Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

C. A. No. 3:86-cv-252 (EBB)

v.

:

:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 60: HABILITATION

14 January, 2006

David Ferleger Pagoda 10, Suite 115 10 Presidential Blvd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 610 668 2221
Special Master

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 2 of 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. The 1996 Contempt and Failure to Provide Habilitation

4

II. The Remedial Plan’s Habilitation Provisions

5

III. Defendants’ Non-Compliance Continued in 1998-2001

5

IV. The Joint Committee Adopts the 2002 OPS/Habilitation Initiative

7

V. The Special Master Accepts the OPS/Habilitation Initiative

8

VI. STS Layoffs Delay the Habilitation Hearing

8

VII. The Master’s Consultant Rates the OPS/Habilitation Initiative Positively 9

VIII. Compliance Resolution Delayed

10

IX. The 2005 Compliance Evaluation

11

X. Conclusion

13

January 14, 2006

2

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 3 of 14

SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 60: HABILITATION

The Special Master recommends that the Court release from active judicial oversight all outstanding Remedial Plan requirements regarding Habilitation.
The OPS/Habilitation Initiative, initiated by Defendants in 2002 pursuant to the Joint Committee convened by the Special Master, has now been implemented successfully. 1

One fundamental purpose of Southbury Training School is “training,” that is, the provision of Habilitation to its residents to improve and extend their functioning in everyday life, their independence and their well-being.2 As the Court has stated, “Habilitation is recognized by all parties as an important component of the mission of Southbury Training School.”3
Habilitation means “measures taken to assist the individual to live a full and productive life…” and it is a “teaching or instructional model of service, with this didactic function included in order to enhance the skills and personal self-sufficiency of people with developmental disabilities.”4
Implementation of habilitation services is the focus of the activities of more staff at STS than any other discipline. Training takes place during the day and evening, is planned and monitored in formal annual and quarterly meetings, and is embodied in written plans and teaching strategies. It takes place in vocational programs and in residences.

1 If this recommendation is accepted, the following will be released: CR 43, EC 3 and 4; CR 44, EC 1, 2 and 3; CR 52, EC 3 and 4; and CR 14, EC 2. The Special Master reviewed CR 14, EC 2, previously; based on the master’s consultant’s most recent review, the master concludes that Defendants are in compliance with this requirement.
2 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), recognized the equivalence of “training” to “habilitation.” “The word ‘habilitation’ is commonly used to refer to programs for the mentally retarded because mental retardation is ... a learning disability and training impairment rather than an illness. [T]he principal focus of habilitation is upon training and development of needed skills.” 457 U.S. at 309, n.1 (1982) (quoting amicus brief for American Psychiatric Association).
3 Order of August 30, 2001.
4 Skarnulis, Habilitation Services at Southbury Training School at 9 (Nov. 12, 2005) (ellipses omitted), filed with the Special Master’s Order of November 15, 2005.

January 14, 2006

3

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 4 of 14

This report traces the status of compliance with court-ordered Habilitation requirements beginning with the 1996 contempt findings, through the 1998-2001 period when deficiencies were not adequately addressed by Defendants, and concluding with their successful and well-executed OPS/Habilitation Initiative from 2002 to 2005.
Some have objected on occasion to the duration of these proceedings. As the record shows, and this report summarizes, Habilitation is released from oversight just as soon as Defendants have fulfilled their obligation to the court.
While one might have hoped that it would not have taken so many years since the Remedial Plan for Defendants to accomplish this success, one must celebrate that they have now done so.
The Special Master recommends release from active judicial oversight of all outstanding Habilitation provisions of the Remedial Plan as set forth in this report.5
I. The 1996 Contempt and Failure to Provide Habilitation.
Although Defendants committed in the 1987 Consent Decree and the subsequent Implementation Plan to provide adequate habilitation to STS residents, they failed to do so and were found in contempt in 1996. United States v. State of Connecticut, 931 F. Supp. 974 (D. Conn. 1996), appeal dism’d, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21006 (2d Cir., June 13, 1997).6 The court found that defendants’ positive self-reports did not reflect reality. Id. at 983-84.
At the time of the contempt ruling, STS was writing individual programs for clients but they were often irrelevant or not effectively implemented. STS residents were almost never engaged in productive activities. Instead of engaging the residents in activities, staff members were watching TV, talking on the telephone, talking to each other, and involved in other miscellaneous activities. Defendants were administering behavioral medication in lieu of habilitation programs.
The court in 1996 found that the deficiencies at STS were causing clients to die and to suffer other injuries. Noting that “some of the most compelling evidence came from the

5 The following elements are not addressed in this report a) the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation which is pending before the Court, and b) behavior planning and services which were not covered in the most recent review by the master’s consultant.
Also, neither this report nor the recent consultant’s report addressed the adequacy of Habilitation and other programs at STS as compared to, or with regard to, community placement and services outside the institution. This report should not be construed to affect any aspect of the community placement issues pending before the Court in another matter.
6 Courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with an order, including a consent decree, through civil contempt. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); United States v. City of Yonkers, 856 F.2d 444, 454 (2d Cir. 1988). The power is an ancient one. Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. 505 (1874). See Fox. History of Contempt of Court (1927); Beale, Contempt of Court, 21 Harv. Law. Rev. 161, 169-70 (1908).

January 14, 2006

4

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 5 of 14
Defendants own experts,” the Court found STS to be a dangerous environment for its vulnerable residents, subjecting them to serious harm, and concluded that Defendants were in contempt:
Indeed, STS's systemic flaws have caused many residents to suffer grave harm, and, in several instances, death.
931 F.Supp. at 983-984 (footnotes omitted). The Special Master was appointed to formulate a remedy, and to monitor and report on Defendants’ compliance.
II. The Remedial Plan’s Habilitation Provisions.
The Special Master submitted the Remedial Plan with the consent of the parties. The Plan was adopted by the Court’s Order of April 21, 1998. The 313 page comprehensive plan contemplated a transformation of STS. It addressed Habilitation in detail, both directly and indirectly. At Court Requirements 43, 44 and 52, the Remedial Plan required adequate Habilitation.7
Court Requirements 43, 44 and 52, mandate that:
• Clients’ “individual and group training and programs” must be evaluated at least annually. CR 43, EC 3.
• All clients must be provided the Habilitation programs defined in their individual Overall Plan of Service. CR 43, EC 4.
• All clients who need a day program must be in a day program which “meet[s] each client’s needs.” CR 44, EC 1 and 2.
• Work programs must be provided to “all individuals in need of” a work program. CR 44, EC 3.
• There must be “consistent implementation” of Habilitation programs. CR 52, EC 3.
• Habilitation programs must be “available” and clients must be referred to them. CR 52, EC 4.
III. Defendants’ Non-compliance Continued in 1998-2001.
In 1998, 1999 and 2001, Defendants were found to be in continued non-compliance with Habilitation requirements.
Defendants were found to be in non-compliance with the Habilitation requirements in the master’s preliminary 1998 Compliance Review. Again, non-compliance was found in the

7 Many other provisions relate to Habilitation as well, e.g., those on behavior plans, psychotropic medication, restraints, case management, and those which on structural elements such as professional and direct care staffing. Those provisions have previously been released from active judicial oversight.

