneys' fees which, in addition to requesting a fee based on the lodestar, requested an enhancement based on their superior performance, their acceptance of the case contingent upon receipt of fees awarded by the court, the risks involved, and the unpopularity of the case. The district court denied the request for an enhancement and awarded fees to Plaintiffs' attorneys based solely on the lodestar. In denying the Plaintiffs' request for a contingency enhancement, the district court reasoned:

1355

the court is without evidence relating to the relevant market upon which it could adequately employ a "risk multiplier." Further, the risk in this particular case, when viewed from the outset of the litigation, was not particularly great in light of existing federal law and the deplorable conditions at The Hissom Memorial Center. Some measure of success was fairly certain; the risk was the extent of the remedy the court would afford. To the extent that this risk lay in assembling the evidence and persuading the court of the extent of relief warranted, both these risks are fully addressed by the rate awarded the lawyers and the *1355 number of hours this court deems reasonable in preparation of the case. Thus, the court can conclude only that a contingency enhancement is not appropriate in this case.

PILCOP subsequently settled the issue of its fees with Defendants. This appeal relates solely to Bullock's fee application and specifically to the district court's denial of a contingency enhancement.[4]

We review the district court's award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Freeman, 921 F.2d 1120, 1122 (10th Cir.1990). Underlying factual findings will only be upset when clearly erroneous. Iqbal v. Golf Course Superintendents Ass'n, 900 F.2d 227, 228 (10th Cir.1990). However, a district court's statutory interpretation or legal analysis which provides the basis for the fee award is reviewable de novo. Supre v. Ricketts, 792 F.2d 958, 961 (10th Cir.1986).

Congress has recognized that the amount of fees awarded under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 should be "adequate to attract competent counsel, but ... not produce windfalls to attorneys." S.Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 6 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5908, 5913. See also H.R.Rep. No. 1558, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 9 (1976). In Hensley, the Supreme Court stated that the lodestar is "[t]he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee...." 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. at 1939.[5] More recently, the Supreme Court has considered the lodestar to be the presumptively reasonable fee:

A strong presumption that the lodestar figure0907the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate0907represents a "reasonable" fee is wholly consistent with the rationale behind the usual feeshifting statute.... These statutes were not designed as a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of attorneys, nor were they intended to replicate exactly the fee an attorney could earn through a private fee arrangement with his client. Instead, the aim of such statutes was to enable private parties to obtain legal help in seeking redress for injuries resulting from the actual or threatened violation of specific federal laws. Hence, if plaintiffs ... find it possible to engage a lawyer based on the statutory assurance that he will be paid a "reasonable fee," the purpose behind the fee shifting statute has been satisfied.
Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (holding that quality of counsel's performance is not a basis to adjust the lodestar as this is normally reflected in the reasonable hourly rate). See also Blum, 465 U.S. at 897-900, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-49 ("novelty and complexity of the issues," "special skill and experience of counsel," "quality of representation," and "results obtained" are presumably reflected and therefore generally subsumed within the lodestar and consequently will not justify an enhancement).
1356 *1356 Nonetheless, "[t]he product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate does not end the inquiry [because] there remain other considerations that may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward or downward." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. Accordingly, we have looked to the factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974) (cited with approval in S.Rep. No. 1011, at 6, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5913; H.R.Rep. No. 1558, at 8), to guide the district court's calculation and our review of a reasonable attorney's fee under the statute. See Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 552 (10th Cir.1983). See also Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93, 109 S.Ct. 939, 944, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989) ("Johnson's `list of 12' ... provides a useful catalog of the many factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of an award of attorney's fees"); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. at 1940 n. 9 ("[t]he district court also may consider other factors identified in Johnson ... though it should note that many of these factors usually are subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably expended at a reasonable rate"). Although one of these factors is "[w]hether the fee is fixed or contingent," Johnson, 488 F.2d at 718, it is not entirely clear whether Congress intended contingency to be a factor in determining whether a fee is otherwise reasonable. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council (Delaware Valley II), 483 U.S. 711, 723, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 3085-86, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (plurality opinion) ("there is nothing in Johnson to show that this factor was meant to reflect the contingent nature of prevailing in the lawsuit as a whole"). See also Blanchard, 489 U.S. at 99, 109 S.Ct. at 947 (Scalia, J., concurring) (criticizing reliance on Johnson factors to determine congressional intent). Thus, while it is "doubtful that the legislative history [of § 1988] supports the use of this factor" in determining whether an enhancement to the lodestar is appropriate," Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 723, 107 S.Ct. at 3085 (plurality opinion), we and every other circuit that has considered the issue, with the exception of the D.C. Circuit, have recognized the availability of contingency enhancements in the calculation of reasonable fees under statutory fee shifting statutes such as § 1988. See Ramos, 713 F.2d at 558. See also Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 717 n. 4, 107 S.Ct. at 3082 n. 4 (plurality opinion) (cases cited therein). But see King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771, 784 (D.C.Cir.1991) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, 60 U.S.L.W. 3617 (U.S. Feb. 21, 1992) (No. 91-1370).
While we have recognized the availability of contingency enhancements, we have "viewed [them] with caution." Ramos, 713 F.2d at 558. "[W]hen determining whether to give a contingency bonus, the trial court should view the litigation as it reasonably should have appeared to the lawyers at the outset of the litigation." Id. Accord Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 729, 107 S.Ct. at 3088 (plurality opinion) (citing Ramos). In Ramos we held that because "the plaintiffs had little risk of not prevailing on some of the issues [and] [t]he real controversies and uncertainties lay in litigating the remedy ... some measure of success on the merits was fairly certain, and no bonus for contingency [was] warranted...." Id. Thus, we evaluate contingency enhancements based on the risk presented by the particular case at hand.[6]
Our practice of evaluating contingency enhancements based on the risks of the particular case finds support in 1357 Blum v. Stenson and the Delaware Valley II[7] plurality *1357 opinion. In Blum, the Supreme Court held that an
"upward adjustment for the contingent nature of the litigation was unjustified" in the particular case before it

because the fee applicant failed to "identify any risks associated with the litigation or claim that the risk of nonpayment required an upward adjustment to provide a reasonable fee."[8]465 U.S. at 901, 104 S.Ct. at 1550. Similarly, in Delaware Valley II, to the extent that the plurality would permit a contingency enhancement,[9] it "should be reserved for exceptional cases where the need and justification for such enhancement are readily apparent and are supported by evidence in the record and specific findings by the courts." 483 U.S. at 728, 107 S.Ct. at 3088 (plurality opinion) (citing Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-901, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-50) (footnote omitted). In determining that the enhancement was not appropriate to the case before the Court, the Delaware Valley II plurality recognized that "[t]he risk of nonpayment should be determined at the beginning of the litigation," id., 483 U.S. at 729, 107 S.Ct. at 3088 (plurality opinion) (citing Lewis v. Coughlin, 801 F.2d 570, 576 (2d Cir.1986); Ramos, 713 F.2d at 558), and that "`[t]he test ... should be an objective one based on the likely response of the bar to the case's pretrial merits, rather than on the judge's subjective opinion of the merits.'" Id., 483 U.S. at 730 n. 11, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 n. 11 (plurality opinion) (quoting Lewis, 801 F.2d at 575). The Delaware Valley II plurality stated:
We have alluded to the uncertainties involved in determining the risk of not prevailing and the burdensome nature of fee litigation. We deem it desirable and an appropriate application of the statute to hold that if the trial court specifically finds that there was a real risk-of-not-prevailing issue in the case, an upward adjustment of the lodestar may be made, but, as a general rule, in an amount no more than one-third of the lodestar. Any additional adjustment would require the most exacting justification. This limitation will at once protect against windfalls for attorneys and act as some deterrence against bringing suits in which the attorney believes there is less than a 50-50 chance of prevailing. Riskier suits may be brought, and if won, a reasonable lodestar may be awarded, but risk enhancement will be limited to one-third of the lodestar, if awarded at all.
Id. (plurality opinion) (emphasis added).
In the present case, the district court, consistent with Ramos as well as our interpretation of the Delaware Valley II plurality opinion and Blum, relied in part on the risk of this particular case in declining to enhance the lodestar 1358 based on the contingency.[10] Plaintiffs contend that *1358 the district court should have applied the standard set forth in Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Delaware Valley II. Under this standard, "compensation for contingency must be based on the difference in market treatment of contingent fee cases as a class, rather than on an assessment of the `riskiness' of any particular case."[11]Id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (O'Connor, J., concurring). See also id. at 745-46, 107 S.Ct. at 3097 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Justice O'Connor expressly rejected the award of any enhancement based on "legal" risks or risks peculiar to the case, reasoning that compensation for such risks should be reflected in the lodestar. Id. at 734, 107 S.Ct. at 3091 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
Several circuits considering the issue in the wake of Delaware Valley II have adopted Justice O'Connor's opinion as setting forth the governing standard. See Morris v. American Nat'l Can Corp., 952 F.2d 200, 204 (8th Cir.1991) ; Islamic Ctr. v. City of Starkville, 876 F.2d 465, 471 (5th Cir.1989); Lattimore v. Oman Constr., 868 F.2d 437, 439 n. 4 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Fadhl v. City & County of San Francisco, 859 F.2d 649, 650 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp., 829 F.2d 367, 379-82 (3d Cir.1987); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1404 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1027, 108 S.Ct. 752, 98 L.Ed.2d 765 (1988). While we have not squarely addressed the issue, our post-Delaware Valley II decisions suggest that the Delaware Valley II plurality opinion controls. See Smith, 921 F.2d at 1123; Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 875-76 (10th Cir.1989). Accord Skelton v. General Motors Corp., 860 F.2d 250, 258 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810, 110 S.Ct. 53, 107 L.Ed.2d 22 (1989); Friends of the Earth v. Eastman Kodak Co., 834 F.2d 295, 298 (2d Cir.1987). As the issue is now squarely before us, we reaffirm the standard set forth in Ramos and approved of by the Delaware Valley II plurality, and we decline to adopt Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Delaware Valley II as the law of this Circuit.
While we recognize that we are swimming up a stream of authority from our sister circuits, we are persuaded by the D.C. Circuit's reasoning in King as to why Justice O'Connor's opinion is not controlling.[12] As King recognizes, the rationale for following Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Delaware Valley II is derived from

Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977), in which the Supreme Court held that "[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." Id. at 193, 97 S.Ct. at 993. Like the D.C. Circuit, we do not read Justice O'Connor's opinion as concurring in the judgment on the narrowest grounds. See King, 950 F.2d at 793.
Specifically, Justice O'Connor would compensate for contingency based on the difference in market treatment of contingency cases as a class. Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (O'Connor, J., concurring). 1359 We have no doubt that contingency fee cases "typically generates *1359 fees (if at all) substantially in excess of their more conservative counterparts," such as hourly retainer cases, in order to compensate the attorney for the risk of losing and not being paid. In re Western Real Estate Fund, 922 F.2d 592, 597 (10th Cir.1990), modified, Abel v. West, 932 F.2d 898 (10th Cir.1991). See also Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 110 S.Ct. 1679, 109 L.Ed.2d 74 (1990) (enforcing attorney contingency fee agreement providing attorney with fees in excess of $400,000 even though statutory fee award under § 1988 amounted to only $75,000). Thus, if the market treatment of contingency cases as a class were the standard for determining whether a contingency enhancement is appropriate, we believe that a contingency enhancement would have to be given in every case. We believe that when Justice O'Connor spoke of compensating for the contingency based on the difference in market treatment of contingency cases as a class, she was speaking of the amount of compensation once it was determined that a contingency enhancement was proper. See King, 950 F.2d at 777 (whether enhancement is available at all is an "analytically distinct question[]" from the calculation of its amount).
For Justice O'Connor, the relevant inquiry in determining whether a contingency enhancement is warranted is whether the prevailing party "would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market," without the contingency enhancement. Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 733, 107 S.Ct. at 3091 (O'Connor, J., concurring). On this point, she is in agreement with the plurality. See id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (plurality opinion). However, the plurality would also require, to the extent that it would permit contingency enhancements at all, a finding that there was "a real risk-of-not-prevailing issue in the case...." Id. at 730, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (plurality opinion). Thus, we view the plurality opinion and Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion as setting forth entirely different standards and, therefore, do not believe that Justice O'Connor's position "posits a narrow test to which the plurality must necessarily agree as a logical consequence of its own broader position." King, 950 F.2d at 782. Indeed, we read the plurality opinion as setting forth a narrower standard because it requires an initial showing of the risk peculiar to the particular case. As the D.C. Circuit recognized:
When ... one opinion supporting the judgment does not fit entirely within a broader circle drawn by the others, Marks is problematic. If applied in situations where the various opinions supporting the judgment are mutually exclusive, Marks will turn a single opinion that lacks majority support into national law. When eight of nine Justices do not subscribe to a given approach to a legal question, it surely cannot be proper to endow that approach with controlling force, no matter how persuasive it may be.
Id. at 782. See also Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343, 1360 (2d Cir. 1991) (recognizing "the anomaly of the views of one justice, with whom no one concurs, being the law of the land, where the Court is so divided on an issue and where there is no majority opinion at all"), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 964, 117 L.Ed.2d 130 (1992). Accordingly, we do not believe that Justice O'Connor's opinion overrules Ramos which, like the Delaware Valley II plurality, permits a contingency enhancement only when the particular case presents a real risk of not prevailing. See Dague, 935 F.2d at 1360 ("conclud[ing] that the issue of whether and when a contingency enhancement is warranted are open issues for the Supreme Court yet to decide" and reaffirming Second Circuit's pre-Delaware Valley II approach).
While we are no less "loath to establish a rule that would inevitably result in attorney's fee litigation in all contingency fee cases" than we have been in the past, Smith, 921 F.2d at 1123, our failure to articulate governing standards in light of the divergent views of the members of the Supreme Court in Delaware Valley II inevitably invites the very attorney's fee litigation against which the Supreme Court has cautioned. See Hensley v. 1360 Eckerhart, 461 *1360 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1941, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ("request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation"). Given the confusing state of the law, we are inclined to clarify the

applicable standards in this Circuit to determine contingency enhancements. First, we reaffirm Smith, Wulf and Ramos by recognizing that a contingency enhancement may be given, notwithstanding that four members of the Supreme Court have stated that such enhancements are never appropriate. Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 727, 107 S.Ct. at 3087 (plurality opinion). Indeed, five members of the Court have recognized contingency as an appropriate factor to consider in determining the reasonableness of a fee. Id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (O'Connor, J., concurring); id. at 735, 107 S.Ct. at 3091 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). While the D.C. Circuit has declined to follow the view of five members of the Court, holding that "contingency enhancements will not be available in this Circuit," King, 950 F.2d at 784, we cannot follow its reasoning because to do so would require us to overrule precedent in this Circuit both before and after Delaware Valley II which recognizes that contingency enhancements may be given. See Smith, 921 F.2d at 1123; Ramos, 713 F.2d at 550. This would be clearly beyond our authority. United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 710 n. 3 (10th Cir.1990) (three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent).
We reaffirm our position that an enhancement for a contingency must be viewed with caution, Ramos, 713 F.2d at 558, and indeed, we believe that it is appropriate only in "exceptional cases." Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 728, 730, 107 S.Ct. at 3088, 3089 (plurality opinion). We believe that an "exceptional case" is one in which prior to the litigation, the attorney for the prevailing party was confronted with a "real risk of not prevailing." Id. at 729-30, 107 S.Ct. at 3088-89 (plurality opinion). This inquiry is twofold. First, the district court should consider the law in effect at the time the suit was filed in light of the claims presented in the lawsuit. To the extent that the law was unsettled, a district court could properly conclude in the exercise of its discretion that the attorney faced a real risk of not prevailing. Second, the district court should consider the facts available to the attorney at the time the suit was filed. To the extent that the outcome of the suit was dependant on the resolution of a disputed material fact, the district court could properly conclude in the exercise of its discretion that the attorney faced a real risk of not prevailing. As to both the legal and factual inquiry, we reiterate that the burden of proving a real risk of not prevailing is on the party seeking the enhancement to the lodestar. Blum, 465 U.S. at 898, 104 S.Ct. at 1548.
Once a real risk of not prevailing has been demonstrated, the party seeking to enhance the lodestar must also come forward with evidence that, absent an enhancement, "the plaintiff would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market." Delaware Valley II, 483 U.S. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted); id. at 733, 107 S.Ct. at 3091 (O'Connor, J., concurring). This may be shown by evidence that the plaintiff encountered actual difficulty in securing counsel, see id. at 731 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 n. 12 (plurality opinion), as was shown in this case, or, as was also done in this case, by showing that lawyers in the relevant market, generally will not take cases on contingency absent some guarantee of an enhancement. See id. at 733-34, 107 S.Ct. at 3090-91 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
In the present case, despite Plaintiffs' showing that they faced actual difficulty finding counsel, and that lawyers in the relevant market generally will not take cases on contingency absent an enhancement, the district court determined that Plaintiffs' attorneys were not confronted with a real risk of not prevailing given the conditions at Hissom Memorial Center and the state of the law. Plaintiffs have not pointed to anything in the record which would lead us to conclude that this finding was clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
[1] Plaintiffs, who were the prevailing party, also sought attorneys' fees pursuant to § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Rehabilitation Comprehensive Services and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b). The language of this statute is identical to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Accordingly, the standards for awarding fees under § 1988 are applicable to fee awards under § 794a(b). Hall v. Bolger, 768 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.1985). See also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. at 1939 n. 7.
[2] Louis Bullock, of Bullock & Bullock, had been contacted earlier on behalf of HBI but had declined to undertake the case due to the substantial resources that would have to be committed. He agreed to serve as local counsel for PILCOP on the condition that it would pay all costs and expenses and that Bullock & Bullock would have minimal involvement and therefore a minimal time commitment. As the case developed, Louis Bullock undertook