January 14, 2006

5

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 6 of 14

1999 Compliance Review by a national team of experts.8 Defendants did not request an evidentiary hearing to contest those fact findings and they were accepted .9
Several months after the experts’ report the master noted that Defendants’ own report on CR 43 “corroborates the existence of compliance issues in the area of habilitation,” showing both low rates for client engagement and also lower than desired compliance for CR 43, EC 4 (clients receiving OPS-mandated training).10
In 2001, another national expert compliance review took place.11 The Special Master proposed a team of ten (10) consultants to review CR 43, 44 and 52 on Habilitation (he soon after revised the number to nine (9)). Defendants’ objection to the size of the team was overruled by the Court by Order of August 30, 2001, finding: “The court is persuaded that the Special Master’s proposal is reasonable and that a reduction in the number of reviewers would result in a longer period of review with very little effect on the cost of the review.” The Habilitation Review site visit occurred on October 15 – 19, 2001.
On January 8, 2002, the Special Master disseminated the consultants’ report on the 2001 review. The report found non-compliance with all habilitation requirements, except that the consultants found compliance with Court Requirement 44, EC 1 (all clients who need a day program must be in a day program).12
Defendants’ data corroborated this negative conclusion in an important dimension. A vital measure of Habilitation is adequacy of the day/vocational programs provided to STS residents. About the time of the master’s expert team review, Defendants acknowledged serious problems in providing consistent day/vocational programs. Defendants describe these programs as a “vital component of the department’s mission.”13 Court Requirement

8 The 1999 Compliance Report was provided to the parties by Special Master’s Order of February 11, 2000.
9 Special Master’s 11th Quarterly Report to the Court at 14-16 (May 10, 2000) details the several occasions at which Defendants declined to request an evidentiary hearing.
10 Special Master’s 12th Quarterly Report to the Court at 15-16 (Sept. 25, 2000).
11 There was no comprehensive review in Fall 2000 because the process established by the Order of July 6, 2000 required Defendants to take the initiative to seek release from oversight.
12 Remedial Plan at 233; Habilitation Review 2001 (January 8, 2002) at 21.
13 Court Requirement 44: Day/Vocational Programs:
The availability of day programs for persons who are mentally retarded is a vital component of the department’s mission. Like residential settings, day programs must be developed to meet individual client needs. Therefore, the department is committed to the development of programs designed to promote client growth and independence and to provide an array of day program opportunities, emphasizing employment, coupled with the necessary support to increase and maintain living skills.

January 14, 2006

6

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 7 of 14

44, EC 2, mandates that “all of these Day Programs meet each client’s needs.” These individualized programs are intended to “promote client growth and independence.”14 At the end of 2001 and beginning of 2002, STS “acknowledged, and was seeking to address, a very high and unacceptable rate of STS-based day service cancellations.”15 “Nearly all of the 630 STS clients attend a day or vocational program. From April to December, 2001, on a monthly basis, 14% to 24% of individual clients’ ‘day services’ have been cancelled.” 16 STS’ own “goal” or acceptable rate of cancellations was 5%. Thus, the 14% to 24% cancellation rate was grossly unacceptable.
IV. The Joint Committee Adopts the 2002 OPS/Habilitation Initiative
In their January 29, 2002 joint report, the parties agreed “not to engage in a detailed analysis of the consultants’ [2001] various findings” and Defendants “expressed a willingness to address [the concerns raised in the Habilitation Report.]”17
On May 1, 2002, the parties met with the Special Master, Dr. Guy Caruso, one of the writers of the Habilitation Report for the master, and Maria Laurence, expert for the United States. During the meeting, the parties agreed that the Special Master would convene a “Joint Committee” to make “specific proposals” for “improvement” of habilitation at Southbury Training School.18 The parties agreed that Guy Caruso, Maria Laurence and various staff from STS, including Kathy Hanewicz, Director of Family Support Services, and Kevin McCullough, Assistant Director of Clinical Services, would constitute the Joint Committee.
The Special Master on May 6, 2002 postponed compliance determination proceedings on Habilitation to permit the Joint Committee to come to the table with remedial proposals.
The Joint Committee’s issued its report August 7, 2002.19 It adopted an unprecedented initiative to be implemented by Defendants, an effort later to be described as a “sea change” by Defendants’ expert, and a “cultural change” by a Defendant official. Among the steps in the initiative were:
1. Introduction and utilization of a revised personal assessment in the OPS process.

Remedial Plan at 233.
14 Ibid. 15 Special Master’s 17th Quarterly Report to the Court at 12 (Mar. 2, 2002). 16 Special Master’s 17th Quarterly Report to the Court at 12-13 (Mar. 2, 2002).
17 Ibid. at 2-3. Defendants filed a separate response regarding the Habilitation Report on February 8, 2002. See Defendants’ Response to “Habilitation Report.” (February 8, 2002).
18 Special Master’s Order of May 6, 2002 at 1, n. 1. 19 The Joint Committee Report is Attachment F to the Special Master’s 19th Quarterly Report to the Court (Sept. 10, 2002).

January 14, 2006

7

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 8 of 14

2. Modifications to the OPS meeting process and the OPS documentation.
3. Introduction and utilization of additional QA process for the OPS meeting and OPS documentation.20
Defendants’ plan projected a completion date of January 31, 2004 to “expand the pilot” throughout STS. The plan came to be known as the OPS/Habilitation Initiative.
V. The Special Master Accepts the OPS/Habilitation Initiative.
The Special Master accepted what he described as the “dramatic and sweeping” OPS/Habilitation Initiative in his 19th Quarterly Report to the Court (Sept. 10, 2002).
Defendants have launched a dramatic and sweeping revision of the habilitation planning and implementation processes, one so extensive that Defendants understandably expect it will not be expanded to all STS residents until January 2004.21
A pilot for six residents was in place by that time. The master stated that, “It is hoped that this initiative will remedy the deficiencies identified by the consultant team almost a year ago.”
The master concluded: “This Habilitation Plan is perhaps the most significant undertaking by Defendants (apart from quality assurance) since the appointment of the Special Master.”22
VI. STS Layoffs Delay the Habilitation Hearing.
Subsequently, a hearing on compliance with the Habilitation requirements was scheduled, and then continued, numerous times, generally on the request of one or both parties.23 To expedite the process, and shorten the hearing, the master ordered that the scope of the hearing would be limited to the new Initiative and the results of the 2001 compliance review.24
At that point, an unexpected event occurred which threatened to derail the progress which was being made. Beginning December 6, 2002, Defendants notified the Special Master of the Governor’s decision to lay off several thousand state employees, including nearly 100 STS employees. The Governor is a named Defendant. The Court and master concluded

20 Ibid.
21 Special Master’s 19th Quarterly Report to the Court at 17 (Sept. 10, 2002).
22 Special Master’s 19th Quarterly Report to the Court at 18 (Sept. 10, 2002) (emphasis added).
23 See, for example, Special Master’s 20th Quarterly Report to the Court at 9-10 (Dec. 19, 2002).
24 Defendants contended that, apart from the then-limited Initiative, no relevant improvements had been made in Habilitation since the 2001 expert review. Therefore, they were precluded from contending that 2001 conditions no longer prevailed. See Special Master’s Order of November 27, 2002 at 3 note 5.

January 14, 2006

8

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 9 of 14

that Defendants’ layoff plans raised serious compliance concerns and urged Defendants to reconsider the layoffs.25 During a status conference with the parties on January 21, 2003, it was decided to postpone the habilitation hearing so that the effect of the layoffs might be considered.
In its Order of February 25, 2003, the Court stated: “It is regrettable that Defendants would choose to make cuts of important staff who are responsible for some of Defendants’ most fundamental obligations, thereby potentially delaying the conclusion of this case.” The Court directed the Special Master to consider the effect of the layoffs in making future compliance determinations and to reconsider “any related prior compliance determinations in light of the layoffs.” This direction applied to “any remedial orders which the Special Master may ascertain are affected by the layoffs, even if there was previously a determination of compliance.”26
The Court on February 25, 2003 acknowledged that its order would require the master to reschedule proceedings and conduct supplemental compliance reviews with the relevant consultants. On February 25, the master continued the Habilitation Hearing until May 21, 2003 to permit consideration of the effect of the layoffs. The Court overruled Defendants’ motion to reverse the order.
In response to the Court’s order, the master invited the parties to send representatives to a Monday, March 10, 2003 meeting of independent consultants to consider the possible effects of the layoffs on compliance.27 On Friday afternoon, March 7, Defendants informed the master that they would not participate in the meeting.
VII. The Master’s Consultant Rates the OPS/Habilitation Initiative Positively.
In mid-January, 2003, Jaylon Fincannon submitted his report on the Habilitation Initiative, finding that the Initiative’s strategies were “comprehensive and if implemented as stated, will result in the successful implementation of a more person-focused approach to the provision” of habilitation at STS.28 Defendants themselves found that the Initiative

25 See Special Master’s January 7, 2003 memorandum to Defendants, Attachment C to the Special Master’s 21st Quarterly Report to the Court (Mar. 20, 2003).
26 Ruling of March 11, 2003 at 2 (denying Defendants’ motion for clarification and reconsideration of Order of February 25, 2003 on the layoffs).
27 Defendants’ request to delay this meeting was denied as moot. Ruling of March 11, 2003 at 4, n.4.
28 Fincannon, Person-focused Overall Plan of Service Enhancement Initiative (Jan. 13, 2003) at 4, filed with Special Master’s Order of January 17, 2003.
The Special Master’s independent consultants on June 2, 2003 completed a review of the impact of staff reductions on Habilitation and Case Management. Special Master’s Order of June 10, 2003 Filing Consultants’ June 2, 2003 Report, Impact of Staff Reductions on Habilitation and Case Management. The layoffs, it was determined, were problematic with regard to compliance with the remedial orders.

January 14, 2006

9

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 10 of 14

imbued STS with an “enhanced sense of meaning and purpose” and the individual planning process was now “infused with a new ‘energy.’”29
On October 28, 2003, after an extensive hearing on case management, the Special Master applauded the OPS/Habilitation Initiative. He found that Defendants were “providing person centered plans to STS residents pursuant to the OPS Initiative, which is the vehicle Defendants have chosen for the mandatory person centered planning” under the Case Management Plan.”30 However, at that point, with implementation slow, less than 100 of the then approximately 600 STS residents had had the benefit of the Initiative and Defendants were reporting that it would take two years, not one year, to bring the Initiative to all STS residents.31
VIII. Compliance Resolution Is Delayed.
On June 5, 2003, the parties provided the Special Master with an agreement “to resolve disputes” regarding Habilitation. The agreement called for at least two further reviews of the Habilitation Initiative by Jaylon Fincannon (who had been appointed by the master as a consultant). Rather than settle the dispute, the proposed Agreement actually put off the merits of this litigation indefinitely. It provided no timeline and did not require review of actual compliance. The master permitted the parties to resubmit an agreement32 and they informed him that they would keep him informed of any progress.
In light of the above, the hearing was continued again to June and then July, and then to September 8, 2003, and then continued sine die without objection from the parties and after extensive discussion with them.33 The parties informed the Special Master at the September 11, 2003 parties’ meeting that they had agreed on November 17, 2003 as the date to start the Habilitation hearing. The Special Master concurred. The parties requested yet another delay and the master continued the Habilitation hearing sine die on November 20, 2003, ordering a status report from the parties in 2004.34

29 Special Master’s 22d Quarterly Report to the Court at 11 (July 8, 2003) (quoting Defendants May 28, 2003 assessment of the OPS/Habilitation Initiative.
30 Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 52 at 31 (Oct. 28, 2003) (decision on Case Management Plan compliance).
31 Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 52 at 31 (Oct. 28, 2003) (less than 100 new OPSs). Between the summer of 2002 and the April 14, 2003 parties’ meeting, Defendants reported that just 20 people had the personal assessments for the new OPS, including the 6 in the pilot. Special Master’s 22d Quarterly Report to the Court at 10-11 (July 8, 2003).
32 June 10, 2003 Special Master’s Order on the June 5, 2003 Parties’ Joint Agreement to Resolve Disputes Concerning the Court Requirements on Habilitation.
33 Special Master’s Order of May 13, 2003; Special Master’s Order of June 23, 2003. At the parties’ request, the hearing was later continued sine die and the parties requested to provide suggested dates. Special Master’s Order of September 2, 2003.
34 Defendants at first objected to a delay beyond January 2004, but later withdrew their objection.

January 14, 2006

10

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 11 of 14

On February 17, 2004, the parties proposed an agreement to the Court to end the Remedial Plan compliance proceedings without further Court adjudication or determinations by the Special Master. As to Habilitation, the parties again proposed that Jaylon Fincannon conduct another review and report to them. The Habilitation hearing before the master (and other proceedings which might require hearings) were held in abeyance by the master pending decision by the Court on the “agreement” which ultimately was revised several times and never quite finalized.
The Court disapproved the agreement by Order of July 21, 2005, finding that it had occasioned needless delay:
The parties’ machinations over the last 17 months has done little to advance the process begun under the Remedial Plan to purge the finding of contempt against the Defendants and has done little to advance the interests of Southbury Training School (“STS”). The Court is confident that, had the process continued without the hiatus occasioned by the parties’ representation that a settlement agreement was forthcoming, mot, if not all, of the remaining requirements would have been released by now.35
The Court that day also directed the master to proceed to make all outstanding compliance determinations.
IX. The 2005 Compliance Evaluation.
On Habilitation, the master appointed the parties’ repeatedly chosen expert, Mr. Fincannon, to conduct the review, but Defendants objected, claiming that he might be unfair to them.36 To move the matter forward, the Court accepted another suggestion of the parties to serve as the Special Master’s retained consultant. He was Dr. Edward Skarnulis, a developmental disabilities expert who had served the Court in an STS-related matter. The Special Master has known Dr. Skarnulis professionally for many years and was confident in his ability to assess the results of the OPS/Habilitation Initiative.
The report by Dr. Edward Skarnulis, Habilitation Services at Southbury Training School, was filed with the Special Master’s Order of November 15, 2005.
With the OPS/Habilitation Initiative now implemented across STS, the consultant review found compliance with the Habilitation requirements. The Special Master agrees.

35 Defendants appealed the Court’s ruling. This is the first appeal filed since the approval of the Remedial Plan.
36 Special Master’s Order of September 6, 2005 (appointing Mr. Fincannon); Order of September 30, 2005 (sustaining objection); Special Master’s Order of October 7, 2005 (appointing Dr. Skarnulis).
Defendants’ allegations against Mr. Fincannon were hardly credible since Defendants had repeatedly endorsed and suggested Mr. Fincannon, and had urged the Court to appoint him as someone who would render a fair acceptable judgment.