a major role in the litigation involving a substantial time commitment. The district court's order fixing attorney fees indicates that Mr. Bullock served as "lead counsel" throughout the trial, which lasted more than thirty days.
[3] Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs also claimed violations of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 720, 794, Title XIX of The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396a, and Education of the Handicapped Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1415.
[4] The district court denied the enhancement for the attorneys' superior performance despite its characterization of the representation as "outstanding," "of highest quality and character," and "excell[ent]] in both preparation and presentation." The district court reasoned that "this excellence is fully reflected by the rate the court has deemed proper to set for counsels' services," as well as the more than six thousand hours expended on the case. Accord Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549; Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 557 (10th Cir.1983). Additionally, the district court denied the enhancement for undesirability of the case. See Ramos, 713 F.2d at 558 ("a bonus for the social stigma assumed by a lawyer participating in civil rights litigation should rarely be given"). Plaintiffs do not challenge the district court's denial of an enhancement on these grounds.
[5] The issue in Hensley was whether hours spent on unsuccessful claims should be calculated in the lodestar. The Court held that
the extent of a plaintiff's success is a crucial factor in determining the proper amount of an award of attorney's fees ... [and] [w]here the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee.
461 U.S. at 440, 103 S.Ct. at 1943. The Court recognized that "in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award (from the lodestar) may be justified." Id. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. Although Hensley did not address the issue at hand, we have relied on it in recognizing that an enhancement to the lodestar may be appropriate. Ramos, 713 F.2d at 557.
[6] In Ramos, we recognized two additional factors to determine the propriety of a contingency enhancement. First, the court must determine whether the attorney's fee was truly contingent on the outcome 0907i.e. "whether the lawyers really would have recovered fees only if they prevailed or whether the client would have paid some fee regardless of the outcome." 713 F.2d at 558. In the present case, it is undisputed that Bullock's fee was entirely dependent on the outcome. Second, "when the court has decided to award fees for hours spent on theories a plaintiff has pressed unsuccessfully, in a sense it is giving something of a contingency bonus and should remember that when contemplating a multiplier or additional bonus." Id. Here, the district court found that Plaintiffs prevailed on all major legal issues in the case.
[7] While Delaware Valley II addressed whether "reasonable" attorney fees as provided for by § 304(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d), should include an enhancement for the risk of losing and not being paid, 483 U.S. at 711, 107 S.Ct. at 3079 (plurality opinion), the Court recognized that § 304(d) and § 1988 should be interpreted in the same manner. Id., 483 U.S. at 713 n. 1, 107 S.Ct. at 3080 n. 1 (plurality opinion); id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (O'Connor, J., concurring); id. at 737, 107 S.Ct. at 3092 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). See also Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 560, 106 S.Ct. at 3095.
[8] The Blum Court expressly declined to consider "whether the risk of not being the prevailing party ... and therefore not being entitled to an award of attorney's fees from one's adversary, may ever justify an upward fee adjustment." 465 U.S. at 901 n. 17, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 n. 17.
[9] The Delaware Valley II plurality "conclude[d] that multipliers or other enhancement of a reasonable lodestar fee to compensate for assuming the risk of loss is impermissible under the usual fee shifting statutes." 483 U.S. at 727, 107 S.Ct. at 3088 (plurality opinion). Five other Justices disagreed with this conclusion recognizing that "Congress did not intend to foreclose consideration of contingency in setting a reasonable fee under fee-shifting provisions, such as ... 42 U.S.C. § 1988." Id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (O'Connor, J., concurring). See also id. at 738, 107 S.Ct. at 3093 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, the plurality held that "[e]ven if ... typical fee-

shifting statutes are construed to permit supplementing the lodestar in appropriate cases by paying counsel for assuming the risk of nonpayment, ... it was error to do so in this case." Id. at 728, 107 S.Ct. at 3088 (plurality opinion).
[10] The district court also seemed to rely in part on Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Delaware Valley II by indicating that it was "without evidence relating to the relevant market upon which it could adequately employ a `risk multiplier.'" Notwithstanding Plaintiffs' challenge to this finding, we decline to express any opinion on this issue as it is unnecessary to our holding.
[11] Although Justice O'Connor disagreed with the plurality on whether the risk should be evaluated based on the particular case or on contingency cases as a class, she did agree with the plurality that "[b]efore adjusting for risk assumption, there should be evidence in the record, and the trial court should so find, that without risk enhancement plaintiff would have faced substantial difficulties in finding counsel in the local or other relevant market." Id. at 731, 107 S.Ct. at 3089 (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted); id. at 733, 107 S.Ct. at 3090 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
[12] In King, the D.C. Circuit, after determining that Justice O'Connor's approach was not controlling, held that contingency enhancements would no longer be available in that Circuit under statutory fee-shifting statutes. 950 F.2d at 784. In doing so, the en banc court overruled McKenzie v. Kennickell, 875 F.2d 330 (D.C.Cir. 1989), which had adopted Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion as the "effective legal standard for contingency enhancements." Id. at 332 (citations omitted). See King, 950 F.2d at 785. We express no opinion on King's holding other than to note that we lack the authority of an en banc court to overrule circuit precedent. See infra at 1360.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

1987 WL 27104 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.
HOMEWARD BOUND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
HISSOM MEMORIAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.
No. 85–C–437–E. | July 24, 1987.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Raymond Yasser, Louis Bullock, Bullock & Bullock, Tulsa, Okl., Allen Mitchell, Sapulpa, Okl., Thomas K. Gilhool, Frank J. Laski, Judith A. Gran, Timothy M. Cook, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Ralph Anderson, Bernice Anderson, Sapulpa, Okl., LaMoine and Ruby Fuller, Tulsa, Okl., R.F. Dobson, Muskogee, Okl., Mary Lynn Sherwood, Sapulpa, Okl., Howard Exendine, Mounds, Okl., Roberta Warner, Oklahoma City, Okl., Scott W. Bradshaw, Bradshaw & Bradshaw, A.M. Fuller, Tulsa, Okl., William Henry and Patricia A. Ryan, Pryor, Okl., intervenors.
David A. Cotter, Broken Arrow, Okl., for James and Carol King.
Joseph A. McCormick, Steven Andrew, Kevin Ikenberry, McCormick, Andrew & Clark, Tulsa, Okl., for Gatesway Found. and Ok. Assoc of Private residential fac. for the Mentally Retarded.
Dick Lowry, Mark W. Curnutte, Logan, Lowry, Johnston, Switzer, West & McGeady, Vinita, Okl., for Home of Hope.
Jerry Snider, Richard K. Holmes, Hanson, Holmes, Field & Snider, Tulsa, Okl., for Phyllis Randall.
Gordon Harness, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Propps, Inc.
Chuck Watson, Drumright, Okl., for Schickrams.
A. Langley Coffey, Sand Springs, Okl., Carol J. Russo, Tulsa, Okl., for Sharpton.
Michael C. Turpen, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Nance, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for Nigh, Bartlett, Collins, Johnson, Sanders, Scales Wright & Folks.
Charles Lee Waters, General Counsel, Thomas H. Tucker, Roger Stuart, Richard Freeman, Assts. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Okl., for Hissom, Dept. of Human Serv., Barnes, Farha, Furr,

Gilbert, Greer, Hartley, Orr, Walters, Ward, Fulton, Cooper, West and Teska.
Judith A. Finn, Tulsa, Okl., Guardian Ad Litem.
Opinion
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ELLISON, District Judge.
*1 The Court, upon conclusion of all of the evidence in the case, and in consideration of the testimony of the witnesses called, documentary evidence submitted, the briefs and arguments of counsel, does enter these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Plaintiffs: The Court will first address its factual findings in regard to the Plaintiffs and then will address the balance of the certified class.
Most of the referrals to Hissom have been brought about by factors of family adjustment and lack of community services. Historically when parents have requested assistance from the Department of Human Services they discovered that services for the mentally retarded were only at Hissom.
A. Bridget Becker. Plaintiff Bridget Becker is a fourteen year old girl who is multiply handicapped. She is retarded, legally blind, deaf and suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy. Bridget now resides in building no. 15 at Hissom. Before she came to Hissom, Bridget lived at home where she enjoyed all family activities, attended public school and used recreational opportunities in the community. The time came when her parents were not able to care for her at home and sought a community living arrangement but were advised that the only alternative was Hissom, a segregated facility.
Bridget shares building no. 15 with thirty-one other retarded girls. Most of her time is spent in idleness sitting with other residents in a large day room. She does not receive appropriate habilitative services such as training in self care skills. She has little interaction with people who are not handicapped. The environment of building no. 15 is an institutionalized one.
1

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Bridget has behavior problems resulting in self abusive actions such as banging her head against the walls.
She has physical disabilities which limit movements of her legs and her right arm. She has not received adequate physical therapy, occupational therapy and adaptive equipment; the failure to provide these supported services has resulted in unnecessary restraints on her movement and liberty. She has not been provided appropriate speech or communication services although she has been diagnosed as deaf.
Bridget has experienced severe regression since her admission to Hissom. She is no longer expressive and rarely smiles. Her foot has become more malformed since she has been at Hissom.
B. John Douglas Berry. Plaintiff John Douglas Berry is sixteen years old. Doug lives in building no. 18 at Hissom. He has moderate to severe retardation, visual, skeletal and motor impairments, and is non-verbal.
He lived at home until he was thirteen at which time his behavior problems became too difficult for his parents to manage. The parents looked for appropriate programs in Oklahoma and found none. They agreed to placement at Hissom which they considered their only option. Doug was originally placed in building no. 13 which he shared with severely retarded lower functioning children because his level of retardation was improperly assessed. When the mistake was discovered he was moved to another building but was moved back to building no. 13 for administrative reasons. In this environment he was repeatedly injured suffering deep bites, contusions and bruises. Doug has become aggressive to other children; he has learned to fight but is still receiving injuries from the larger stronger boys.
*2 He has regressed in communication skills. When he entered Hissom he was able to communicate by signing. The staff assigned to Doug’s building are unable to read signs and as a result he has been discouraged from communicating. At the time of his admission to Hissom there was an individualized active treatment plan agreed to between the staff and Doug’s parents; this plan has not been followed in any consistent manner.
C. Michael Brasier: Plaintiff Michael Brasier is eighteen years old. Michael lives in building no. 12. Michael has little residual hearing and can see only peripherally.
Because his parents were unable to receive any home support services the Brasiers requested the Defendant to provide community living arrangement and services for Michael. The only option available was Hissom.
Michael has developed severe behavior problems at Hissom. These include fits of screaming, fighting and

insomnia. There has been no programming provided to correct these behavior problems.
Michael has suffered abuse and injury. These include bruises, bites on his arms, hands and back. He has been put under restraints on several occasions without his parents knowledge causing bruises on his arm.
Most of his time is spent in idleness. He had substantial sign language skills before being admitted to Hissom but these skills have now been lost. He is receiving no real active treatment.
D. Deminkyn Martin. Plaintiff Deminkyn Martin lives in building no. 13 at Hissom; he is fourteen years old, severely retarded, has a speech impairment, behavior problems and engages in self abuse. He was first placed in the home of Mary Ann Becker as a foster child.
When he was six years old he began displaying increased behavior problems. The State then placed Deminkyn in the segregated facility at Hissom where he has been for eight years.
He is congregated with fifteen other retarded boys in a noisy day room with little or no planned activities.
He has demonstrated his behavior problems by frequent tantrums and self abuse, which includes banging his head and fists. He has received injuries by crashing his head through a glass window. He has not received a structured habilitative program plan to assist his behavior problems.
E. Julie Paulson: Plaintiff Julie Paulson is a retarded child who resides at Hissom. Julie’s parents cared for her at home until she was seven at which time she was placed in a private residential school when the state refused to provide respite care. Her parents found that they could no longer afford the private residential school and the only option given them was the segregated one at Hissom.
She needs year-round therapy in an integrated environment; however she receives little active programming during the summer months.
Julie has experienced regression at Hissom both in her personal hygiene and in her speech. She has not been provided with the speech therapy she needs.
F. Susan Thompson: Plaintiff Susan Thompson is an eighteen year old who lived at Hissom for two years from February, 1984 to February, 1986. She has a chromosome disorder and neurological damage. She is non-verbal and unable to walk and is labeled severely and profoundly retarded. When she was five and one-half years old before entering Hissom she used sign language and a Blissymbol board to communicate. She was capable of undressing herself and partly dressing herself. She could eat with a
2

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

spoon, brush her teeth and was partly toilet trained.
*3 When Susan lived at home she joined her mother in all sorts of activities in the community. She was friendly, outgoing, well-mannered and happy. She had a wheelchair and loved wheelchair dancing. She engaged in many activities that any normal child would engage in.
Her mother, Barbara Thompson, is a church secretary in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and a single parent. Because of her own advancing age, ill health and concern about her capacity to care for Susan she admitted her to Hissom. Ms. Thompson visited her daughter regularly after she was admitted to Hissom and took her home every week-end and every holiday. A good portion of Susan’s time at Hissom was spent sitting idle in the day room. She was denied opportunity to practice the skills she had when she entered the institution and as a result Susan regressed. During the time she was at Hissom Susan lost the ability to communicate with signs and the symbol board. She lost social skills, became withdrawn and slumped in her wheelchair and began to engage in self-stimulatory activity such as scratching her back until it became infected. Because of lack of physical therapy her body became stiff and unresponsive and she developed circulatory problems from being idle in a wheelchair so often.
Susan’s mother placed her at Hissom only because no home and community based services were available and in July, 1985 when the Region II case management outpost opened she discussed with Defendants the services she would need to bring Susan home. Eventually Susan was assigned an in-home habilitation aide and Mrs. Thompson was able to bring her home in February, 1986.
The aides assigned by the State to Susan had little understanding of habilitation and little practical knowledge of how to care for a person with Susan’s physical handicaps. Mrs. Thompson has asked the Defendants to provide a group home for Susie without result.
II. Plaintiff Homeward Bound: Plaintiff Homeward Bound, Inc. is a non-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Its members include parents, relatives, guardians and friends of people residing at Hissom and of people in jeopardy of being segregated there by the State. The members of Homeward Bound have been attempting to obtain affective community based services for their children since 1977. By its actions Homeward Bound has sought to require Defendants to provide integrated services in the community for the retarded citizens of Oklahoma.