January 14, 2006

11

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 12 of 14

The report emphasizes that Habilitation encompasses a productive and active approach, one called “active treatment” under the requirements of the federal-state ICF/MR program which funds STS. Habilitation means “…measures taken to assist the individual to live a full and productive life…” and it is a “… teaching or instructional model of service, with this didactic function included in order to enhance the skills and personal self-sufficiency of people with developmental disabilities.”37
Dr. Skarnulis reviewed and observed a sample of 49 residents (close to 10% of the population), 23 female and 26 male. The youngest was 40 and the oldest was 82 years old. The median age was 56 and the mean age was 58. Only 11 of the 49 were in their 40s. In both age and other characteristics, the sample mirrored the STS population as a whole.
The report found that the required person centered planning was reflected in residents’ daily lives.
We were concerned that their OPS’s reflected individuality and uniqueness rather than all having been prepared in ways that made them indistinguishable from one another. What we found was that the level of cognitive or physical ability didn’t translate into “cookie cutter” Plans. Each was unique and reflected individual strengths, abilities, needs and wants, which in turn were translated into individualized goals for the coming year.38
There were no waiting lists for programs. Echoing the Remedial Plan’s attention to the aging of STS residents, Dr. Skarnulis noted the special attention which is merited in the Habilitation provided to these residents.39
While STS programs are not cutting edge or innovative,40 they are focused on the individual and, through the OPS/Habilitation Initiative, the programs generally (though

37 Skarnulis Report at 9.
38 Skarnulis Report at 12.
39 The Remedial Plan required an Aging Plan in light of the fact that admissions to STS are, and will be, closed, and that services for elder people with developmental disabilities is especially challenging. Dr. Skarnulis commented:
The age of the population correlates directly with issues involving habilitation, both currently and in the future. With advancing age, health becomes more central to program planning. The ability to do strenuous physical labor is reduced. Reduced stamina, vision and hearing need to be considered in individual plans. OPS documents reflect team consideration of these issues. Some clients have chosen to retire and some have a reduced number of hours of day programs provided by staff that go to their residential settings.
Report at 12.
40

January 14, 2006

12

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 13 of 14
not universally) are meeting the needs of the residents of STS as detailed in the Remedial Plan’s Habilitation requirements.41
X. Conclusion
Defendants were adjudicated in contempt in 1996 for failure to meet the Habilitation requirements (among others) of the 1986 Consent Decree. They made a renewed commitment to specific Habilitation requirements in accepting the 1998 Remedial Plan.
From 1998 to 2001, however, Defendants remained in non-compliance with regard to Habilitation although, by the end of that period, they were willing to discuss alternative approaches to achieving compliance.
In 2001, the Special Master suggested that a Joint Committee with representatives of the master and the parties might formulate a successful strategy. The parties agreed and, in early 2002, after amicable and thoughtful work, the Joint Committee recommended the OPS/Habilitation Initiative as a means to transform Habilitation planning and implementation at STS.
Describing it as a “dramatic and sweeping” and “perhaps the most significant undertaking by Defendants (apart from quality assurance),” the Special Master endorsed the OPS/Habilitation Initiative which, at the time, was expected to be complete by January

None of the campus-based programs observed is what might be considered “cutting edge” or innovative. Workers at the Farm are doing pretty much what was being done during the early years of institutions (circa 1860present). Similarly, restaurants such as Leonardo’s and the Gatehouse [at STS], were being operated in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and other states as early as the 1970’s. It should be noted, however, that there is one significant difference between the examples noted above and STS. Historically, farms, restaurants, work crews, work stations in industry and other places of employment employed people who were classified as mild, or “borderline” intelligence (a classification level abandoned by the AAMD in the mid-1970’s)). In other words, they were very capable individuals who required relatively little supervision. However, many of the individuals employed in such settings by STS fall into the moderate to severe ranges of mental retardation and receive much more supervision by STS and community agency staff.
Report at 18-19.
41 Dr. Skarnulis’ work papers show that he evaluated Defendants to be in compliance for the vast majority of requirements for the vast majority of the clients in his sample. There were few exceptions. The Remedial Plan does not demand perfection. The Special Master makes a positive compliance determination when clients are not harmed and there is an absence of uncorrected systemic issues, even in instances of spotty insignificant deficiencies. Remedial Plan at 8.

January 14, 2006

13

Report to the Court No. 60

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1373 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 14 of 14
2004.42 It took Defendants until about September, 2005 -- more than a year and a half longer -- to expand the initiative fully to all STS residents.43
It is a pleasure to report that, finally, with Defendants having taken 3 ½ years in its development and implementation, the OPS/Habilitation Initiative benefits all the residents of STS. The Initiative’s vision impressed the Special Master when it was adopted in 2002, was applauded by the master’s consultant in its infancy in 2003, and now in its maturity is found to have successfully transformed care at STS.
The Court has noted that “[t]he OPS/Habilitation Initiative is designed to move from “deficit driven plans to planning from peoples’ strengths and preferences, ... to a personfocused model.”44 It represents what Case Management Director Kathy Hanewicz described as a “culture change” for STS; Ms. Hanewicz explains that “we are attempting to get a total different mind-set in people.”45 The master is hopeful that this change will be sustained.
Recommendation. For the above reasons, the Special Master recommends that the Court release from active judicial oversight all outstanding Remedial Plan requirements regarding Habilitation.
The OPS/Habilitation Initiative has now been implemented successfully.
The following Remedial Plan requirements are due for release: CR 43, EC 3 and 4; CR 44, EC 1, 2 and 3; CR 52, EC 3 and 4; and CR 14, EC 2.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________ David Ferleger Special Master January 13, 2005

42 Special Master’s 19th Quarterly Report to the Court at 17-18 (Sept. 10, 2002).
43 In late 2003, about 100 residents were covered by the Initiative. This number had increased to 465 of 572 residents by June 30, 2005, and to 508 of 568 residents by August 31, 2005. See Court’s Order of November 22, 2005 at 23.
44 Court’s Order of November 22, 2005 at 23.
45 Cited at Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 52: Case Management at 27-28 (Oct. 28, 2003).
Ms. Hanewicz deserves special mention and praise here. She was responsible for the thoughtful yet energetic expansion of the Initiative across STS, insisting at all times on quality, rather than mere numerical or paper success.

January 14, 2006

14

Report to the Court No. 60

 
 Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., :

Defendants. :

NO. 3:86CV252(EBB)

RULING ON MESSIER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE REMEDIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AND IN THE STATE’S APPEAL

The class representatives ("intervenors") in Messier v. Southbury Training School, No. 3:94CV1706(EBB), have moved this Court to intervene as of right, pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 24(a), because, they allege, they have an interest relating to the issues in this lawsuit and the disposition of this action without their participation "may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect that interest." Motion to Intervene at 1. Additionally, the intervenors have moved for permissive intervention, pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 24(b)(2), asserting that intervention "will ensure a prompt and fair resolution of the outstanding issues in the remedial process and appeal, rather than unduly delay the resolution" of this action. Motion to Intervene at 1. For the reasons set out below, the motion [Doc. No. 1334] is DENIED. BACKGROUND
The background of this action has been extensively set forth in prior rulings, and is noted briefly here only to give context to the motion to intervene.