III. Plaintiff Class: The Plaintiff Class consists of “All persons who at the time of the filing of the complaint in this action were at Hissom and all persons who became clients of Hissom during the pendancy of this action; retarded persons residing at home who have been clients of Hissom within the past five (5) years and who may be returned to Hissom; and persons who have been transferred to skilled nursing facilities or intermediate care facilities, yet remain Defendant’s responsibility.” Approximately 450 members of the Plaintiff Class currently reside at Hissom.
IV. Other Individual Class Members: *4 A. Phillip Neighbors: Phillip Neighbors is a severely retarded nineteen year old male. He has lived at Hissom since he was twelve years old.
An employee used inordinate and excessive force in moving Phillip to the bathroom which resulted in a deep three inch cut in his scrotum.
Phillip Neighbors had developed skills before entering Hissom. He was pretty well poddy trained, could feed himself with a spoon, enjoyed people and swimming. He possessed some knowledge of sign language.
Phillip has been at Hissom seven years during which time he has regressed to where he has lost his toilet training. He is frightened of the bathroom and of taking a bath. He is afraid of going to bed at night. No group homes have been made available to Phillip nor have any options for foster care been made available.
B. Scott Maxey: Scott Maxey is a thirteen year old boy who lived at Hissom between January, 1980 and May, 1985. He has severe microcephaly and a multiple seizure disorder.
Scott lived in building no. 21–B while at Hissom, where his development regressed. He lost his progress toward toilet training and was placed in diapers. His mother testified that staff at Hissom refused to follow the medical orders of his neurosurgeon which endangered his life. During visitation she found him “tied to a wheelchair, slumped over, his feet ... turning blue.”
There has been little programming for Scott at Hissom. His IQ dropped from 50 to 14 from the time he entered Hissom until he left.
C. Donald Cole: Donald Cole is a twenty year old male who is profoundly retarded, blind, quadriplegic and who has cerebral palsy. At Hissom he lives on Unit 2 North, an area where the “multi-handicapped” are segregated. He
3

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

shares space with approximately forty others which is in a large rectangular shaped room with steel heavy metal cribs on either side and a “program area” in the middle. It is a bare, sterile environment.
The residents of 2 North lie on the mats or in their beds or are strapped into wheelchairs. Donald and others in the multi-handicapped units are given the least amount of active programming at Hissom. Donald has suffered severe physical regression because of lack of proper positioning. His orthopedic reports indicate that at the age of 11 Donald was ambulatory with the assistance of braces; by 1983 when he was 16 he had lost completely the ability to ambulate. By 1978 he had begun to develop scoliosis; because his spine is curved to one side his pelvis is not level. He received surgery which helped level his pelvis but because staff did not position him properly that deformity is bound to recur.
V. Defendant Department of Human Services Defendant Department of Human Services has responsibility for the care and treatment of retarded persons as well as the administration and operation of Hissom and other state facilities. It is responsible for the care, support and training of persons with retardation and for contracting with private agencies to provide residential and other services to retarded persons in the community.
*5 This Defendant has the statutory duty to insure that all residents at Hissom are given humane care and treatment; that they receive no severe physical or emotional punishment; and that the rules and discipline at Hissom are designed to promote their well being. The Department is further charged by statute with insuring that the testing, diagnosis, care and treatment of residents is in accordance with the high standards accepted in private and public practice. The Department is responsible for seeing that adequate records are kept for each retarded child at Hissom and that the child’s abilities and potential are assessed annually, and that children discharged from Hissom are placed in appropriate facilities.
The Defendant has the authority to enter into agreements with a county or a non-profit public or private agency for the operation of a Community Mental Retardation Complex where services for retarded persons may be provided.
The Department is responsible for enforcement of the provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act in Oklahoma. This Act requires independent review of the needs of persons placed in intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded to insure that inappropriate placements are not made and further to identify such persons who may be inappropriately placed in such

facilities. The Act also requires that an intermediate care facility be operated in conformity with a set of standards to be eligible for federal financial participation or reimbursement.
The Department does not exist only to operate institutions. It exists also to establish community based programs. Dr. Jean Cooper, the head of the Department’s Division of Developmental Disabilities, has stated:
“The most fundamental value guiding program development for services to the mentally retarded is that all mentally retarded citizens deserve safe, healthy, positive, caring, learning centered programs and services and that these programs and services should be available in the least restrictive, most normalized and appropriate environment to meet each individual’s identified needs.”
Robert Fulton is Director of the Department of Human Services and as such is responsible for insuring that Hissom and other facilities for the retarded are operated in compliance with the policies and procedures of the Department. He is responsible for evaluating the professional and administrative activities at Hissom, reviewing them, for preparing and submitting to the legislature budget requests to enable Hissom to carry out its functions. He is responsible for approving the admissions for retarded persons to institutions within the Department. He is responsible for designing appropriate facilities for retarded people and for transferring residents of an institution when that person’s welfare can more effectively be provided at another facility. The Director is also responsible for long-range planning concerning the care and treatment of retarded persons. He is also responsible for the provision of vocational rehabilitatie services to handicapped Oklahomans.
*6 Defendant Jean Cooper is the Assistant Director for Developmental Disability Services of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. As such she has responsibility for planning, program development and evaluation of mental retardation services within the Department of Human Services.
Defendant James West is the Assistant Director for Rehabilitative Services of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services and as such has responsibility for insuring that severely handicapped Oklahomans, which include the residents of Hissom, receive vocational rehabilitation services to prepare such individuals for gainful employment to the extent of their capabilities.
Defendant Julia Teska is the Superintendent of Hissom Memorial Center. She has responsibility for the operation and administration of all phases of Hissom Memorial Center. She has responsibility for the custody, care, control of all persons admitted to Hissom. The Superintendent is responsible for ensuring the humane
4

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

management of Hissom; for enforcing its governing rules and regulations; for insuring adequate staff training; and for reporting abuse of residents to the local authorities. She is also responsible for admission of individuals to Hissom with the approval of the Director of the Department of Human Services; for discharge of residents; and for recommendations concerning a resident’s transfer to another facility. She also has responsibility for notifying relatives of persons who have escaped from the institution.
VI. Intervenors’ Sons and Daughters at Hissom A. Jacqueline Kay Braden: Jacqueline (Jackie) Braden is an eleven year old profoundly retarded child who resides in the Special Care Unit at Hissom. Intervenors Bill and Betty Braden are her parents. The Bradens are from Woodlawn, Texas.
During her first year of life because of aspiration pneumonia Jackie had a gastrostomy tube inserted in her stomach. The evidence shows that Jackie can eat solid foods well and is able to take liquids by mouth. In spite of this staff at Hissom have continued the use of the gastrostomy tube.
Jackie is able to walk with assistance. She uses a walker for ambulation during physical therapy but she is not allowed to use the walker in her living unit and staff had failed to assist her walking.
The evidence reflects that on one occasion Jackie’s gastrostomy tube had not been secured to her clothing properly and that it had slipped and about one foot of it worked its way into Jackie’s abdomen.
B. Martha Ann Eibeck: Martha Ann Eibeck is the daughter of intervenors John and Loretta Eibeck of Tulsa. Martha is sixteen years old and profoundly retarded. She lives in Unit 1 North, one of the areas at Hissom set aside for “multi-handicapped” people. She is non-verbal and non-ambulatory. She has severe spasticity and scoliosis and has been denied physical therapy because of insufficient staff. As a result of lack of physical therapy her right hip has become dislocated. When she lived at home her parents fed her normally. After she entered Hissom, however, a nasogastric tube was inserted so that she could be fed more quickly for staff convenience. This tube frequently becomes dislodged which results in Martha having nasal trauma and vomiting.
*7 C. Kimberly Randall: Kimberly is the only child of intervenors Terry and Phyllis Randall. She is twenty years old, profoundly retarded, non-verbal and non-ambulatory.
The evidence shows that although Kimberly’s parents do live in Tulsa they seldom visit or inquire about her.

D. Charles Orton: Charles Orton is twenty-six years old, profoundly retarded and has severe cerebral palsy. He is the son of intervenors Carl and Mary Orton. Charles was admitted to Hissom when he was four years old and now lives in Building II North.
Charles used to eat orally with a nasogastric tube used only for occasional fluid intake. At this time Charles is fed through a gastrostomy tube.
A consulting gastroenterologist reported in 1983 that Charles appeared “malnourished” and that he showed evidence of dental cavities and poor oral hygiene.
E. Amy Rhoden: Amy is nineteen years old and is moderately retarded. Intervenors Jane and Harvis Rhoden are her adoptive parents. She was admitted to Hissom at the age of 12 “until the community special education program becomes better established when Amy could return to the community.”
F. David Maule: David is sixteen years old, profoundly retarded, non-ambulatory and was admitted to Hissom when he was six years old. David currently lives in Building II North. David’s parents are intervenors Donald and Mary Maule. The evidence shows that Mr. and Mrs. Maule seldom visit David and their involvement with him is minimal.
G. Alan Ray Best: Alan is twenty-five years old, profoundly retarded, non-ambulatory, non-verbal and has arrested hydrocephaly. He was admitted to Hissom when he was five years old and now lives in Unit I South.
In 1966 he was enrolled in a physical therapy program. His therapist was hopeful that ambulation would be obtained and he benefited from physical therapy. He learned to assume a side sitting position and made gains in motor development. However his program was discontinued in January, 1968 when it was felt he had reached his maximum motor development.
Alan began to deteriorate physically after physical therapy was discontinued. A 1973 report shows that his musculoskeletal deformities have increased with development of his scoliosis and that he did not sit as well in his wheelchair as previously. All the gains that Alan had made from physical therapy had been lost by 1975. Later reports chart regression in physical status and motor ability. During these later years Alan was not recommended to physical therapy “due to further regression and poor prognosis”.
Hissom staff by 1984 again acknowledged that he needed physical therapy, but no therapy was provided due to lack of physical therapy staff.
5

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Alan has also regressed in areas of social and cognitive skills. His records reflect that Alan experienced a decline in physical and mental functions since his admission to the institution. The evidence shows that Alan’s parents are aware of the deterioration that he has experienced. They oppose community placement for Alan and want him to remain at Hissom.
*8 H. James Ray Janzen: James Janzen is a forty-three year old man who has been labeled profoundly retarded. James lives in Building No. 18 at Hissom. His parents are the intervenors Mr. and Mrs. Rudie Janzen who live in Bartlesville, Oklahoma and visit James about once a month. James was admitted as a child to Defendants’ Enid institution and was transferred to Hissom in 1964. In 1968 he was transferred from Hissom to a nursing home and was readmitted to Hissom in 1971.
When he was a child James could talk and make short sentences. However by 1966 he no longer spoke. James reached the age of 21 and Defendants recommended to his parents that he be transferred to a nursing home because of the severity of his retardation. The parents were told that schooling was of little value to him and that he could not profit from speech therapy. James was placed at the Hayes Nursing Home in Nowata, Oklahoma. James lost all the skills he had except that of self-feeding. At the nursing home he was sedated with Thorazine, Librium and Valium. At Hayes he withdrew to the point of refusing to wear clothes or sit in a chair or bed preferring to assume a squatting position most of the time. He has never regained the ability to talk.
I. Charles Baldridge: Charles (Chuckie) Baldridge is 18 years old, moderately retarded, and lives in Building No. 20. Chuckie has appeared on the television show “Dallas” where he played a child with Down Syndrome. He has become something of a celebrity at Hissom.
J. Larry Anderson: Larry Anderson is 26 years old and has lived at Hissom since he was 24. He is the son of intervenor Diana Lambert. His IQ has dropped from 35 to 21 since he has been at Hissom. From the evidence it is clear that Mrs. Lambert feels that Larry has lived so long at Hissom that he would have a difficult time adjusting to any other location.
VII. The Segregation of Retarded People in Oklahoma A. History:
The unhappy history of the official treatment of retarded people by governmental entities has been one of segregation and discrimination.
The Oklahoma statute authorizing the institutionalization of retarded people for the “welfare of the community” is

part of that history. The evidence shows that historically prejudice was one of the reasons institutions for retarded were created. Sadly, the evidence reflects that our retarded citizens have been put in institutions to be put away from society.
Oklahoma, together with other states built retardation institutions with public funds in faraway places, hired staff, and then pressured people to put their retarded children there for the welfare of the community. Testimony in this case has shown that Hissom was built for a different time, for different needs, for different priorities, and for different perceptions.
B. Community Prejudice Against Retarded People Continues Today.
Testimony revealed that one of the reasons for the lack of understanding of the needs of retarded people and the lack of services for them in the community is that the state historically has actively encouraged communities to send their retarded citizens to state institutions. One problem in generating community support is the fact that the people in the communities have been brought up in a non-handicapped society because handicapped people were put away.
VIII. Segregation at Hissom Has Harmed Members of the Class *9 A. Unnecessary Use of Restraints. Hissom, because of its institutional nature, has established schedules for clients for all activities in a regimented fashion.
Residents are awakened at a specific hour, bathed at a specific time when the staff says they can bathe, eat according to the needs of the institution with no choice in foods. People are provided with few choices in the work that they do. Often they are put to work without pay, doing tasks that should be performed by staff. The residents are not allowed to attend many recreational opportunities in the community. Community activities simply do not exist for most of the people at Hissom. Although current practices are an improvement over past practices, Hissom staff continues to subject people to unnecessary restraint. Such practices as strapping people into wheelchairs just to restrain them are still utilized. Many residents who know how to walk or who could be taught to walk are tied to keep them in a wheelchair in order to make them easier to take care of.
Many residents who are ambulatory are strapped or tied into wheelchairs.
Residents are also given unnecessary chemical restraints.
B. Essential Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy
6

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Is Denied to Members of the Class at Hissom.
Expert testimony in this case has unquestionably established that for developmentally disabled persons abnormal movement patterns and abnormal posture patterns create risks to health including osteoporesis, decline in respiratory capacity, pneumonia, kidney stones, urinary tract infections, and other medical problems. Failure of adequate physical therapy results in immobility which also causes sensory deprivation. When a severely physically handicapped person is left to lie alone for long periods of time he becomes desensitized to stimulation and therefore cannot initiate interaction with another. As a result, his cognitive ability decreases.
Deformity and its resultant health risk can occur throughout life, although young children are more susceptible to deformity.
Unit 1 is the multi-handicapped unit. Residents of this unit are those who most need physical therapy. These people have fewest options for movement and who will progress most rapidly in their deformities if left unattended. At the time testimony was presented in this case all 162 residents of the multi-handicapped unit needed physical therapy, but only 61 were receiving it.
Many residents are denied the equipment they need to be able to walk. Using a walker is a supervised hands-on activity and with the current staff ratio it apparently is not feasible to take the time to ambulate the clients.
The Court is aware that the State has during the pendancy of this action brought into Hissom Theraupedic Concepts, Inc. and its expertise has been addressed to client habilitation at Hissom. However, an effective physical therapy program has not yet been initiated nor have clients received well focused habilitations plans implemented by properly trained staff. Unfortunately the latest report received by the Court conducted in June of 1987 by Theraupedic Concepts, Inc. reflects that many residents spend the majority of their time engaged in non-purposeful or counterproductive behavior.
*10 C. Members of the Class at Hissom are Subjected to Improper positioning.
Expert testimony in this case shows that the lack of proper positioning at Hissom constitutes an emergency. Residents of the multi-handicapped units and the Special Care Unit are not being positioned to prevent contractures from happening or from worsening. The evidence shows that once contractures are developed they become irreversible. Testimony has shown that many of the deformities in Hissom residents could have been totally prevented with proper care.
In addition to improper positioning in wheelchairs

residents of Hissom were also positioned improperly in bed.
All residents using wheelchairs should have shoes and a footrest. If they do not they develop toe and ankle deformities and other deformities throughout the body. Experts have testified that only a small minority of the residents surveyed were supplied with shoes and the use of footrests was inconsistent. There was abundant evidence of improper positioning for feeding which runs risks for aspiration and loss of life. The evidence demonstrates that Hissom staff needs basic training in anti-spasticity positioning and relaxation techniques, for proper wheelchair positioning, and for moving people into feeding or bathing positions. These positioning needs cannot be met without the Defendant providing adequate habilitative programming for the residents.
D. Members of the Class at Hissom Have Been Subjected to Inadequate Medical Care.
Hissom residents have been subjected to outbreaks of shigella, salmonella, influenza, hepatitus, lice, rashes and gonorrhea.
The medical recordkeeping has been grossly inadequate. It is difficult to determine from medical records why any particular medical intervention has been undertaken. The residents have gastrostomy and nasogastric tubes for no apparent reasons; these have been used on residents who could swallow without difficulty. The records are not problem oriented but source oriented, thus requiring a reading of the entire chart before one can make intelligent assumptions as to the management and care of a resident. Good documentation is an essential part of a quality system of health care delivery. Hissom often relies on outside medical consultants who have a particularly difficult time in trying to locate information in the records.
One of the Court’s medical experts testified that the medical records cannot be relied upon to accurately report the patient’s medical regiment. The medical records system at Hissom is totally unacceptable.
Partly as a result of the state of medical recordkeeping people have been fed through tubes unnecessarily for long periods of time. One resident placed on oral feedings only as a result of the Court expert ordering it had previously been fed through a nasogastric tube for two years for no documented reason. The expert testified that he:
“had some difficulty in ascertaining in each case the reasons that that tube was put down in the first place ... those tubes had been in there for a much too long a period of time ... It was not well documented in the charts at the time the tubes were placed. Some of them, in fact, it was difficult to find out how long they had had a nasogastric
7

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

tube.”
*11 The process for review of deaths at Hissom is deficient in that it permits those who participated in the treatment of the decedent to pass judgment upon their own actions without the involvement of an independent review.
From all of the evidence presented it is apparent that there is no standard health care program of treatment and prevention at Hissom.
E. Members of the Class at Hissom Have Not Been Provided Adequate Clothing.
Personal clothing is often lost and persons at the institution are frequently required to wear improperly fitting, unseasonable and dirty clothing. Residents are denied the right to choose from a decent selection of appropriate clean, fitting seasonable personal clothing and to present an appearance similar to other citizens.
F. Members of the Class at Hissom Have Been Subjected to Numerous Harmful and Unsanitary Environmental Conditions.
Mr. Sam Hoover, Plaintiff’s sanitation expert with 35 years of experience as a professional sanitarian, most of which was as a commissioned officer with the U.S. Public Health Service, testified as to environmental and sanitation conditions at Hissom.
Numerous polyurethane mattresses were discovered at Hissom. Poisonous hydrogen cyanide is produced when that substance catches fire. Mr. Hoover testified that polyurethane has been almost totally discredited from institutional use because of multiple deaths in nursing homes, penal institutions and others. Defendant has taken steps to replace these mattresses during the pendancy of this action.
As a result of Mr. Hoover’s inspection many materials that were to be kept sterile were found to be stored improperly subjecting them to the possibility of contamination. An example is tracheotomy tubes. Numerous deficiencies were discovered in the kitchen area which could give rise to contamination of food with resultant disease.
Procedures at the laundry created potential for crossover contamination.
Air handling systems for several of the living units were found to be compromised because screening vents were located with a tremendous amount of dust, lint and soil. These conditions were found in rooms that housed residents who were using respirators and who had tracheotomies. This condition created an imminent hazard

for these residents.
Many of the sanitation problems discovered by Mr. Hoover are more difficult to avoid in an institutional setting than in a family setting.
G. Members of the Class at Hissom are Frequently Injured.
Evidence presented during the course of the trial indicates that accidents and abuse are prevalent at Hissom. Former Hissom Ombudsman Donovan testified to serious injuries that were never reported.
According to him no one can spend any significant amount of time at Hissom without suffering risk of serious injury.
H. Members of the Class at Hissom Frequently Have Been Subjected to Abuse.
The evidence reflects a great deal of fighting, sometimes between staff and clients, at other times among clients. A great deal of the violence at the institution is caused by people confined there being forced to reside in close proximity to people not of their own choosing. Violence between residents is common at Hissom.
*12 I. Members of the Class at Hissom Have Been Deprived of Privacy.
The DHS’ 1983 plan of correction stated that hosing down had been eliminated and that bathing residents en masse had been replaced by bathing clients individually. It further represented they are not disrobed before being taken to bathe. However, Mrs. Becker testified that these practices still occur in the multi-handicapped units. There is additional testimony from Plaintiffs indicating that the girls are still lined up naked to use the showers which has resulted in embarassment to the children.
J. Members of the Class at Hissom Have Not Been Provided Adequate Programming.
1. Staff Are Poorly Trained and Inadequate in Number
The evidence shows that Hissom requires substantial numbers of additional professional staff to begin to provide the programming and therapies required by the residents. Although Hissom staff have been assigned to individual living buildings pursuant to a unit system developed in 1985, they frequently “float” to different units with residents they do not know.
Qualified professionals are forced to give priority to the needs of the institution over the needs of the people. Psychologists spend most of their time doing paper-work projects. One psychologist testified that she preferred to
8

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

work directly with the people rather than do paperwork, but resigned from Hissom because its paperwork requirement did not permit her to meet minimal standards for the provision of services according to the ethics of her profession.
2. The evidence shows that assessments often have failed to identify major needs of the client. Past assessment procedures have not tailor made a program for an individual client but have often simply addressed problems for multiple clients.
3. Persons who are segregated at Hissom are deprived of equipment and services necessary to enable them to communicate. Often the staff at Hissom ignore audiology, opthamology and speech evaluations. In order to progress, residents must improve their skills. They can improve their skills only if direct care staff assists them in communicating through signs or Blissymbol boards or other means of communication.
4. Active programming for the people segregated at Hissom is meager or nonexistent. All parties agree that the residents at Hissom would benefit from appropriate training and active treatment. However, for many of the residents, active daily programming is at most three to three and one-half hours and far less for many others. People with severe handicaps are left alone; there is just nothing for them to do. The evidence shows that residents engage in meaningless, repetitive, self-stimulatory activity to fill their time. The testimony clearly shows that the development of programs for most Hissom residents who need them is still in the data-gathering stage.
There was evidence that numerous residents were taken on bus rides to nowhere.
The Court’s expert, Stephen J. Adelson, M.D., described the program called “multi-skill development” as merely “standing around, or in modern-day adolescent terms, hanging out. Nothing useful seems to occur during that time as far as I could see ... The term multi-skill development is given to a very large proportion of the class time when absolutely nothing occurs.”
*13 It is clear that idleness leads inevitably to physical and mental deterioration. When handicapped people do not learn to do things, their bodies do not work well, and they are deprived not only physically but they are deprived in a sensory way and they suffer relationship deprivation, social deprivation and intellectual deprivation.
Plaintiff’s expert Lynn Rucker testified that “What you’re basically attending to here is input/output feeding and toileting. ... The focus is on the body as a functional object, that is, you feed it and you clean up after it. And otherwise nothing is happening.”

When needed programming is not received people at Hissom not only stop developing but may also regress, and evidence shows that that process is not automatically reversible.
The evidence shows that educational and training programs at Hissom do not honor the learning characteristics of the severely handicapped. Experts testifying at the trial established that educational programs for severely handicapped persons should teach functional skills; they should teach handicapped people to do things for themselves.
At Hissom there is little learned in the way of functional skills. There is very little adaptive equipment and programs are segmented and uncoordinated.
K. Members of the Class at Hissom have Not Received Meaningful Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
Evidence shows that many Hissom residents could engage in real jobs and that their exclusion from vocational rehabilitation services is a serious problem. The Defendant’s Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has failed to provide any meaningful services for Hissom residents even though it is clearly needed.
L. Many Class Members at Hissom Experience Regression.
All people, including retarded people, learn throughout their lives, but they may be more open to receive more information at a more rapid rate during their formative years. By limiting Hissom residents to only other retarded people they are limited to what can be learned from the people they are observing. In the segregated setting of Hissom the residents learn appropriate behavior at a diminished rate and learn a great deal of inappropriate behavior. Retarded people like all other people need consistent involvement with others who will relate to them on a human emotional level. In order to prevent regression people at Hissom need immediate attention which they are not now receiving.
M. Hissom Class Members Are Unnecessarily Segregated.
The evidence establishes that people at Hissom are rarely permitted to leave the grounds of the institution. There are three students who received part of their active programming at a community school. All other Hissom residents receive their programming in segregated settings.
People are harmed educationally if they are kept in an unnecessarily segregated environment. Segregation is harmful to retarded persons; it leads to reduced learning,
9

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

reduced freedom and reduced growth.
N. Class Members Have Not Been Provided with Independent Professional Reviews Of Programming.
*14 There has been a failure of independent professional review. Expert testimony shows that there are many people at Hissom who are inappropriate for that level of care and who are being harmed by their continued stay. Independent professional reviews would prevent such a situation.
O. Discrimination is Practiced at Hissom on the Basis of Severity of Handicap.
Evidence establishes that over 70% of the people at Hissom are severely or profoundly retarded. Numerous others have severe physical handicaps and severe behavior problems. As of August 1985 the Defendant acknowledged that it had failed to even consider providing community homes and programs for the severely handicapped people at Hissom. The Defendants, by failing to plan for the most severely handicapped, guarantee that these children will continue to be admitted to Hissom because there are no alternatives being created in the community. This prevents this class of people at Hissom from going into the community and will insure that children living in the community if they are unable to continue to live at home will go to Hissom because there are no alternatives. People at Hissom are assigned to living units according to the severity of their handicaps. In the past there has been a policy of denying therapy to the most severely handicapped, which has resulted in severe and permanent contractures and deformities.
IX. Institutional Care Makes the Conditions at Hissom Inevitable. Dr. Adelson, the Court’s expert, testified that “Hissom does not provide services for the retarded which enable the retarded to develop to their full potential. All institutions stifle that development.” He stated further “the general environment is unresponsive. It can’t individualize to the degree needed.”
The very nature of the institution, the size, the numbers of staff and residents, the volume of people in one room makes it difficult to supervise staff or clients. It is difficult to coordinate professional services provided at Hissom. Testimony shows that the consistency of staff which can exist in smaller settings is important in learning and therapy for retarded people. A person who has known the client for a long time and has been able to establish an emotional bond with him gets to know him and can elicit things that another person cannot. In an institution consistency of staff attention is extremely difficult to obtain. This consistency is essentially critical for the

severely handicapped whose communication is non-verbal.
X. Alternatives Provided by Defendants. A. Nursing Homes.
It was the Department’s policy in the past to move residents of state retardation institutions to general nursing homes when they reached adulthood. Some 1,100 of our retarded citizens currently live in nursing homes or general intermediate care facilities. They receive no developmental services.
Current regulations forbid the placement of retarded persons in nursing homes unless the home is able to meet that retarded person’s developmental needs. Any failure to comply with the rule could jeopardize federal reimbursement for the facility. Any failure could also affect the approved status of a state’s Title XIX plan. Testimony shows that if Title XIX payments were disallowed for retarded persons in Oklahoma’s ICFs who are not receiving developmental services, Oklahoma could lose $40 million dollars in federal funds over the next five years.
*15 B. Large ICFs/MRs.
Some 1,600 retarded Oklahomans live in 16 large Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICFs/MR). Most of these facilities were built as general nursing homes and in 1985–86 were certified as ICFs/MR by the Department of Human Services.
Because of the number served, these private ICFs/MR are small institutions with many of the problems of large institutions. The evidence shows that no one who could live in a foster home or group home should be kept in this type of facility. It is clear that the placement of Hissom residents in large ICFs/MRs would not be appropriate.
C. Large Group Homes for Adults who are Mildly or Moderately Retarded.
Oklahoma has 68 large group homes serving approximately 560 mildly and moderately retarded adults. These homes average nine to ten residents supervised by one staff member. At the time of trial, these homes were funded at a reimbursement rate of $21.93 per day; this rate covers the cost of supervision, food, shelter and transportation. All such group homes have been funded exclusively with state money. There are available funds under Title XIX waiver to cover costs of staffing and support services for the mentally retarded; however Oklahoma has not applied for such funds.
D. Waiver to use Title XIX Funds.
10

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Oklahoma in 1984 made application to the Federal Health Care Financing Administration for a waiver to use Title XIX funds for home and community based services. This application received approval in January, 1986. Oklahoma officials made a choice not to apply for funds to develop a program of community residential services although this option was available to them. Oklahoma did not option to apply for Title XIX funds under the waiver for the purpose of placing Hissom residents into the community.
The evidence reflects that the State has not effectively delivered the services funded under the waiver. In July 1985 the Region II outpost was established. Its functions include case management, evaluation, information and referral, recruits providers and recommends eligibility for waivered services to the Department of Human Services. Region II serves the Hissom area, that is Tulsa and the surrounding 18 counties. Region II has not demonstrated an ability to respond to the needs of families with retarded children.
XI. The Continued Segregation of Severely Handicapped People from the Community.
The evidence is clear that the Department of Human Services has never followed the recommendation of the Sullivan Report commissioned by it in 1983 which recommended a balanced deinstitutionalization strategy. Oklahoma’s institutional population has been exclusively a reduction in the number of mildly and moderately retarded people.
The Department has done very little to begin to create group homes for severely handicapped residents of Hissom. There have been no model programs developed to demonstrate technology of serving severely handicapped persons in the community. No contracts have been signed with providers to develop group homes for the severely handicapped. In addition, there has been no planning by the Department for in-service training programs in developmental disabilities for community professionals such as physicians, nurses and physical therapists.
*16 The Department has expended massive effort on its institutions during the last several years but its efforts to establish services in the community have been minimal. Evidence presented by Defendant’s expert David Braddock reflects that Oklahoma ranks last among the states by percentage of personal income spent on community services. In the year 1986, of its budget for mental retardation, 97% was spent on institutional care; very little of the remaining 3% was spent on community services for the severely and profoundly retarded and multi-handicapped.
XII. Placement in Homes, Foster Homes or Small Family

Type Homes is Necessary to Prevent and Remedy the Harm Experienced by People Who Have Been Segregated at Hissom.
Dr. Steven J. Adelson, M.D., independent expert appointed by the Court, in his report to the Court of November 3, 1986 stated: “There is no question in my mind that all of the individuals at Hissom could be cared for, medically as well as socially, more effectively in a small home or foster home. ... Living in the community, with professional services provided in the community instead of the institution, makes an incredible difference.”
The evidence is overwhelming that small is better. It is also clear that the first choice for children would be their own home where parents could receive the necessary support services heretofore denied to them. If that were not possible a foster home would be the next choice because in this environment the child could experience the love and affection of a normal environment. As an alternative a small family size group home in the community allows a development of potential which is denied by the very nature of institutional care. Former Hissom resident Dennis Gray now living in a community home described the advantage to him of moving into the community.
“It has done a whole lot for me ... I improved a lot ... my whole life has changed a lot. I’ve got a lot more freedom to myself, I can do what I want to ... My life has all changed since I have been out in the community, all the way round it changed. ... I can see people I want to see, my friends, like that. At Hissom you couldn’t do that ... I got a job, it pays good money. ... I got a lot of friends in the community I go talk to sometimes if I have a problem and I see them right away if I need to talk to them. ... I hope to get married someday. I hope to get me a better job making better money, a place of my own where I can be on my own, more independent living. I hope to get a lot more friends in the future out in the community, a lot more friends than I’ve got now, more friends.”
The evidence shows that the State’s attempt to create a specialized segregated center for the purpose of clustering quality services does not work.
The Pennhurst Longitudinal Study: Combined Report of Five Years of Research an Analysis, Executive Summary was received in evidence during the trial. This study clearly shows that residents of Pennsylvania’s Pennhurst Institution, when moved into the community were better off in every way measured.
*17 This study found that former Pennhurst residents who had been labeled “profoundly retarded” gained the most in adaptive behavior when moved into small community homes ... about 25% on a standardized scale.” The author commented:
11

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

“For many years I have heard a lot of reasons why people need to remain in a large congregate care facility ... But this is one, people being low functioning, that I just have to question now scientifically. It no longer seems valid to me. The people who have benefited the most are those who are labeled profound.”
The study shows that more services were rendered to those who moved to the community. There were more day programs than they had received at Pennhurst. In the community they received ten hours a day of active developmentally oriented programs compared to 5.8 hours in the institution. However, the cost of the community programs was less than the cost of the institutional programs.
The totality of expert opinion received in evidence confirms that retarded persons gain skills when they leave the institution for the community and those labeled profoundly retarded are the ones who gain the most.
XIII. Very Few, If Any, People at Hissom Could Not be Served in the Community.
A. Experience in other states.
Expert testimony reflects that in the long run there is no need for institutions and better alternatives can be provided in the community. Facilities to serve as a safety net for emergency placement either exist already in the community or can easily be created for those occasions when they might be needed. Expert testimony shows that other states use specialized crisis management teams to deal with problems which the retarded may have in community residences and that this procedure is clearly preferable to placing the person back in the institution. The institution is not needed as a location for placements that have “failed”.
The state of New York provides community services for individuals having as many multiple handicaps as the individuals at Hissom.
Arkansas serves people who are profoundly retarded and without verbal skills in family-like settings in the community. These community homes are integrated into neighborhoods and residents go to educational and treatment programs during the week and spend their weekend time as normal people do.
The state of Michigan has created a wide range of options for retarded people.
California has established thousands of community homes for all levels of handicapped people, although they have retained some institutions.