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 2 of 10
On September 11, 1985, following an investigation by the United States Department of Justice under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq., Plaintiff brought this action against the State of Connecticut, the Governor, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR"), and the Director of STS, pursuant to CRIPA. In lieu of litigation, the United States and various Connecticut officials entered into a Consent Decree which this Court so ordered on December 22, 1986.
The Consent Decree required the Defendants to submit an Implementation Plan, which was adopted by the Court on July 21, 1988. Eight years later, Defendants were found in contempt of the Consent Decree and the Implementation Plan. United States v. State of Connecticut, 931 F. Supp. 974 (D. Conn. 1996), appeal dismissed, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21006 (2d Cir., June 13, 1997). The Court appointed a Special Master, and a Remedial Plan [Doc. No. 188] was developed by the Special Master and adopted by the Court on April 21, 1998. Since that time, the parties, along with the Special Master, have proceeded to review the outstanding Remedial Plan requirements and recommend release where appropriate. In the interim, the parties negotiated and presented to the court a settlement agreement ("the Joint Agreement") which proposed an alternative means of resolving the few outstanding issues. This Court disapproved that settlement agreement on July 21, 2005. Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the disapproval with the
2

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 3 of 10
Second Circuit on September 16, 2005. The United States elected not to join that appeal. The Defendants have not moved to stay proceedings in this Court pending the appeal, and as of the date of this ruling, only a few Court Requirements remain to be released. This Court anticipates that full compliance with the Remedial Plan shall be achieved in the first quarter of 2006.
The Messier plaintiffs have sought participation in this action in one form or another four times previously; each time, this Court denied permission. On October 27, 1986, the Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., now known as ARC/Connecticut, along with six named plaintiffs (residents of Southbury Training School) sought to intervene in this case. That motion was denied by this Court on December 22, 1986.
Subsequently, on October 6, 1994, ARC/Connecticut along with eight representative plaintiffs filed a separate action, Messier v. Southbury Training School, No. 3:94CV1706(EBB), and on that same date filed a motion to consolidate Messier with United States v. Connecticut. This Court denied the motion to consolidate on March 5, 1996.
On November 22, 2002, the Messier plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene, which motion was denied by this Court on January 7, 2003.
And, on April 27, 2004, the Messier plaintiffs filed a motion for permission to file a brief as amici curiae in opposition to the United States’ motion for determination regarding the Joint
3

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 4 of 10
Agreement. This Court denied that motion on June 24, 2004. STANDARD A. Intervention as of Right under FED.R.CIV.P. 24(a)
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties. FED.R.CIV.P. 24(a). See also Brennan v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir. 2001); Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 2001); New York News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 485 (2d Cir. 1992). "For an interest to be cognizable under Rule 24(a)(2), it must be ‘direct, substantial, and legally protectable.’" United States v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins. Co., 271 F.3d 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1990)) (citations omitted). "Intervention is a procedural device that attempts to accommodate two competing policies: efficiently administrating legal disputes by resolving all related issues in one lawsuit, on the one hand, and keeping a single lawsuit from becoming unnecessarily complex, unwieldy or prolonged, on the other hand." United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3rd 66, 69 (2d Cir. 1994). The court has discretion in
4

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 5 of 10
determining when intervention is appropriate. Washington Elec. Coop., 922 F.2d at 97.
Timeliness Whether an application is timely is a decision within the discretion of the district court. The Second Circuit has held that among the circumstances courts should consider are: "(1) how long the applicant had notice of the interest before it made the motion to intervene; (2) prejudice to existing parties resulting from any delay; (3) prejudice to the applicant if the motion is denied; and (4) any unusual circumstances militating for or against a finding of timeliness." Id. at 70. Here, both the United States and the State of Connecticut argue that the Messier plaintiffs’ motion to intervene is not timely in that the movants knew of the Court’s consideration of the Joint Agreement for over a year and did not seek to intervene until now. The movants argue that granting the motion will not unduly delay or prejudice the rights of the parties to this action "in that only a vigorous opposition to the State’s appeal will ensure the prompt completion of the remedial process." Motion to Intervene at 6. The remedial process has continued to operate during the pendency of the State’s appeal; the State has not sought to stay proceedings in the district court. Intervention at this late date, when the parties and the Court anticipate full compliance with the Remedial Plan in the first quarter of 2006, will inevitably lead to a delay in these proceedings, thereby significantly prejudicing the existing parties. The Court finds no
5

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 6 of 10
prejudice to the Messier plaintiffs if the motion is denied on timeliness grounds. As oft stated by this Court in the rulings on the Messier plaintiffs’ prior motions to participate in this action, the Messier plaintiffs can and are pursuing their Constitutional rights in a separate action.
Impairment of Messier plaintiffs’ ability to protect their interests The intervenors also claim that the disposition of this action will impair or impede their ability to protect their interest because the United States entered into a settlement agreement "that does not accord proper deference to the Remedial Orders, . . . the parties have been found to have needlessly delayed the remedial process by seventeen months, and . . . [because] the parties have decided to pursue an appeal rather than bring this matter to a prompt conclusion." Mem. in Support at 24. This Court never held that the parties needlessly delayed the remedial process by seventeen months, and, although the State has appealed this Court’s disapproval of the Joint Agreement, the United States has not joined that effort and neither party has moved for a stay of the proceedings in this Court. Thus, review of compliance with the Remedial Orders is ongoing, and intervention at this time, shortly before this Court expects this litigation to be resolved, either along the path followed since the Remedial Orders were issued or through the appeal of the denial of the settlement agreement, will lead to a delay which would itself likely impair intervenors’ ability to protect their interests.
6

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 7 of 10
Interest adequately represented by existing parties The intervenors assert that "where a proposed intervenor’s interests are otherwise unrepresented, the standard for intervention is no more burdensome than the standing requirement." Mem. in Support of Motion to Intervene at 20. Nearly nineteen years ago this Court found that the Connecticut Association for Retarded Citizens and six individual residents at STS failed to overcome the presumption that representation by the government in the context of this CRIPA action is adequate. See Ruling on Pending Motions [Doc. No. 34] at 6-7 (December 22, 1986). Nothing has changed in the intervening years to cause this Court to find intervention by the Messier plaintiffs should be permitted. As the Second Circuit has cautioned, "we have demanded a more rigorous showing of inadequacy in cases where the putative intervenor and a named party have the same ultimate objective." Butler, 250 F.3d at 179 (citation omitted). Here, the Messier plaintiffs assert that only they can adequately represent the interests of class members, in that, under CRIPA, the "Attorney General does not directly represent any institutionalized plaintiffs, and the authority granted him is in no way intended to preclude, delay or prejudice private litigants." Mem. in Support of Motion to Intervene at 24-25. This Court stated as much in its December 22, 1986 ruling, noting that "these parties remain free to pursue any individual claims they may have concerning the conditions at STS in a separate action" because 42 U.S.C. § 1997j specifically disclaims
7

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 8 of 10
any expansion or restriction on the rights of private parties to enforce legal rights granted them by existing law. See Ruling on Pending Motions at 7, 2. The government has proceeded under CRIPA since 1986 to ensure the constitutional rights of persons institutionalized at STS. Only the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, is authorized to initiate a civil action under CRIPA. The intervenors have pursued their own private action to remedy unconstitutional conditions at STS and to address issues of community placement. "Where there is an identity of interest between a putative intervenor and a party, adequate representation is assured." Washington Elec. Coop., 922 F.2d at 98. Though the approach and motivation may be different, both the United States and the Messier plaintiffs seek to correct constitutional deficiencies in the care of persons institutionalized at STS. "[A] putative intervenor’s interest is not inadequately represented merely because its motive to litigate is different from that of a party to the action." Id. Intervenors fail to overcome the presumption that representation by the United States in this CRIPA action is adequate. B. Permissive Intervention under Rule 24(b)
Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider
8

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 9 of 10
whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. FED.R.CIV.P. 24(a). The Messier plaintiffs also seek intervention because they assert that issues of fact and questions of law in Messier are common to those in this action, especially under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Intervenors argue that their participation will serve the ends of judicial economy and that no compelling argument can be made that their intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the rights of the existing parties to this action. Mem. in Support of Motion to Intervene at 26-27. Intervenors allege that Defendants have not purged themselves of contempt since 1995. Defendants have made great progress toward compliance with all outstanding Court Requirements in the Remedial Plan and this Court anticipates that full compliance will be achieved in the first quarter of 2006. To now allow the Messier plaintiffs to interject new issues into this litigation would not serve the ends of judicial economy. Even if intervention would serve the ends of judicial economy, this Court must deny permissive intervention as inevitably it will lead to an unnecessarily complex and protracted process in this action, thereby prejudicing the rights of the existing parties. See Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d at 69. CONCLUSION Having found that the intervenors’ interest is adequately represented by existing parties, the Messier plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene in the Remedial Proceedings in the District court and in the State’s Appeal [Doc. No. 1334] as of right under FED.R.CIV.P.
9

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1357 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 10 of 10 24(a) is DENIED.
Having also found that intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the existing parties, the Messier plaintiffs’ motion for permissive intervention under FED.R.CIV.P. 24(b) is also DENIED.
SO ORDERED. ______________________________ ELLEN BREE BURNS, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated at New Haven, CT, this ____day of December, 2005.
10

 
 Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., :

Defendants. :

No. 3:86CV252(EBB)

Ruling on Communication Services Compliance

Before the Court is the Special Master’s Report to the Court

No. 57: Communication Services Vol. 4 [Doc. No. 1244] (“Report”), filed April 6, 2005,1 Defendants’ objections to the Report, the

United States’ responses to Defendants’ objections and Defendants’ reply to the second United States response.2

The Report is submitted pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 53 and the

July 30, 1997 Order of Reference [Doc. No. 152] and includes the

evidentiary record of the hearings on Communication Services at

Southbury Training School ("STS") held October 8-10, 2003, October

16-17, 2003, and November 12, 2003 before the Special Master, and

the Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

1Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services consists of four volumes: Volumes One through Three contain the evidentiary record from the hearings on Communication Services held October 8-10, 2003, October 16-17, 2003, and November 12, 2003, including hearing transcripts and exhibits, and Volume Four is the Special Master’s Report and recommendations to the Court.
2Defendants’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services [Doc. No. 1260]; United States’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report to the Court Number 57: Communication Services [Doc. No. 1261]; United States’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 57 and Court’s Order Dated November 23, 2005 [Doc. No. 1372]; Defendants’ Reply to the United States’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 57 and Court’s Order Dated November 23, 2005 [Doc. No. 1384].

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 2 of 32
The Report finds Defendants in non-compliance with the Court
Requirements (“CRs”) pertaining to the Communication Services
aspect of Habilitation in that the Special Master determined that
Defendants have not provided “minimally adequate habilitation” in
the area of communications in two respects: 1) Defendants do not
have a formal fidelity mechanism to ensure program implementation,
required, the Special Master finds, under professional standards,
and 2) Defendants must double the professional speech-language
pathology staff to meet “minimal standards.” See Report at 2. As
a remedy, the Master recommends this Court enter an order requiring
Defendants to establish a formal fidelity mechanism, hire an
additional three professional speech-language staff (with a
subsequent needs assessment to be undertaken by the Master) and
submit a written plan for achievement of compliance.3 The Special
Master’s findings are general; he does not make specific findings
of non-compliance that relate to each of the CRs pertaining to
3The Master’s Report recommends an order be entered: “1) Requiring that a fidelity mechanism be established at STS to ensure that the Communications Services aspects of Habilitation programs are implemented professionally and administered reliably, and that written programs are, in fact, implemented in accordance with professional speech/language standards[;] 2) Requiring additional professional speech/language professional staff, adding at least three such staff to enable the service improvements described earlier.A These additional staff should be added now, with a full needs assessment regarding staffing needs to be undertaken thereafter by the master[;] [and] 3) Requiring Defendants to immediately submit a written plan for achievement of compliance with the above mandates within twenty-five (25) days, said plan to be subject to review, approval and modification by the master.” Report at 29. AThe Master’s suggested service improvements include: 1) an increased presence of SLPs in day programs and residences; 2) a more active role for SLPs in the resident’s programs and COPS guidelines; 3) an increased number of teaching strategies for residents; and 4) more active monitoring of programs. Report at 3.
2

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 3 of 32
Communication Services – CRs 27, 43, 44 and 52. Background
The background of this action has been extensively set forth in prior rulings, and is noted briefly here only to give context to the Communication Services compliance issues.
On September 11, 1985, following an investigation by the United States Department of Justice under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §1997 et seq., Plaintiff brought this action against the State of Connecticut, the Governor, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR"), and the Director of STS, pursuant to CRIPA. In lieu of litigation, the United States and various Connecticut officials entered into a Consent Decree so ordered by this Court on December 22, 1986.
The Consent Decree required the Defendants to submit an Implementation Plan, which was adopted by the Court on July 21, 1988. The Implementation Plan refers to specialty medical and therapeutic services, including, inter alia, “speech pathology” and notes the following tasks and timetables: “Recruit to fill available PT/OT speech positions or convert positions to contracts to purchase services ... continuous recruitment; Establish six (6) scholarships through STS Foundation and Home and School Association to support OT/PT/Speech professional training in exchange for commitment to work at STS ...
3

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 4 of 32

completed.” Implementation Plan at 39. The Implementation Plan noted that as of May 1987, “contracts with private providers in the disciplines of occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech pathology total approximately 40 hours of service per week.” Id. There are no other references to speech pathology in the Implementation Plan.
Eight years after the Court adopted the Implementation Plan, Defendants were found in contempt of the Consent Decree and the Implementation Plan (“the remedial orders”). United States v. State of Connecticut, 931 F. Supp. 974 (D. Conn. 1996), appeal dismissed, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21006 (2d Cir. June 13, 1997). The Special Master was appointed by the Court, and a Remedial Plan [Doc. No. 188] was developed by the Special Master with the parties’ consent and adopted by the Court on April 21, 1998. The Remedial Plan explicitly refers to Speech Therapy only once, in Court Requirement (CR) 27, which essentially adopts the language from the Implementation Plan with regard to recruitment of Occupational Therapy/Physical Therapy and Speech positions.4 The

4
Court Requirement 27 Occupational, Physical and Speech Therapy

27. Occupational, Physical and Speech Therapy (formerly 29)
Compliance Provisions

Recruit to fill available OT/PT and speech positions or convert positions to contracts to purchase services. IP VI, p. 39. Seek innovative methods of recruiting staff and arranging contracted therapy services. IP VI, p. 40.

1. Desired Outcome

All OT, PT and Speech positions will be filled in a timely fashion in order to ensure an appropriate level of therapy for residents.

2. Threshold

Full

3. Evaluation Criteria

1. Are all contract and state therapy positions filled? 2. Is recruitment ongoing? 3. Is there a list of potential applicants on file?

4

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 5 of 32
desired outcome of that CR is that “positions will be filled in a timely fashion in order to ensure an appropriate level of therapy for residents.” Remedial Plan at 212. The Special Master found that Habilitation encompassed Communication Services and it was determined that a review of Habilitation would encompass speech/communications services under CRs 43, 44 and 52.5 See

4. Review Methods
Remedial Plan at 212.

List of available (funded) vacant therapy positions and list of filled positions. Conversion of contract and state part-time hours into FTEs. Interviews and observations.

5
Court Requirement 43 Training Programs (EC 3, 4)

43. Training Programs (formerly 107)

Procedures for periodic evaluation shall exist and be implemented regarding training program needs, including habilitation, and sufficient hours of training programs shall be provided. CD V.3, p. 10. IP V, ¶. 21-25, 37.
Compliance Provisions

1. Desired Outcome

a. Individual and group training and programs will [be] implemented and regularly evaluated. b. Sufficient hours of such programs will be provided.

2. Threshold

High

3. Evaluation Criteria

3. Are clients’ individual and group training and programs being evaluated at least annually and recommendations made? 4. Are all clients provided those group training/education opportunities as defined in their OPSs?