Nebraska’s Region V has a total population approximately the same as Tulsa and serves 608 retarded people in a wide variety of community services which include respite care, foster homes, group homes and vocational services. In this Region retarded persons with a variety of handicaps live in small family-size group homes and foster homes. Among these people are those with complex medical needs such as gastrostomy feeding, shallow suctioning, severe seizure disorders and tracheotomies.
*18 B. The Defendants recognize the need for community placement.
The Bellmon Report, published in 1983 was written by former Senator (now Governor) Henry Bellmon and Robert Fulton. In it the Department committed itself to the goal of “helping all of the people it serves to live as normally as possible.”
For all those helped by DHS, ... the DHS goal should be to do all it can to help make community and family living possible. Only when the family and the community settings are unable to provide proper care or support should institutionalization be considered. This policy is now mandated by law in the area of juvenile services. It is both the humane and common sense policy to apply in all parts of DHS operations.
The DHS service system presently overemphasizes the institutional side. It is underdeveloped at the community level. A substantial redeployment of resources over the next few years is essential.
Unfortunately, the evidence reflects that this policy has not been carried out by the Defendants, and there is no likelihood of it being carried out without the Court’s intervention.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Court, upon consideration of its Findings of Fact has determined that the Defendants have violated the rights of Plaintiffs in the class as secured by federal statutes and certain provisions of the United States Constitution.
I. Violations of Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396, 1396a and Regulations Promulgated Thereunder, 42 C.F.R. § 435.1009; 42 C.F.R. Subparts E, G.
The evidence before the Court demonstrates that the following violations of Title XIX and the regulations promulgated thereunder have occurred:

12

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

A. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 435.1009, § 442.463(d) in that they have failed to provide adequate amounts of active treatment, training, and habilitative services, year-round, and instead have subjected Plaintiffs and the Class to ubiquitous idleness.
B. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.454 in that the Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs and the class “professional and special programs and services ... based upon their needs.”
C. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 435.1009(b) in that the Defendants have failed to provide adequate active treatment, training, and habilitative services that provide Plaintiff and the class functional skills, “to help the individual function at the greatest physical, intellectual, social, or vocational level he can presently or potentially achieve.”
D. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.472 in that the Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs and the class with systematic training to develop appropriate eating skills and have failed to train direct-care staff in proper feeding techniques and failed to insure they eat in an upright position.
E. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.463(a) in that the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the class of training and habilitative services on the basis of their degree of retardation.
F. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.463(a) in that the Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs and the class of training and habilitative services on the basis of their ages and their accompanying physical disabilities or handicaps.
*19 G. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.486–.488 in that the Defendants have failed to provide adequate physical therapy and occupational therapy to Plaintiffs and the class.
H. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.496–.498 in that the Defendants have failed to provide adequate speech pathology and audiology services to Plaintiffs and the class.
I. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.404(2), 442.450(a)(2) in that the Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs and the class individual privacy including toilets, bathtubs, and showers.
J. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.433(c) in that the Defendants have failed to insure that living unit staff from all shifts participate in the planning, initiation, coordination, implementation, follow through, monitoring, and evaluation of Plaintiffs and the class.
K. Violation of 42 C.F.R. §§ 442.487 and 442.489 in that

the Defendants have failed to perform adequate individual interdisciplinary assessments of Plaintiffs and the class.
L. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.404(f) in that the Defendants have allowed Plaintiffs and the class to be subject to physical abuse.
M. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 442.404(j) in that the Defendants have failed to permit participation by Plaintiffs and the class in community activities.
N. Violation of 42 C.F.R. § 435.1009(d) in that the Defendants have failed to develop discharge plans for non-institutional settings for Plaintiffs and the class who do not need institutional settings.
II. Violations of Constitutional Rights
A. Equal Protection Clause Violations:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus, all persons similarly situated must be treated alike, and any legislation or practice of the State which classifies some persons differently than others must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985); Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 901 S.Ct. 1074, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981).
Segregation is a component of discrimination prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). Legislation which segregates mentally retarded persons from the community runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if the segregation is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, supra.
Here, the evidence before the Court indicates that Defendants have violated the rights of the Plaintiffs and the class secured by the Equal Protection Clause by establishing, encouraging, subsidizing, and sanctioning programs and practices that have excluded, separated and segregated retarded persons from the rest of society without any rational basis.
B. Due Process Clause Violations:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual against deprivation of life, liberty, and property by state action. A person who is committed to the custody of the State has liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause in receiving adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment. Youngberg v.
13

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Romeo, 457 U.S. 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982).
*20 The person also has a liberty interest in safe living conditions and freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint. Youngberg v. Romeo, supra. Retarded persons, as well as normal citizens, are protected by the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romeo, supra; Society for Good Will to Retarded Children v. Cuomo, 737 F.2d 1239 (2nd Cir.1984). Freedom from bodily restraint includes the right to be free from confinement in an institution where such confinement is shown on a factual basis to be unnecessary. Youngberg v. Romeo, supra.
Furthermore, the liberty interest in personal safety and freedom from restraint includes a right to training reasonably necessary to insure the person’s safety and to facilitate his ability to function free from bodily restraints. Youngberg v. Romeo, supra. The training required by the Due Process Clause includes training which enables a person to maintain minimum self-care skills such as feeding, bathing, dressing, self control, and toilet training. Association for Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Olson, 561 F.Supp. 473 (D.N.D.1982), aff’d 713 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir.1983).
Under the evidence presented to the Court the Defendants have denied the rights of Plaintiffs and the class to the liberty interests under the Due Process Clause.
1. Plaintiffs and members of the class have sustained harm and injury in the institutional setting which include abuse, injuries from accidents and neglect, improper positioning, regression, and other harms arising from segregation and confinement.
2. Plaintiffs and members of the class have been denied adequate food, clothing, medical care and shelter. The types and service of food have been inadequate. More importantly class members have been unnecessarily fed through feeding tubes and have been placed in improper feeding positions.
3. The facilities at Hissom are the most isolated and restricted setting in which a person can live. Residents must conform to the schedule of the institution. They are without privacy, sleeping in large wards and spending their days together in day rooms and eating in large groups. At Hissom members of the class in wheelchairs are tied in their chairs for long periods of time for the convenience of the staff.
4. Substantial numbers of Hissom residents have suffered loss or reduction in skills and loss of physical movement due to neglect.
III. The Right to Effective and Integrated Services Under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Regulations promulgated pursuant to this statute are located at 45 C.F.R. § 84.1–84.54.*
Section 504 recognizes the parallels between discrimination suffered by our handicapped citizens and other minority groups. This discrimination is manifested through their segregation from the rest of society. Legislative history concerning § 504 demonstrates that Congress sought to combat the problem of isolation from the community entailed by institutionalization. Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 612 F.2d 84 (3rd Cir.1979) at 108 and note 30; Garrity v. Gallen, 522 F.Supp. 171 (D.N.H.1981). Section 504 prohibits unnecessarily segregated services for retarded persons. Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Olsen, supra at 493.
*21 The evidence before the Court indicates as follows:
A. Plaintiffs and the class have not been provided by the Defendants with federally assisted services that are effective and meaningful and that are delivered in less separate, more integrated settings.
B. Plaintiffs and the class have been denied by the Defendants of the benefits of federally assisted training, habilitation, and other programs on the basis of the severity of their retardation or other handicaps.
C. Federally assisted retardation services for severely retarded people and for retarded people with physical or behavior disabilities have been provided by the Defendants only in segregated settings.
D. Severely handicapped residents of Hissom have not received vocational rehabilitation services on a priority basis in order to prepare them for and assist them in gaining gainful employment to the extent of their capabilities.
This underdevelopment of a community services system by the Defendants constitutes a continuation of the original and continuing discrimination practiced by the State against retarded people; the affirmative development of community services is necessary to remedy this effect. 45 C.F.R. § 84.6(a) provides:
§ 84.6 Remedial action, voluntary action, and self-evaluation.
14

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

(a) Remedial action. (1) If the Director finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 or this part, the recipient shall take such remedial action as the Director deems necessary to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
(2) Where a recipient is found to have discriminated against persons on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 or this part and where another recipient exercises control over the recipient that has discriminated, the Director, where appropriate, may require either or both recipients to take remedial action.
(3) The Director may, where necessary to overcome the effects of discrimination in violation of section 504 or this part, require a recipient to take remedial action (i) with respect to handicapped persons who are no longer participants in the recipient’s program but who were participants in the program when such discrimination occurred or (ii) with respect to handicapped persons who would have been participants in the program had the discrimination not occurred.
Thus, Section 504, as amplified by the regulation, requires both the change of policies or practices that do not meet the section’s requirement, and also requires the taking of “appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the affects of any discrimination that resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.” 45 C.F.R. § 84.6. This regulation has the force of law so long as it is “reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation”. Mourning v. Family Publication Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36 L.Ed. 318 (1973).

Of course, deinstitutionalization is the favored approach to habilitation. The federal statutory material makes that clear and we acknowledge that constitutional law developments incline in that direction as well. Thus, on remand, the court or the Master should engage a presumption in favor of placing individuals in CLAs. But the special needs and desires of individual patients must not be neglected in the process.
Pennhurst, supra, at 115.
This trial Court, sitting in Oklahoma in 1987, upon consideration of the overwhelming evidence that the institution cannot be the least restrictive environment for any retarded person in the class, must conclude that constitutional and federal statutory requirements now dictate removal of the institution as a choice of living environment for such individuals.
Upon consideration of all of the evidence and upon application of the principles of law discussed herein in order to remedy the intentional and unconstitutional discrimination inflicted upon retarded people by the official actions of the State of Oklahoma, this Court will supplement these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with its Plan and Order of Deinstitutionalization.
APPENDIX
COURT PLAN AND ORDER OF DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

SUMMARY
The Court is aware of the concern of the Third Circuit in Pennhurst, supra for the evaluation of discrete needs of individual residents when it remanded the case to the trial court for individual determination as to the appropriateness of a community placement for each resident.
*22 This Court’s plan, however, requires individual assessment and certification of the appropriateness and quality of the new environment before a transfer can be made.
The Third Circuit held in Pennhurst, supra, that the constitution does not preclude resort to institutionalization of patients for whom life in an institution has been found to be the least restrictive environment in which they can survive. However, in 1979 that court recognized:

INTRODUCTION, VALUES, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Court has entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which reflect the factual and legal basis of its intervention into the state system for delivery of care to the mentally retarded, (hereinafter referred to as “State”).
The Court recognizes and appreciates the responsibility of the State to administer its own policies and programs. It is the intent of the Court that the State exercise its natural leadership role in the implementation of this Order. Should the State not actively and in a timely manner fulfill the terms of this Order, the Court will be prepared to immediately intervene on behalf of the members of the class to fulfill such terms of the Order.
This Plan of Community Integration establishes how the members of the class will be moved into the life of the
15

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

community. The conflicts before the Court deal with complex systems, detailed public policy and conflicting administrative remedies. This case brings into full public and judicial view the conflict which occurs when bureaucratic remedies to human problems violate societies’ legal, moral and ethical values.
As Americans and citizens of Oklahoma, we believe in rugged individualism, the sanctity of the family and in taking care of our own. We grow from the experience of living together in the community. We admire those who work and we work hard so that our children can have the best life and education possible. We have sacrificed to maintain our freedom and a life which is nonrestrictive. These values are our heritage which we preserve so that it can be passed down to our children—all of our children.
*23 The qualify of life made available in the United States as a result of this value base is the best in the world for those who are allowed to share in it. The “American Dream” rests at the foundation of the values we defend.
From the evidence presented it is apparent that these values have been denied to that portion of the citizens of Oklahoma who carry the label of “mental retardation”. Therefore, this Order shall include “Guiding Principles” which are intended to direct the remedy developed by the parties as they create community alternatives for persons with mental retardation in Oklahoma. These guiding principles are as follows:
* All persons are capable of growth and development.
* All persons deserve to be treated with dignity.
* All persons have value.
* All persons must be involved in and carry the primary responsibility for the decisions which affect their lives.
* All persons should live and work in the most natural settings.
* All children should live with families.
* All children have the right to a free and appropriate education.
* All persons should live in and be a part of the community.
* All citizens have the right to fully exercise their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
CLASS FOCUS OF THIS ORDER

For the purposes of this initial Order, the focus shall be on all persons who at the time of the filing of the complaint were at The Hissom Memorial Center (hereinafter referred to as “Hissom”) and all persons who become clients of Hissom during the pendency of this action.
The Court wishes to make it known to all persons with mental retardation, their families, and the parties that the entire class as certified in the Court’s Order of August 1, 1986 are of great and equal concern to the Court.
The record shows that a sense of great urgency exists with respect to the class members residing at Hissom. Therefore, this Order primarily addresses the needs of those individuals. The Court will issue other Orders which will directly affect the remaining class members.
This Order should not be construed to prevent the State from implementing the same supports and services for all of the persons in the class. All Oklahoma citizens with mental retardation deserve such consideration. It is the Court’s hope that this Order will act as a positive stimulus as the State strengthens its leadership role in the development and design of supports and services to persons with mental retardation throughout Oklahoma.
FAMILY FOCUS DEFINED
For the purposes of this Order, family for children shall mean the natural/biological family, an adoptive family or a surrogate family with specific responsibilities to love and nurture the child as if he/she were their own.
For the adult person with mental retardation, family shall mean that (those) significant other(s) with whom an adult chooses to live.
GENERAL TERMS AND TIMETABLES
The time period for the accomplishment of the terms of this Order shall be four years. The first year of this four year period shall begin the date Judgment is entered in this case.
*24 During the next four years, persons with mental retardation who are the focus of this Order shall be placed into an appropriate community alternative at the following rates:
Year I 75 persons shall be placed into the community
Year II 125 persons shall be placed into the community
16

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Year III 125 persons shall be placed into the community
Year IV 125 or the remaining persons shall be placed into the community
Individual class members or their families who wish to volunteer to move to the community shall be placed first.
During each year of this Order, individuals with all levels of needs shall be placed into appropriate supports and services in the community. This includes individuals who are multiply handicapped, have medical needs or who have positive behavioral skill acquisition needs (behavioral problems).
Individuals will be placed only if the appropriate services and supports are available as outlined in their Individual Habilitation Plan (hereinafter referred to as “IHP”). The Court’s Representative will review and determine appropriateness and adequacy of each individual’s IHP as developed and designed by the Interdisciplinary Team (hereinafter “IDT”).
From the date of this Order, no further admissions shall take place at Hissom.
From the date of this Order no further capital construction or renovation shall take place at Hissom without approval from the Court in advance.
Existing State regulation which would serve as a barrier to this Order will be brought to the attention of the Court for remedy.
Any plan called for in this Order shall, at a minimum, include provision for staffing, training, contracting for services, administration and support adequate to meet the terms of the Order.
Any plan called for in this Order shall include specific attention to a system of internal and external safeguards which will be designed to successfully implement that plan. These shall include consumer, family and community participation at each level.
Any plan called for in this Order shall include provision for emergency procedures and protocols to be utilized on behalf of the class members served in the plan.
The Court is aware of approximately one hundred individuals who were living at Hissom at the time this action was filed but who have left the institution during the pendency of this action. It is the order of the Court that the State of Oklahoma:
1. Develop a plan to serve all one hundred of these individuals during this four year time period.

2. This plan shall be submitted to the Court within thirty days of the entry of Judgment in this case.
3. This plan shall specify the exact numbers to be served during each of the four years. Some individuals must be served each year beginning with the first year until all of these persons have been served.
4. All relevant assessments/evaluations shall be completed on all one hundred individuals the first year.
5. All one hundred individuals shall have case managers at the Ordered ratio of 1:10 the first year of this Order.
*25 6. All Interdisciplinary Teams shall meet and develop Individual Habilitation Plans for these approximately one hundred individuals during the first year of this Order.
7. If any of these individuals are at home, in-home and family supports shall begin within ninety days of the entry of Judgment in this case.
The Court is also concerned with the identification, location, and needs assessment of the balance of the class members. Such balance of class members has been defined, in this Court’s Order of August 4, 1986, as persons who have been transferred to skilled nursing facilities or intermediate care facilities, yet remain Defendants’ responsibility.
Accordingly, the State shall immediately proceed to identify and locate these class members and shall develop a plan to serve these individuals. Such plan will include provisions for assessment and placement in conformity with the principles contained in this Order and shall propose an adequate time table to insure expeditious placement. Such plan shall be filed with the Court no later than March 1, 1988 and shall include all information gathered regarding the identity and location of all such class members.
COURT MONITORING
The amount of monitoring necessary to assure compliance with the Court’s Order will be decided by the behaviors of the parties involved. The Court will initially take a de minimis approach to such monitoring. A Court Representative will be appointed to act as “eyes and ears” in assisting the Court to monitor the progress being made in implementing the Court’s Order. The Court Representative will secure and assist the Court in reviewing reports from the State on such topics as:
1. The first-year operational plan with appendices relating
17

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

to (a) finding, assessing, and providing services to the 100 Hissom class members who have been discharged since the complaint was filed and (b) development of an adequate administrative infrastructure, staffing, and training to implement the Court’s Order.
2. Monthly reports on hiring and assignment of Case Managers at a 1:10 ratio to the 550 designated Hissom class members.
3. Monthly reports on the conduct of the IDT assessments.
4. Monthly reports on finding all other Hissom class members located at home, in ICFs/MR, or in ICFs and IDT assessment of their needs.
5. Reports on the number of community placements by type of placement, within 10 days of each such placement.
6. Reports on all allegations of abuse or deaths that may occur among Hissom class members, with such reports to be made within 24 hours of such alleged incident.
7. Reports to be provided to the Court’s Representative by the State upon reasonable request of such Representative, regarding such areas in which additional information would prove helpful to the Representative.
The Court Representative would also assist in educating the parties to the complaint and general public about the components of the Court’s Order, the policy behind such Order, and such other details as the Court may deem relevant.
*26 If events dictate that the Court must increase its monitorization, the Court’s Representative will assume greater monitoring responsibilities over the details of the State’s activities on behalf of Hissom class members. If necessary additional staff will be hired to assist the Court-appointed Monitor. More detailed reporting will be required, specific IDT assessments will be reviewed against the placements that are made, and certification by the Court that each such placement is in the best interest of the individual will be required. At this point, the Court would increasingly draw on outside expertise in judging the appropriateness of the State’s activities on behalf of individual class members.
In the event that this intermediate level of monitoring proves insufficient to secure compliance with the Court’s Order, the Court would appoint a Master–Receiver to manage those Court initiatives necessary to bring about such compliance. At this juncture, the Court would move from the role of advising the parties and resolving differences among them to one of taking the initiative for the planning and direction of the State’s programs as they

affect Hissom class members. In essence, everything would be accomplished under the direct authority of the Court, including design of the operational details of the deinstitutionalization plan.
In securing, as the case may be, a Court Representative, Monitor, or Master–Receiver, the Court will request from all parties the names of persons with successful experience in organizing and delivering community based services to persons with mental retardation. The Court would then make its selection of the best candidate.
PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION
Mental retardation can be prevented in many instances. Technologies and information exist which can, if generally used, prevent its occurrence. Intervention strategies are available to minimize its impact in early childhood.
Because of the Court’s concern for those persons who without prevention strategies might someday be class members, the Court orders the State to develop and present to the Court, within one year of the entry of Judgment in this case, a plan for prevention and early intervention. It is the Court’s hope that the State will enlist in this planning effort all persons with pertinent expertise and interest including members of the Oklahoma medical community. Such plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following strategies:
* genetic screening and counseling;
* education designed to prevent teenage pregnancy;
* education regarding the effects of the use of alcohol during pregnancy;
* measures designed to prevent communicable diseases which can result in mental retardation;
* mechanisms to insure that pregnant women who are at high risk of having a child with mental retardation will receive adequate medical support during pregnancy;
* screening and intervention immediately after birth for metabolic disorders;
* early intervention designed to minimize the impact of the child’s mental retardation;
*27 * parent to parent support for parents of newborns with mental retardation; and
* in-home educational services designed to assist with the
18

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

child’s development and train the family to assist in the developmental processes of the child.
IN HOME AND FAMILY SUPPORTS
Historically the public policy of Oklahoma has been that persons with mental retardation will only receive support in living environments if the individual leaves home and moves to a state operated institution. The State has provided little or no resource to assist a person to stay at home, but has consistently provided immense financial resource to house people away from their own homes.
The result has been that families have become frustrated with their inability to respond to the family member’s needs. Institutionalization became the only option. Families have experienced severe pain at having to separate their child from home and family. For adults with mental retardation, this has meant very little or no ability to control their own environment, life or pattern of living.
This is further complicated by the Court’s finding that institutions, and in this instance Hissom, are the least likely settings in which to achieve individual growth and development. The evidence before this Court is clear that the home, with appropriate supports, is the most likely setting in which to achieve individual growth and development.

and barrier free.
3. Respite, including emergency, occasional and regular respite, as well as in home workers shall be available, as needed, to maintain a balanced, nurturing and supportive home environment.
4. Specialized services shall be available, as needed.
5. Adaptive and augmentative equipment, including medical equipment, shall be available as needed.
6. Parent/family training will be provided on any issue pertinent to positively maintaining the child at home or the adult in his/her own home.
7. Intrusion into normal home life shall be minimized and no more support or service shall be provided than is required.
*28 8. Normal recreation and leisure opportunities shall be available for the individual with mental retardation and his/her family.
9. Transportation shall be adequate to allow involvement in community life and activities.
10. Case management will be provided to insure access to and coordination of supports and services, including participation in education services.

Therefore, the Court concludes that:
1. A gatekeeping mechanism must be implemented to insure that persons will not be removed from their natural home except in extreme circumstances.
2. All necessary supports and services must be provided to the home so that it can be the living environment most likely to provide for individual growth and development.
3. These provisions must apply in the Hissom service area to all children with mental retardation from the date of birth or diagnosis.
To effect these ends, within six months of the date of entry of Judgment in this case, the State shall develop and submit for the Court’s approval a plan implementing the above referenced conclusions. Such plan shall include but not be limited to the following additional provisions:
1. In home and family support services shall not cost the family any more than would be the cost of raising a child without mental retardation.
2. Necessary and reasonable architectural modification shall be allowed to insure that the home is adequately safe

SYSTEMS SAFEGUARDS
It is the desire of the Court that every community placement be a successful one. To ensure such success, the community system must have appropriate safeguards built into it.
The Court directs the State of Oklahoma to present a plan for the development and implementation of an on-going system of safeguards which will assure quality services. This plan shall be submitted for Court approval ninety days after the date of entry of Judgment in this case and shall include precise details of a system of safeguards for persons residing in Hissom during the pendency of this action.
This Plan shall include the establishment of goals in areas pertaining to:
1. Regulation. Particular attention shall be paid to licensure, policies and procedures of the programs, supports and services which currently exist or those which will be developed. If there are conflicts in regulation or if there are regulations which would hamper the swift and
19

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

effective implementation of this Order, such regulations should be identified and modified.
2. Accreditation. The State has indicated its desire to become accredited by the Accreditation Council on Services for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Court commends the State for its leadership in this area and would request quarterly reports on its progress in becoming so accredited.
3. Systematic Communication. Advisory committees, client advisory boards, human and legal rights committees, behavior intervention teams, management teams, independent auditors and others have a very important role to plan in any quality safeguard system, and communication should be openly maintained among all such groups.
4. Procedural Protections. Independent case management, internal investigation procedures, self advocacy training, interdisciplinary team planning, trouble-shooting which identifies problems before they become harmful, incident/death reviews/reports, policy and procedural manuals for all program functions are only a few of the procedural protections which make an open efficient system work. Such protective mechanisms should be abundantly detailed in the State’s plan.
5. Quality Assurance Mechanisms. Case file reviews, service evaluations by clients/parents/guardians, public education, employee evaluation, management information systems, client fund audits, and health and safety reviews are necessary parts of a comprehensive, annual audit which should be conducted of all service providers.
6. First Line Problem Solving. All staff and the management structure should allow for immediate problem resolution. Staff must be made to understand that they carry certain authority along with a great deal of responsibility.
*29 Safeguards, as a mere means to an end, are effective only when the governing authority, advisory groups, staff and clients are committed to an open, responsive system. If that commitment should lapse, no methodology this Court could devise will achieve a safe service system.
1. Internal Safeguard Mechanisms: These must provide for the systematic assurance of human and legal rights, along with programmatic and systems protections for all persons who have mental retardation.
a. The State shall require the establishment of internal mechanisms including policies, procedures, and committees as required by the regulations set forth in the Accreditation Council on Services for People with Developmental Disabilities and all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

b. All of these policies and procedures must be written, compiled and available to all interested persons in administrative policy/procedures manuals.
c. Mechanisms must be established which provide for the routine monitoring of these policies and procedures and which provide for periodic review and revision. These monitoring and reviewing mechanisms should include the participation of consumers, parents/guardians and community representatives.
2. Education and Training: The State should provide for a systematic education and training process which will educate consumers, parents, staff, advisory committees, and governing board members on the rights of persons with mental retardation as well as applicable local, state and federal regulations, including the terms and protections of this Court’s Order.
a. The State shall safeguard the rights of individuals, families and staff by providing a written summary of rights and instruction in how to exercise them in a simple and understandable form.
b. The State shall insure that policy manuals are written and available through every service provider, and that the terms of those manuals are in compliance with this Court’s Order.
c. The State shall insure that each person with mental retardation receive citizenship training which shall include training on voting rights and responsibilities, consumer rights and responsibilities, organizational membership and participation, and awareness and utilization of advocacy services.
3. External Safeguard Mechanisms: These must provide for the assurance of exercising human and legal rights for all persons with mental retardation by supporting external mechanisms which enable individuals to access assistance in securing their rights.
a. The State shall support the development of “self advocacy” organizations for persons with mental retardation who are class members.
b. The State shall support the membership of parents, families and interested citizens in “group advocacy” organizations such as the local Association for Retarded Citizens.
c. The State shall provide assistance to persons with mental retardation in obtaining legal counsel, legal advocacy services, and/or protection services as the need arises.
*30 d. The State shall support the development of systems 20

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

advocacy groups, such as legislative action committees, which will pursue necessary review and revision of legislation pertaining to rights of retarded citizens.
General Principles Integration: The safeguard system should be an integral part of the service delivery system, not a separate procedure. Whenever feasible, it should use existing structures and procedures, so that maintenance of service quality is a constant effort.
Openness: A safeguard system should deliberately involve clients, parents, interested professionals and community representatives in monitoring service quality. It should involve staff at all levels.
Commitment of Improvement: The stance of the service delivery system must be an eagerness to improve. This involves a willingness to correct problems. By incorporating a variety of safeguards, and by channeling findings to management, a good system is able to correct problems in a timely way.
Internal Approach: The system must scrutinize and correct its own service problems. Procedural protections and first line problem solving are two important internal safeguards components.
External Approach: The system must involve outside agencies or organizations in evaluation of all or part of the service system. Regulation and accrediation are two external components.
The key to both of these approaches is an open system in which service delivery involves a wide variety of people in solving problems. Through internal evaluations and systematic communication, first hand knowledge is combined with external objectivity.
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORTS/INVOLVEMENT
Traditionally, persons with mental retardation have not had the opportunity to live, work, and spend leisure time as participants in their communities. Instead, they have been isolated and made the objects of pity at best and fear and ridicule at worst. The State’s response has reinforced these perceptions. Hissom has been a place where incapable, dependent people are “taken care of”, rather than being a place for the enhancement of human potential.
Therefore the Court’s Order must include provisions

which will assist in the development of positive community supports and involvement. Though the Court cannot require the citizens of Oklahoma to interact with their fellow citizens with mental retardation in a positive, supportive way, it can require the State to implement strategies designed to bring Oklahomans voluntarily to that same conclusion.
This is an area that needs the energy and commitment of the highest leadership of Oklahoma, for it is this leadership which shapes public attitudes. The assistance of such leadership would prove invaluable to a group of people who have long and systematically been devalued.
Strategies for public involvement/education should be both simple and complex. Simple strategies include assisting persons with mental retardation to get to know their neighbors and be positive additions to the neighborhood in which they live. More complex responses should include the development of community advisory groups at all levels, speaker’s bureaus to work with civic groups, and the building of positive relationships with the media.
*31 Maximum benefit will be derived from involving the community itself in the public education program. Chambers of Commerce in communities which will benefit from the infusion of new jobs should become the primary local spokespersons. Business leaders who will benefit from the employment of persons with mental retardation should be invited to recruit other business and industry leaders.
The basic principle that should guide the development of community involvement and education is involvement of as much of the community as is possible. The focus should be on presenting people with mental retardation in positive ways as sharing our values, beliefs and desires. The more the system gives away and invites community support and participation, the more it will receive back in support and assistance.
Therefore the Court directs the State, consistent with the foregoing, to design and implement within six months from the date of entry of Judgment in this case a plan for community involvement and education.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The development of a complex and comprehensive community service delivery system requires extensive administrative, programmatic, professional, and support staff if services are to be developed in a timely, efficient and effective manner and if supervision, monitoring, and evaluation is to be done effectively.
21

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Staff must be available to provide the planning, service development, reporting, monitoring, and evaluation requirements contained in this Order of the Court and in all subsequent orders. To insure such staff availability, the State shall take the following action:
1. The Department of Human Services shall within thirty days of entry of Judgment in this case develop plans for the assignment or acquisition of staff to provide the following services:
a. Case Managers for all 550 Hissom class members with a ratio of one Case Manager for ten class members and one supervisor for ten Case Managers. The Department shall develop alternate plans for the development of Case Manager programs. One plan will involve a state organization and the other will maximize the use of contracts with independent contractors. Each plan will provide organizational charts reflecting lines of authority.
b. Administrative staff to systematically locate other class members.
c. Case Managers and area professional assessment teams will begin to evaluate and identify needs of other class members within the period of ninety days after entry of Judgment in this case. If estimates of the number of class members are accurate, three to five assessment teams will be required and fifteen to twenty Case Managers will be required.
d. Staff in the State office to develop plans required by this Order.
e. Staff in the State office and area office for contracts administration.
f. Staff in the State office and area office for resource development.
g. Staff in the State office for developing and implementing a system for program and fiscal audits.
h. Staff in the State office and area office for program monitoring and quality assurance programs.
*32 i. Professional specialists in the State office and area office for development of new program initiatives.
j. Administrative staff in the State office and area office for timely processing of client evaluations, plans of care, contracts, billing and processing of applications.
k. Staff in the State office and area office for community education and staff/provider training.
l. Staff in the State office and area office for development

and maintenance of information systems, evaluation systems, and client tracking systems.
2. The Department of Human Services shall secure space, equipment, clerical support, and operational funds for staff activities described above.
3. The Department of Human Services shall maintain sufficient staff/providers to assure that staffing ratios and service levels are not reduced from projected levels for clients remaining at Hissom.
4. All staff training and development activities necessary to carry out the Court’s Order shall be provided by contract services to insure the expertise requisite to a high quality program.
CASE MANAGEMENT
An active, resourceful and independent Case Manager is the single most important component of the system. Case management is a system in which the responsibility for locating, coordinating and monitoring services needed by the person with mental retardation rests with a designated individual. Specific services and activities of the Case Manager include:
1. Serving as the primary staff advocate for the individual with mental retardation to secure services, assisting in the exercise of rights, choices, and responsibilities, and providing needed support services that enable the individual with mental retardation to engage in independent activity.
2. Linkage of the person with mental retardation with appropriate community resources.
3. Responsibility for ensuring the development, implementation, monitoring, and modification of the IHP through an Interdisciplinary Team process.
4. Serving as chairperson/facilitator for the IDT.
5. Coordination of service providers responsible for furnishing services to the person with mental retardation.
6. Monitoring of services and programs included in the IHP to determine effectiveness as it relates to individual progress as well as determining if the individual’s well-being, health and safety are assured.
7. Accessing the IDT to revise or change services and programs as needed or requested by the individual with mental retardation.
22

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

8. Providing information, referral, follow-up and periodic services to individuals with mental retardation who may not require specialized services of the service delivery system.
General Principles 1. Case Managers must be independent so that they may be free to advocate for the needs of the individual with mental retardation.
2. Case Managers function in the most fundamental and essential monitoring role because they focus on the total needs, response, and well-being of the person with mental retardation.
3. Case Managers must have the authority to convene Interdisciplinary Team meetings if the needs and desires of the person with mental retardation indicate that changes are needed.
*33 4. Case Managers should live in the same community as the person with mental retardation so as to facilitate quick response to client needs.
5. Case Managers must have the authority to access emergency or specialized intermittent services and be immediately accessible to their clients as the need arises.
6. Case Managers must have the authority to access or procure services and equipment as specified by the IDT.
7. The Court’s view of the appropriate job description for Case Managers is attached as Exhibit “A” to this section.
Court Objectives The State shall insure the following:
1. Case management services will be provided to class members by either staff of the division of developmental disability services of the Department of Human Services or by contractually employed independent professionals, depending upon the Court’s approval of one of the two plans submitted by the State pursuant to the requirements outlined in Infrastructure § 1(a), supra. In the event the Case Managers are staff of DHS, these staff will have no other duties and will serve a specific caseload of individuals with mental retardation.
2. Case Managers will be assigned to all 550 class members with a ratio of one Case Manager to ten clients. This ratio may be increased over time, upon approval by the Court, after successful implementation of the Court’s Order and development of the initial set of supports and services.