4. Review Methods

Monthly tracking of data input form. OPSs and OPS reviews. Training program content. Interviews and observations.

Court Requirement 44 Day/Vocational Programs (EC 1-3)

44. Day/Vocational Programs (formerly 111)

“The availability of day programs for persons who are mentally retarded is a vital component of the department’s mission. Like residential settings, day programs must be developed to meet individual client needs. Therefore, the department is committed to the development of program designed to promote client growth and independence and to provide an array of day program opportunities, emphasizing employment, coupled with the necessary support to increase and maintain living skills.” IP VI, p. 37.
Compliance Provisions

1. Desired Outcomes

All clients who need Day Programs have Day Programs which meet their individual needs.

2. Threshold

High

5

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 6 of 32
Report to the Court No. 21 (Revised): Scope of Work for Consultant Review at 6 n.A [Doc. No. 545].
Subsequently, five expert reviews of the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation were ordered by the Special Master, with four reviews by Dr. Stephen Calculator (one in 1999, two in 2001 and one in 2003) and one review by Dr. Joe Reichle (2003). Defendants enlisted two expert reviews by Dr. Paul Cascella (both in 2003).

3. Evaluation Criteria
4. Review Methods

1. Are all clients who need day programs in a day program[?] 2. Do all of these Day Programs meet each client’s needs[?] 3. Are work opportunities provided to all individuals in need of such[?]
Day Program Database of Day Program Enrollment Day Program Database: Field to identify if specific Day program is a match for the client’s needs. In addition, referral list with time limitations identified for inclusion in a changed day program when the client’s needs change. Day Program database with fields identified: Work need and Work involvement. Interviews and observations.

Court Requirement 52 Implementation of Training Programs (EC 3, 4)

52. Implementation of Training Programs (formerly 67)

Consistently implement programs to protect residents from risks to personal safety and unreasonable restraint. This applies both to habilitation programs under the OPS generally and to behavior programs. 4/24/90 Order 1(V), ¶. 9-10.
Compliance Provisions

1. Desired Outcome

Provide residents with consistent implementation of safe programs that minimize restraint use. Programs are both individual and also client training/education programs to teach clients to protect themselves from risks to personal safety and unreasonable use of restraints.

2. Threshold

High

3. Evaluation Criteria

3. Do assessment of staff by interview and/or sample observations confirm that there is consistent implementation? If implementation is not acceptable, have corrective steps occurred? 4. Are training/education programs for clients available and are clients referred to those programs?

4. Review Methods

Review residents identified from Consent Decree as ‘priority’ for compliance with program. Interviews and observations.

6

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 7 of 32
Defendants’ Position Defendants object to the Report on several grounds.
Defendants argue that the Special Master and his experts used the incorrect constitutional standard when determining compliance and supplanted the professional judgment of the communications staff at STS. Defendants also assert that they were denied due process because the Reichle report was considered by the Special Master without Reichle being available for cross-examination at the hearing and without his report being admitted into evidence. Furthermore, Defendants argue that the record does not support the Special Master’s findings that more Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) are needed at STS and a formal fidelity mechanism must be in place for Defendants to be compliant with the Remedial Plan, Consent Decree and Implementation Plan. Defendants also argue that it was inappropriate for the Special Master to allude to other possible deficiencies in communications programs that might be reviewed in the future without making specific findings that such deficiencies exist. Finally, Defendants assert that the Special Master did not consider all relevant evidence, including the ICF/MR surveys. United States’ Position
The initial response from the United States to Defendants’ Objections came in May of 2005, during the period the parties were urging this Court to accept the proposed settlement of this action.
7

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 8 of 32
At that point, the parties were attempting to reach a consensus regarding Communication Services, and the United States, without stating its position regarding compliance, requested that the Court defer a decision on Communication Services until the parties reached an agreement. See United States’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services [Doc. No. 1261]. Subsequently, this Court disapproved the parties’ settlement agreement and all outstanding aspects of the Remedial Plan were set for compliance determination.6 This Court then ordered the United States to file an updated response to Defendants’ objections. Plaintiff’s second response concurs with the findings of the Special Master and moves this Court to find Defendants not in compliance with the Remedial Plan regarding Communication Services. See United States’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 57 and Court’s Order Dated November 23, 2005 [Doc. No. 1372]. Plaintiff United States argues that the Special Master applied the correct standard of review, appropriately referenced the findings of his experts, considered all relevant evidence, and that the record supports his findings that a needs assessment of communications services staffing is required and that a fidelity and reliability mechanism is necessary under the Court Requirements.
6See Ruling on Parties’ Final Revised Joint Agreement for Release of the Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight [Doc. No. 1283].
8

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 9 of 32
Standard of Review The Master’s Report was filed pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 53 on
April 6, 2005. Rule 53 was amended on December 1, 2003. Under the amended Rule, the Court must review de novo the findings of fact objected to by either party “unless the parties stipulate with the court’s consent that the master’s findings will be reviewed for clear error.” FED.R.CIV.P. 53(g)(3)(A). The Court also is charged to review de novo all “objections to conclusions of law made or recommended by a master.” FED.R.CIV.P. 53(g)(4). “In acting on a master's order, report, or recommendations, the court must afford an opportunity to be heard and may receive evidence, and may: adopt or affirm; modify; wholly or partly reject or reverse; or resubmit to the master with instructions.” FED.R.CIV.P. 53(g)(1).
Because this Court’s review is de novo, it is not limited to the Master's findings of fact, nor need this Court show the findings any particular deference. Finance One Public Co. Ltd. v. Lehman Bros. Special Financing, Inc. 414 F.3d 325, 341 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, a Master’s legal conclusions are entitled to no special deference. Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 (1982). The Court finds that the record is sufficient for a compliance determination without a further hearing.
9

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 10 of 32
Discussion The Court commends the Special Master for the time and care
with which he undertook a review of Defendants’ compliance with the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation. Having reviewed the Master’s findings and conclusions de novo, this Court holds that the Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that Defendants are non-compliant with regard to Communication Services are not supported by the evidence. For the reasons set out below, this Court finds Defendants are in compliance with the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation, and all Court Requirements pertaining to Communication Services are hereby RELEASED from active judicial oversight.
Compliance Standard Defendants maintain that the Special Master and his experts incorrectly imposed “minimally adequate professional standards” upon them in assessing compliance, adding new obligations not envisioned by the parties during the creation of the Remedial Plan. Defendants argue that the appropriate standard is contained in the Court Requirements and that, if the constitutional standard were applicable, it would be the Youngberg v. Romeo “substantial departure” standard rather than the “minimally adequate” standard referenced by the Master. See Defendants’ Objections at 2-7. In finding STS deficient in the area of Communication Services, the Master notes that Defendants are not providing “minimally
10

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 11 of 32
adequate habilitation in the communications area.” Report at 2. He notes further that Defendants’ criticisms of the standard of review used by Dr. Calculator are misplaced because Calculator’s 1999 review stated as its purpose “determining whether services ‘are minimally adequate, according to current professional standards and professional judgment,’ (the classic Youngberg v. Romeo test).” Report at 14.
Report to the Court No. 21 (Revised): Scope of Work for Consultant Review set forth the following standard for the review of Communication Services by the Special Master’s expert:
“This expert review will include, when appropriate under a given Evaluation Criterion, a determination of whether the professional judgment of STS staff meets standards, defined as:
A decision . . . that is not such a substantial departure from accepted professional opinion, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible did not base the decisions on such professional opinion, practice or standards.” Report to the Court No. 21 (Revised) at 8. The standard set forth above is in essence that set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322-23 (1982). In Youngberg, the Supreme Court held that an individual committed to a state institution for the mentally retarded “is entitled to minimally adequate training [habilitation].”7 Id. at 322. The Court explained as follows:
7The Court interchanges “training” and “habilitation” and references the American Psychiatric Association definition of habilitation: “The word habilitation, . . . is commonly used to refer to programs for the mentallyretarded because mental retardation is . . . a learning disability and
11