3. The Department of Human Services shall develop policies and procedures that provide the Case Manager with the authority to access emergency services, be on-call and available to clients, and access the IDT when changes in client program and placement may be indicated.
HOME AND COMMUNITY SUPPORTS AND SERVICES
Each person who is the focus of this Order shall, within the time frame outlined, be provided home and family life in the community. Supports and services shall be provided for each person adequate to allow full participation in normal home and community life. The State shall develop and present to the Court, within sixty days of entry of Judgment in this case a plan which will accomplish this section of this Order, consistent with the following principles:
1. Supports and services shall be provided for each adult or child in his/her home to the extent that such are needed to maintain and nurture the individual in home and community. Supports and services shall include but not be limited to:
a. Respite as needed;
b. In home workers;
c. Family training;
d. Reasonable architectural modification;
e. Behavioral management;
f. Family counseling;
g. Adaptive and augmentative equipment, prothesis; and
h. Transportation assistance.
2. Supports and services shall be no more intensive than is necessary to achieve success. Individuals shall receive no more support, service or other intervention than is necessary in order to allow the individual to participate in home and community.
3. A person’s place of residence is his/her home. The State shall advocate that he/she may not be arbitrarily removed from the home for reasons relating to his/her mental retardation, behavior or medical condition. The only exceptions should be removal for periods of intensive medical or behavioral treatment at which time
23

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

resources and facilities shall be used which are the same as those used by the general public.
*34 4. Adults shall live with people of their choice. Whenever possible, the building in which adults live shall be either purchased or rented by the persons residing in it.
5. Consistent with normal adult living, no more than six adults shall live together.
6. Individual living planning and home selection shall focus on the individual, his or her home, and affiliation needs, not on any approach which is “facility”, “slot”, or “bed” based.
7. Given the inherent rights of the self advocate, the parent/guardian, the IDT and all due process rights afforded by law, for children, home shall be the natural family. As is generically true, if the family has received any necessary supports and services but is no longer able to respond to the needs of the minor child with mental retardation and requests placement outside of the home, there shall be arranged a foster family which shall act in the place of the natural family. In all instances, supports and services shall be equally available. This provision shall be restricted so that foster families may receive no more than three children with mental retardation. That number may be further restricted if the home already has other children. If the home already has other children of a foster or adoptive nature, a full evaluation and review by the IDT will be required prior to placement to insure compatibility and appropriateness.
8. Before an individual moves from his/her home to a more restrictive or less normal environment, the individual’s Case Manager shall insure that such more restrictive or less normal environment is required and that the individual has been served but cannot presently be served in the normal home environment. Such subsequent placement plan shall be reviewed and approved initially by the IDT and then by the Court’s Representative.
9. The plan shall insure that all providers of home and community supports and services are free from conflict and independently able to respond to the individual’s interests in being a part of the community. Providers who through any arrangement are providing service to more than one individual must agree to receive persons of any level of need or involvement. All providers must agree to not remove a person from home and community supports and services without approval of the IDT.
10. The plan shall include a section on safeguards that will guarantee both internal and external controls and review, including consumer monitoring.
11. The plan shall insure that each person shall benefit from home and community experiences designed to

enhance quality of life including normal friendships and affiliations, recreation and leisure activities, and access to the community resources.
12. All determinations relative to home and community living and supports shall be subject to the appropriate due process procedures.
13. The plan shall insure that all Case Managers are free from conflict and independently able to respond to the individual’s interest in being a part of the home and community.
*35 14. For purpose of the plan and subsequent service development the Court considers the following to be a sequence from least to most restrictive home settings for an adult: independent living, independent living with in home and family supports, extended family living, adult family (foster) homes, supervised apartment living, supervised small group homes of 2–3 persons and supervised group homes of 4–6 persons.
15. The plan will provide for the State to advocate for the least restrictive, most normal environment for all class members.
HISSOM SERVICES PENDING CLOSURE
The Court is deeply concerned for persons who will continue to reside at Hissom pending closure. Unfortunately it is reasonable to expect that without intervention persons remaining there will be in greater jeopardy since staff, particularly those with the greatest skill, will leave to seek other employment. This will leave Hissom with an even more greatly diminished ability to respond to the needs of its residents.
Therefore the Court requires that the State take all necessary steps to insure that residents of Hissom receive appropriate habilitation services prior to their movement from Hissom. The Court requires that Hissom residents be guaranteed a safe living environment pending their departure from Hissom.
With regard to Hissom’s ongoing personnel needs, the Court orders the State to develop and present within twenty days of entry of Judgment a plan which will insure that the necessary personnel support is maintained so that residents will receive appropriate habilitative services prior to their movement from Hissom. Such plan may include incentive payments for employees who stay at Hissom, arrangements for contracting for professional services with experts, and any other means to insure adequate staffing. Such plan shall also include derivation of maximum benefit from the professionals employed by
24

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Progressive Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. and Therapeutic Concepts, as has been previously directed in this Court’s Order of January 1987. Such plan shall address the following:
1. Interdisciplinary teams able to integrate services based on measurable behavioral objectives.
2. An administrative structure which supports the IDT and professional services.
3. Personnel needed to provide effective IDTs.
4. Documentative systems standardized to meet clients’ needs.
5. Implementing and monitoring of physical management and positioning programs.
6. Appropriate full day education/day programs for all clients.
7. Medical and health issues which need to be addressed.
8. Providing physical management, positioning and other programmatic and care needs for clients who require hospitalization.
To insure that limited resources are not wasted, the Court directs that, effective the date of this Order, there shall be no further capital construction at Hissom. If the State at any time identifies any capital construction which it feels is required to insure resident safety, it shall file a motion to allow specific capital construction along with evidence substantiating its request, including cost figures.
EDUCATION
*36 Although the State Board of Education is not presently a party to these proceedings, the community placement of class members will of necessity involve action on the part of the state and local boards of education to meet their respective obligations under federal law.
In meeting these educational needs of each eligible class member, full compliance by the State and its duly-authorized educational representatives with the legislative intent and guidelines promulgated in Public Law 94–142, the Education of the Handicapped Act and Public Law 99–457, a 1986 Amendment to such Act, will be required. Such law provides, in substance, that each person within the chronological age of 3–21 years shall be provided a free, appropriate publicly-supported education in the least restrictive, most normal environment

commensurate with his/her needs and abilities.
The State should now commence planning for educational supports and services to be delivered to each eligible class member in such a manner as to allow each member to be educated in regular public schools in the community setting. Such planning should accomplish the education of the class members in a manner which is consistent with the following principles:
1. Educational supports and services should be provided in such a manner and extent for each eligible class member so as to allow him/her to receive those supports and services in the regular public schools in the community setting, given the following service delivery options:
a. Regular classroom with no special supports and services;
b. Regular classroom with modified materials, equipment, and instructional procedures;
c. Regular classroom with consultant services;
d. Regular classroom with itinerant services;
e. Regular classroom with resource classroom services;
f. Regular classroom with part-time special classroom; and
g. Full-time special classroom.
2. Educational supports and services for each class member should include but not be limited to the following:
a. Reasonable but sufficient architectural modifications in the regular public school that will provide each eligible class member access to all program opportunities afforded students without handicaps who attend that school;
b. Behavioral programming;
c. Psychological services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech/language therapy;
d. Adaptive and augmentative equipment;
e. Transportation assistance; and
f. Family training.
3. Educational curriculum content, which is based solely on individual needs for each class member should reflect functional contexts while addressing each of the following curriculum areas on the class member’s
25

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

Individual Educational Plan (hereinafter referred to as “IEP”).
a. Self care skills;
b. Communication skills;
c. Prevocational/vocational skills;
d. Preacademic/academic skills;
e. Recreation/leisure skills;
f. Motor skills;
g. Social skills; and
h. Adaptive behavior/independent living skills.
4. The yearly duration of educational supports and services should be based on each individual class member’s demonstrated need for such supports and services. Each eligible class member should be afforded access to an extended school year of a length commensurate with the summer school program provided to students without handicaps.
*37 a. No eligible class member should be denied access to an extended school year due to inability to pay additional fees or lack of transportation.
b. Extended year programs for eligible class members should provide extended year IEPs which reflect specific, measurable, instructional goals and objectives for that period and the quality assurance means for determining the efficiency of the program relative to accomplishing those goals and objectives.
5. The delivery of educational supports and services to each eligible class member should reflect instructional methods and materials which are community-referenced, culturally normative and age appropriate.
a. The least restrictive model of treatment/alternatives should be employed consistent with the developmental needs and the acceleration/deceleration target objectives of each eligible class member. The State Educational Agency should provide the receiving local education agencies policies and protocols to carry out this treatment model.
b. Both the developmental model and the functional/remedial model should serve as valid models of treatment for the accomplishment of this standard.
6. The State should, through the State Education Agency and local education agency, work toward plans that would enable every eligible class member to receive, at least

during his/her last five (5) years of publicly-supported education, specific and appropriate programming efforts to aid in his/her transition from school to work and adult life in the community. These transition plans should proactively avoid waiting lists for services in the community, and client isolationism, while producing a quality of adult life in community work and residential programs which foster meaningful wages, as well as social and physical integration for all Hissom class members.
7. The formulation of each eligible class member’s IEP, including the content, amount, extent, and duration of related services and supports should be determined on the basis of the individual’s need for said services and supports.
a. The rights of the parent/guardian to fully participate in the development and the subsequent decisions relative to these services and supports are protected by law and must be carefully maintained.
b. The Case Manager should fully participate in the development and the subsequent decisions relative to these supports and services.
c. The local education agency should undertake a systematic effort to fully educate and train parents/guardians and Case Managers in their rights and respective roles relative to the IEP process.
8. In order to ensure that the eligible class members receive the educational supports and services commensurate with their needs and in accordance with federal law, the State should consider developing a plan that will produce a cooperative agreement between the State and an institution of higher education for said institution to develop, implement, and sustain a fully-funded preservice and inservice teacher education program to serve persons with severe/profound mental retardation and/or multiple disabilities.
*38 a. The State, if such a cooperative agreement is developed, should ensure through its licensure policies and practices that teachers of the eligible class members are duly certified to instruct persons who possess severe/profound mental retardation and/or multiple disabilities.
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
The Court is cognizant of the radical change which the perception of employment capabilities of persons with severe disabilities has undergone in the past several years. Whereas sheltered workshops and work activity centers
26

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

were previously considered the only possible place in which to employ people with disabling conditions, now many professionals consider these places the last resort when every other employment option has failed. The Court is similarly cognizant of the 1986 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 99–506) which creates a new formula grant to assist states in developing supported employment options for persons who are unable to function independently in employment without on-going support services for the duration of their employment. Such change in the perception of employment possibilities and the corresponding federal legislation afford Hissom class members substantial opportunities for meaningful employment in an integrated work setting.
The Court directs that all Hissom class members are to receive prevocational and vocational services commensurate with his/her need. This will necessitate that the State accelerate and perhaps redirect its efforts to create employment options for persons with severe disabilities. The State will have to overcome resistance to employment of such persons based on the conventional arguments that limitations in physical and mental fitness lessen their ability to produce on the job and that employers prefer able-bodied workers, even if disadvantaged, to workers with disabilities. The State will have to engage business in a partnership to create a variety of supported and transitional job options for all Oklahoma citizens with severe disabilities who wish to work. In doing so, the Court directs the State to use the Medicaid waiver budget applicable to the Hissom class to assure that each member receives the kind and amount of prevocational and vocational services which the IDT assessment deems appropriate.
Court Objectives 1. All Hissom class members are to receive prevocational and vocational services commensurate with his/her need.
2. Each IDT assessment will specify the kind and amount of prevocational and vocational services that appear appropriate for the individual class member.
3. Children 14–17 years old are to receive prevocational services as part of their Individual Educational Plan (IEP) if possible; otherwise, Medicaid waiver funds are to be expended to this end.
4. The full array of supported and transitional employment options capable of meeting the needs of Hissom class members with varying levels of disability are to be engineered in recognition that replicable models exist to meet the needs of persons across the entire severity spectrum.

*39 5. Sheltered workshops and work activity centers are to be encouraged and assisted to develop supported and transitional employment options for Hissom class members, with the assistance of the State.
6. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency is to be engaged in the development of supported and transitional employment options for Hissom class members in recognition of its responsibilities for doing so pursuant to the 1986 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 99–506).
7. The supported employment definitions and coordinating mechanisms proscribed by the federal regulations governing implementation of the new state formula grant are to be followed to assure not only compliance with the federal law but also cost-effective use of all employment service expenditures on behalf of Hissom class members.
General Principles 1. The IDT assessment should avoid stereotyping the employment capabilities of individuals with severe disabilities and rely instead on state-of-the-art knowledge in this regard.
2. Officials of the State of Oklahoma should set aside sufficient funds to bring in experts and trainers from the university centers (e.g. the University of Oregon, Virginia Commonwealth University, and University of Maryland) that have been established by the U.S. Department of Education to provide technical assistance to states in building supported employment programs.
3. Officials of the State of Oklahoma should place emphasis on coordinating expertise and funding sources as prescribed by the federal regulations governing implementation of the new state supported employment formula grant, taking advantage of the substantial leveraging opportunities that Medicaid waiver funds afford in this regard. Clarification should be sought from the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services about which dollar will be considered the “first dollar” spent for purposes of obtaining the maximum leverage effect of Medicaid waiver funding.
4. Training efforts at all levels should include orientation to the provisions of the 1986 Amendment to the Social Security Act, entitled “Economic Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act,” which remove the substantial work disincentives that formerly existed in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid programs. Earnings above the substantial gainful activity (SGA) level of $300 per month no longer cause loss of SSI and Medicaid benefits.

27

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

5. Sheltered workshop and work activity centers should be recognized as having a role to play in creating needed supported and transitional employment options for Hissom class members as well as resources that can be reconfigured over time to embrace more supported and transitional employment options and less sheltered work and work activities.
6. The Specialized Training Program (STP), developed by the University of Oregon, should be recognized not only for its potential to serve persons at the severe and profound levels of disability but for its applicability for transforming the operations of sheltered workshops and work activity centers into a more productive work environment for such persons.
*40 7. Concentration on development of a single kind of employment option for Hissom class members should be avoided in favor of attempts to create the full array of options—job coaches for competitive employment, shared jobs in the transitional employment program (TEP), the specialized training program (STP), mobile work crews, sheltered enclaves in industry, etc.
8. By requiring spending on prevocational services for children 14–17 years old, the Court is attempting to avoid the documented problems with federal and state policy in addressing the vocational education needs of persons with disabilities while in school. The failure to provide suitable vocational education to school age persons with disabilities represents an opportunity cost not only for the individual student but also for society which may have to spend more later to make up for the indifference of the past.
9. High priority should be directed toward development of a partnership with the business community to educate and obtain the assistance of not only the leadership but also rank and file workers in creating integrated employment options for persons with severe disabilities, including Hissom class members.
BUDGET PLAN
The Court recognizes that adequacy of fiscal resources is a major determinant in assuring that members of the Hissom class receive in a timely fashion quality services in the least restrictive and most integrated environment. Accordingly, the Court provides the following budgetary guidance to the State in the form of (a) the Court’s specific fiscal objectives, and (b) general principles governing how fiscal resources are to be used. The Court also provides budget estimates of how much the State of Oklahoma should anticipate spending to satisfy the Court’s Order. The Court’s budget estimates are based on

the service definitions and average cost figures contained in the Oklahoma Department of Human Services Medicaid waiver renewal application to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, entitled “Oklahoma Home and Community Based Waiver for the Mentally Retarded,” June 22, 1987.
The Court’s budget estimates do not constitute an operational budget, detailing how much will be spent quarterly on which kinds of personnel, programs, and services to achieve the annual numerical goals for removing designated class members from Hissom. The Court understands that the rate of spending on a quarterly basis will vary as a function of (a) creation of the necessary administrative infrastructure to implement the Court’s Order, (b) development of appropriate community alternatives for Hissom class members, and (c) actual placement of class members into the alternatives and payment for services therein. Nonetheless, it is the firm expectation of the Court that the Court’s annual numerical goals for placement are to be met on time.
The State’s first-year operational budget should explain to the Court how annual fiscal resources will be spent on a quarterly basis to achieve the Court’s annual numerical goals. The State is to supply such an operational budget for the first year within thirty days of entry of Judgment in this case making use, if possible, of a cost model reflecting Oklahoma’s organizational structure that provides detail comparable to the Touche Ross & Co. “Standard Cost Model for the Nebraska Community Based Mental Retardation Programs.” The Court attaches a list of financial questions to assist the State in constructing the first-year operational budget.
Court Objectives *41 1. The approximately 450 persons now residing at Hissom are to be placed into appropriate community care alternatives according to the following schedule: 75 in the first year; 125 in the second year; 125 in the third year; and 125 or the remaining number in the fourth year.
2. The approximately 100 persons who were at Hissom when the complaint was filed but since discharged are to be (a) located, (b) assessed by an IDT, and (c) served according to that IDT assessment. The State’s operational budget for the first year should specify in an addendum how much is to be allocated to finding, assessing, and serving these 100 persons in the course of the four years.
3. Case managers at a ratio of 1:10 are to be provided from year one to the 450 persons now residing at Hissom and to the 100 persons who have been discharged since the complaint was filed.
28

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

4. As much of Hissom class member needs as possible is to be met through expenditures under the Medicaid waiver in order to optimize cost sharing between state and federal revenue sources.
5. Hissom class member needs that cannot be met through intergovernmental cost sharing are to be paid for by the State of Oklahoma in discharge of its ultimate responsibility in this regard. The Medicaid waiver defined services and cost levels are expected to suffice in most instances.
6. Each of the designated 550 Hissom class members covered by the Court’s four year plan are to receive the following services as defined by an annual IDT assessment:
a. Case management at a 1:10 ratio;
b. Habilitative services;
c. Community residential placement and support services;
d. Employment services, if adult (18 years or older);
e. Educational services, if of school age;
f. Prevocational services, if a child 14–17 years old.
7. Independent annual fiscal and program audits are to be conducted and received by the Court on each program into which Hissom class members are placed or from which they receive services, making known the quantity, quality, and cost of the services received by each Hissom class member. Such independent audits are to follow the principles and procedures set forth by the Comptroller General of the United States.
General Principles 1. Placement of Hissom class members will be in the least restrictive and most integrated environment commensurate with meeting each member’s needs.
2. Resources will be expended on a first priority basis to provide whatever support services are necessary to sustain, where possible, natural families in their efforts to maintain a disabled member at home with fullest possible participation in community life.
3. The second priority is to create foster care placements for children whose developmental needs are best met within the nurturing environment of a foster family with fullest possible participation in school and community life.
4. The third priority is to create supervised apartments and

other residential options that provide maximum possible choice, independence, and community participation for adolescent and adult class members.
*42 5. Creation of adult group residences (defined in the section entitled Home and Community Supports and Services, supra, as having less than seven beds) that offer a home-like environment and fullest possible participation in community life are considered a backup option to cover class members for whom a better option cannot be developed.
6. The Court directs that development of the services in their indicated priority will take place simultaneously rather than sequentially in order to avoid bottlenecks resulting from uneven response from class member families and/or potential providers.
7. The IDT assessment for each class member, not so-called economies of scale, should dictate how many of each type of out-of-natural-home placements are developed. To encourage development of preferred options, the Court’s budget estimate for residential placements is based on the Oklahoma Department of Human Services waiver renewal application’s rate for specialized foster care. This rate is sufficient to support creation of whatever number of small group residences are necessary to meet the needs of class members who cannot be maintained and served in their own homes or in foster care.
8. Habilitative services are to be offered to all class members in the kind and amounts defined by the IDT assessment, including purchase of adaptive aids and equipment and whatever transportation and personal care assistance is necessary to assure fullest possible participation in school, work, and community life in the least restrictive, most normal environment.
9. All class members of school age are to receive a free and appropriate public school education in the least restrictive, most normal environment as mandated by the Education for the Handicapped Act (P.L. 94–142), with such funds as necessary provided by the federal, state, and local educational authorities responsible for assuring this entitlement. The Court’s budget estimate does not include funding of each class member’s IEP, as defined by P.L. 94–142.
10. All adult class members are to receive employment services in the least restrictive, most normal environment as defined by the IDT assessment, and all children 14–17 years old are to receive pre-vocational services in the least restrictive, most normal environment as part of their IEP if possible.
11. The Court does not construe average cost estimates as upper limits or “caps” on expenditures for either specific
29

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

items of expenditure or for total expenditures for individual class members. By definition, variability surrounds any average. Thus, no individual class member is to be denied a specific kind or amount of service, defined as needed by the IDT assessment, merely because some hypothetical limit would be breached, e.g., the average per diem cost at Hissom. In the event that spending more than some hypothetical limit permits would cause loss of intergovernmental cost-sharing, the Court expects the State of Oklahoma to bill the cost-sharing source up to the prescribed limit but pay from its own budget for any excess costs that may accrue in meeting the individual class member’s true need.

adequate administrative infrastructure and staffing to plan, organize, manage, and directly provide services to Hissom class members. Accordingly, the Court expects the State of Oklahoma to create an adequate administrative infrastructure and to staff it with trained personnel. The Court’s budget estimate does not include funding for this purpose. Therefore, the State is expected to provide in its first-year operational plan an addendum which explains what fiscal resources will be required to create an adequate administrative infrastructure, hire the necessary staff, and train them to implement the Court’s Order.

*43 12. The Court expects fullest public accountability for expenditures made on behalf of Hissom class members according to the principles and procedures set forth by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly, independent audits of expenditures made on behalf of class members are to be conducted annually of all programs and agencies receiving funds for this purpose. Such audits will be conducted either by State of Oklahoma auditors or by contractors under their supervision.

FOUR YEAR BUDGET ASSUMING INDICATED PLACEMENTS
PER YEAR WITHOUT INFLATION FACTOR
	  

13. The Court recognizes the importance of developing an

	  

ITEM	  

YEAR	  1	  

YEAR	  2	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

YEAR	  3	   	  	   	  

YEAR	  4	   	  	   	  

	  
1.	   Case	  Management	  at	  1:10	  at	   	  	   $5,475.00	   	   	  	  
	   	   	  
	   	  
	   	  
	   	  
	   	  
2.	   Foster	  care	  for	  children,	  0–17	  at	   	  	   $14,600.00	   	   	  	  
	   	   	  
	   	  

75	  total	   	  	   	  
410,625.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  

125	  total	   	  	   	  
410,625.00	   	  	   	  
684,375.00	   	  	   	   	  

	  

	  

410,625.00	   	  	   	  
29	  children	   	  	   	  
423,400.00	   	  	   	   	  

1,095,000.00	   	  	   	  
49	  children	   	  	   	  
423,400.00	   	  	   	  
715,400.00	  

125	  total	   	  	   	  
410,625.00	   	  	   	  
684,375.00	   	  	   	  
684,375.00	   	  	   	   	  
1,779,375.00	   	  	   	  
49	  children	   	  	   	  
423,400.00	   	  	   	  
715,400.00	  

125	  total	   	  	   	  
410,625.00	   	  	   	  
684,375.00	   	  	   	  
684,375.00	   	  	   	  
684,375.00	   	  	   	  
2,463,750.00	   	  	   	  
49	  children	   	  	   	  
423,400.00	   	  	   	  
715,400.00	  
30

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

	   	   	   	  

	  	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

715,400.00	  

	  	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   	  
3.	   Foster	  care	  for	  adults,	  18	  +	  at	   	  	   $14,600.00	   	   	  	  
	   	   	  
	   	  
	   	  
	   	  

423,400.00	   	  	   	  
46	  adults	   	  	   	  
671,600.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

1,138,800.00	   	  	   	  
76	  adults	   	  	   	  
671,600.00	   	  	   	  
1,109,600.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  

1,854,200.00	   	  	   	  
76	  adults	   	  	   	  
671,600.00	   	  	   	  
1,109,600.00	   	  	   	  
1,109,600.00	   	  	   	   	  

	   	  
4.	   Employment	  services	  for	  adults,	   	  	   18+	  at	  $4,931.00	   	   	  	  
	   	   	  
	   	  
	   	  
	   	  

671,600.00	   	  	   	  
46	  adults	   	  	   	  
226,826.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  
	  

1,781,200.00	   	  	   	  
76	  adults	   	  	   	  
226,826.00	   	  	   	  
374,756.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  

2,890,800.00	   	  	   	  
76	  adults	   	  	   	  
226,826.00	   	  	   	  
374,756.00	   	  	   	  
374,756.00	   	  	   	   	  

	   	  
5.	   Interdisciplinary	  assessments	  at	   	  	   $1,260	  first	  year	  and	  $630	  each	   	   subsequent	  year	  for	  450	  persons	  
	  	   	   6.	   Habilitative	  services	  at	  $16,120	   	  	   	  	   	   	   	   	  
	   	  

226,826.00	   	  	   	  
567,000.00	   	  	   	  
1,209,000.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  

601,582.00	   	  	   	  
283,500.00	   	  	   	  
1,209,000.00	   	  	   	  
2,015,000.00	   	  	   	   	  

976,338.00	   	  	   	  
283,500.00	   	  	   	  
1,209,000.00	   	  	   	  
2,015,000.00	   	  	   	  
2,015,000.00	   	  	  

	  	   	   715,400.00	   	  	   	   715,400.00	   	  	   	   2,569,600.00	   	  	   	   76	  adults	   	  	   	  
671,600.00	   	  	   	  
1,109,600.00	   	  	   	  
1,109,600.00	   	  	   	  
1,109,600.00	   	  	   	  
4,000,400.00	   	  	   	  
76	  adults	   	  	   	  
226,826.00	   	  	   	  
374,756.00	   	  	   	  
374,756.00	   	  	   	  
374,756.00	   	  	   	  
1,351,094.00	   	  	   	  
283,500.00	   	  	   	  
1,209,000.00	   	  	   	  
2,015,000.00	   	  	   	  
2,015,000.00	   	  	  
31

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

	   	  

	  

	  

	  

	  

	   	  
7.	   TOTAL	   	  	   	  	   	   	   8.	   Annual	  Hissom	  State	  School	  cost	   	  	   per	  person	  at	  $45,625	  ($125	  per	   	   day)	  
	  	   	   	   	  
	   	  
	   	  

1,209,000.00	   	  	   	  
3,508,451.00	   	  	   	  
3,421,875.00	   	  	   	  
	  
	  
	  

3,224,000.00	   	  	   	  
8,124,082.00	   	  	   	  
3,421,875.00	   	  	   	  
5,703,125.00	   	  	   	   	  
	  

5,239,000.00	   	  	   	  
13,023,213.00	   	  	   	  
3,421,875.00	   	  	   	  
5,703,125.00	   	  	   	  
5,703,125.00	   	  	   	   	  

	   	  
9.	   Difference	  between	  Number	  8	   	  	   and	  Number	  7	   	   	  	  
	   10.	   Difference	  between	  Number	  8	   	  	   and	  Number	  7	  with	  1:10	  ratio	   	   Case	  Managers	  for	  450	  persons	  
from	  first	  year	  at	  $5,475.00	   (2,463,750.00)	   	  	   	  

3,421,875.00	   	  	   	  
(86,576.00)	   	  	   	  
(2,139,701.00)	   	  	   	  

9,125,000.00	   	  	   	  
1,000,918.00	   	  	   	  
(367,832.00)	   	  	   	  

14,828,125.00	   	  	   	  
1,804,912.00	   	  	   	  
1,120,537.00	   	  	   	  

	   2,015,000.00	  
	  	   	   7,254,000.00	   	  	   	   17,922,344.00	   	  	   	   3,421,875.00	   	  	   	  
5,703,125.00	   	  	   	  
5,703,125.00	   	  	   	  
5,703,125.00	   	  	   	  
20,531,250.00	   	  	   	  
2,608,906.00	   	  	   	  
2,608,906.00	   	  	   	  

FINANCING QUESTIONS
*44 Development of a financial plan capable of supporting the Court’s Order regarding Homeward Bound, Inc., et al. v. Hissom Memorial Center, et al., Case Number 85–C–437–E, will hinge on answers to several sets of questions. Such sets of questions relate to: (1) the permissible types and number of individual community care plans that will be funded; (2) the scheduling of individual care plans; (3) administrative infrastructure design, staffing, and staff development requirements; (4) the preferred financing model; (5) sources of revenue and projected growth; and (6) intergovernmental cost-sharing formulae.

Types of Community Care Plans 1. How many types of community care plans are envisioned, e.g., natural family subsidies, specialized foster care, adult family care, extended family care for children, extended family care for adults, group homes? (The “community care plan” is seen as encompassing a place of residence, necessary supervision and support services, adaptive aids, educational and habilitative services, employment services, and whatever transportation is needed for community participation, including employment.)
2. Given the varying characteristics of the class members, how many community care plans of each type will require funding to meet the needs of the entire class?
3. What is the anticipated average cost and permissible range of costs for each type of community care plan, e.g., $6,000 average annual natural family subsidy with a
32

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

permissible maximum of $10,000?
Scheduling 1. What is the total time frame within which the individual community care plans for all members of the class will be implemented? The Court has decreed a maximum time frame of four years.
2. How many of each type of community care plan will be scheduled for implementation in year one, year two, etc.?
3. How much of the required administrative infrastructure needed to assure proper discharge of the major functions prescribed by the Order will be scheduled for implementation in year one, year two, etc.?
Infrastructure 1. What will be the administrative infrastructure design to assure proper discharge of the major functions prescribed by the decree, e.g., assessment, resource planning and development, case management, contract administration, community care plan monitoring/safeguards, financial and program audit, backup direct service delivery, etc.?
2. What will be the total staffing requirement to discharge each of these major functions?
3. What will be the staff development requirement to assure attainment of the necessary levels of competence to discharge these major functions?
4. How many existing staff can be laterally reassigned and trained in meeting the total staffing requirement?
5. How many new staff must be recruited and trained in meeting the total staffing requirement?
6. Given the levels of responsibility involved, how much in salaries must be budgeted for needed new staff? How much must be budgeted to train new and existing staff to discharge their assigned responsibilities?
Preferred Financing Model *45 1. What will be the preferred financing model for paying for the individual community care plans, e.g., uniform capitation rate for all class members, negotiated reasonable cost reimbursement to contractors, prospective reimbursement to contractors based on objective assessment of the intensity of services needed by each class member?

Revenue Sources and Projected Growth 1. Given the projected level of annual expenditures based on answers to the aforementioned questions, what are the anticipated amounts of revenues by source, e.g., the federal SSDI, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and Title XIX Social Services programs, state, local, and family (including private insurance)?
2. What budgetary growth factor should be used to anticipate (a) additional outlays in response to the annual incidence of mental retardation and developmental disabilities in the Hissom catchment area, (b) merit salary increases, and (c) inflation?
3. Assuming that Hissom’s budget cannot be reallocated to pay for anticipated start-up costs in the first or even second year, how much revenue must be placed in a revolving fund account to meet these costs until reallocation of the Hissom budget becomes possible? (As residents are discharged from Hissom into the community alternatives, the budget savings from reduced staffing and building maintenance can be placed into the revolving fund to offset the initial deposit into that account.)
Intergovernmental Cost Sharing 1. What are the cost-sharing formulae that determine what share of the cost of given individual community care plans will be borne by the federal, state, and local governments, e.g., 56 percent federal match for Medicaid expenditures, “x” percent local match, “y” percent state match, and “z” percent federal match for P.L. 94–142 covered special educational services?
2. Are there any perverse incentives in the cost-sharing formulae that stand in the way of implementing the individual community care plans, e.g., resistance to community placement resulting from the requirement that the local community pay a share of P.L. 94–142 covered services versus no such requirement for educational services reimbursed under the Social Security Act Title XIX ICR/MR program at Hissom?
3. What steps can be taken to offset the influence of the identifiable perverse incentives, e.g., additional legal action in the event of resistance to P.L. 94–142 requirements?
EXHIBIT “A”
CASE MANAGER—JOB DESCRIPTION

33

Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1987)

To briefly summarize, a Case Manager performs responsible, professional work involving the planning, coordination, provision and monitoring of services for persons with mental retardation in a variety of community settings. The specific responsibilities include:
1. Establishing a positive relationship with the client and his/her family through regular contact to serve as a client’s professional advocate in the agency and the community;
2. Working with referred individuals with mental retardation, the individual’s family, and community resources to secure and/or maintain employment and appropriate support services in natural settings so that intake into services is not completed unless investigation clearly determines that generic community services cannot meet the needs of the individuals;
*46 3. Documenting all significant information involving a client by maintaining a client file. Such a file should provide a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of the client’s progress and needs and assure compliance with all applicable accrediting and licensing standards;
4. Evaluating of the needs of the client by scheduling, chairing and serving as a team member of the Individual Program Plan (IPP) meeting with all involved persons to plan for the implementation and coordination of necessary services and support;
5. Serving as a liason between all persons involved with the client to coordinate services and to promote coordination;
6. Attending to medical, mental, psychological and psychiatric needs of the client by identifying those needs, making referrals and scheduling appointments. The Case Manager should also accompany the client as needed in order to work cooperatively with the practitioner and to request the most comprehensive and least restrictive treatment;
7. Monitoring services received by the client through

whatever means are necessary to insure implementation of the IPP.
8. Assisting client financially by securing benefits, reporting to funding sources, and aiding with or totally managing client accounts. The Case Manager should also monitor compliance with state and federal regulations to insure that benefits are rightfully received;
9. Securing legal assistance for representation in court, consultation or any service necessary to safeguard the client’s legal rights. The Case Manager must maintain ongoing involvement in the judicial process to insure the implementation of an individual’s justice plan;
10. Providing training and assistance in daily living needs to those clients who have no programmatic services available to them;
11. Maintaining an awareness of currently available community services through consistent contact with generic and public agencies to offer and obtain a wide range of services;
12. Performing outreach and intake duties by accepting referrals, analyzing needs and completing the intake process or securing alternative placement as needed to facilitate provision of services and/or supports;
13. Serving as a member of the Behavior Management Team and the Crisis Team;
14. Attending staff meetings, in-service programs and training conferences to maintain awareness of policies and procedures and to improve job performance;
15. Performing duties on call as assigned to attend to client emergencies;
16. Performing other duties as assigned.
	  

34