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 12 of 32
[T]he minimally adequate training required by the Constitution is such training as may be reasonable in light of respondent’s liberty interests in safety and freedom from unreasonable restraints. In determining what is ‘reasonable’. . . we emphasize that courts must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional. . . . [T]he decision, if made by a professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.
Id. at 322-23.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court cited approvingly the concurring
opinion of the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
that “the Constitution only requires that the courts make certain
that professional judgment in fact was exercised. It is not
appropriate for the courts to specify which of several
professionally acceptable choices should have been made.” Id. at
321.
The Second Circuit, in analyzing the Youngberg decision, agreed
with the result suggested by Justice Blackmun’s concurring opinion
“that an individual has a due process right to training sufficient
to prevent basic self-care skills from deteriorating.” Society for
Good Will to Retarded Children v. Cuomo, 737 F.2d 1239, 1250
(1984). “[P]rofessional judgment” is a standard that assesses
“whether a particular decision has substantially met professionally
training impairment rather than an illness. [T]he principal focus of habilitation is upon training and development of needed skills.” Youngberg at 309 (alterations in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
12

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 13 of 32
accepted minimum standards.” Id. at 1248. Constitutional norms are not to be determined by the “professional judgment” of experts at trial; rather, “constitutional standards are met when the professional who made a decision exercised ‘professional judgment’ at the time the decision was made.” Id. “The ultimate issue is whether patients’ basic liberty interests are being safeguarded, not whether the optimal course of treatment as determined by some experts is being followed.” Id.
Thus, residents of STS are entitled to minimally adequate habilitation services to safeguard their basic liberty interests, not optimal services, and in deciding what is reasonable, this Court must show deference to the judgment of STS professionals in implementing Communication Services under the Remedial Plan absent a showing that their decisions are “a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.8
The Scope of Work for Consultant Review of Communication Services explicitly stated that the expert reviewer would make, under a particular Court Requirement Evaluation Criterion, a determination of whether the professional judgment exercised by the STS staff was not such a substantial departure from accepted professional standards, opinion or practice as to show that the
8The Court assumes that in meeting the requirements of the Remedial Plan, Consent Decree and Implementation Plan with regard to the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation, the Defendants meet the constitutional minimum requirement regarding the provision of training [habilitation].
13

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 14 of 32
decision was not based on such professional standards. See Report to the Court No. 21 (Revised) at 7-8. The Master found that Defendants did not provide “minimally adequate habilitation.” The Master notes that Dr. Calculator’s reports found that “services do not meet professionally adequate standards for meeting the needs of the clients” at STS. See Report at 13-14. And, as the Master notes, Dr. Reichle and Dr. Calculator found staffing to be “substantially insufficient.” Report at 15. However, neither the Special Master nor his expert reviewers found that the provision of Communication Services at STS was a “substantial departure” from accepted professional standards.
In commenting on the compliance findings of the experts, the Special Master determines that the evidence from Defendants’ expert, Dr. Paul Cascella, “is not particularly useful in determining compliance.” Report at 12. The Special Master finds that Cascella did not seek to demonstrate that Communication Services were provided with “minimal professional standards,” and that Cascella failed to “look behind STS’ evaluation of clients’ needs” and showed “blind uncritical deference” to Defendants’ professional judgments. Id. at 13. The Special Master notes that Dr. Calculator explicitly addressed compliance with the Remedial Plan, and that his evidence is persuasive. Id.
14

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 15 of 32
Staffing The Special Master concludes that the number of professional speech-language pathologists at STS is insufficient. He finds that the “credible expert reports and testimony” and findings from “two experts of unquestioned credentials” (the Special Master’s two expert reviewers, Drs. Calculator and Reichle) establish that professional staff should be doubled to meet minimal standards. Report at 2. He notes further that Dr. Calculator had expressed concern over the staffing levels at STS as far back as 1999, and that Dr. Reichle found the speech-language pathology staff to client ratio “not acceptable by any reasonable standard of service.” Report at 16, 24-25. Dr. Calculator suggested that additional SLP staff would allow the following: 1) an increased presence of SLPs in day programs and residences; 2) a more active role of SLPs in client programs; 3) an increased number of teaching strategies for clients; and 4) more active monitoring of programs. Report at 25-26. The Special Master recommends that the Court order the addition of 3 SLPs to enable these same “service improvements.” Report at 3. However, 1) neither expert conducted a staffing needs assessment before making these determinations; 2) neither expert cited a professional standard regarding ratios or staffing levels from which Defendants were substantially departing; 3) neither expert cited a single case where a resident of STS failed to receive speech-language services and the professional
15

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 16 of 32
staff failed to provide an “appropriate level of therapy” under CR 27; and 4) neither the Consent Decree, the Implementation Plan nor the Court Requirements in the Remedial Plan set forth a particular speech-language pathologist-to-client ratio or require such “service improvements.” The Court finds no reason to discount Dr. Cascella’s reports and testimony as not credible, and notes that his credentials were similarly never in question. The Special Master faults Dr. Cascella for not examining the workload or responsibilities of the professional communications staff, Report at 13, but the Scope of Work for Consultant Review of Habilitation does not entail an examination of workload or responsibilities. Furthermore, neither Dr. Calculator nor Dr. Reichle examined the workload or responsibilities of the SLPs. Dr. Calculator’s June 2003 report suggests that the addition of SLP staff will lead to a proportionate increase in the number of teaching strategies at STS. Report Vol. 3 at 209 (United States’ Exh. 1).9 And, Dr. Calculator concluded, without any individual assessment, that the large number of residents at STS not using any form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) evidenced a violation of the professional principle that individuals for whom speech is not a
9Dr. Calculator backed away from this claim on cross-examination. And, in his October 2001 report, Dr. Calculator stated that the majority of files he had reviewed did not contain communications teaching strategies. Defendants reviewed the same 13 files and found that: 1) seven of the files did contain teaching strategies; 2)three files contained recent evaluations indicating no need for a teaching strategy; and 3) the remaining three residents were verbal and could communicate clearly, obviating the need for communication teaching strategies. Report Vol. 3 at 22 (Defendants’ Exh. 3).
16

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 17 of 32
viable method of communication should be considered candidates for
AAC. Report Vol. 3 at 214 (United States’ Exh. 1). Dr. Calculator
testified that he has no knowledge of anyone at STS who was not
considered for AAC, and that there was no professional literature
regarding the percentage of residents at STS who should have been
using AAC to which he could refer. Report Vol. 1 § III at 83. Dr.
Cascella and Defendants’ SLP staff testified that teaching
strategies and the use of AAC must be based upon individual
assessment of residents. Thus, a compliance determination based,
inter alia, on assumptions that such individuals were never
considered for AAC without an individual assessment or without
inquiring of STS professional staff whether they were evaluated, is of little use to the Court.10 The opinions of Drs. Reichle and
Calculator with regard to the provision of Communication Services
at STS reflect dissatisfaction with the service delivery model at
STS and a preference for interventions that would be more consistent with a “direct service” model.11 The Remedial Plan
10See Report Vol. 1 § III at 68: Dr. Calculator’s June 2003 report queried as to why Charles K. was “not having a more complex AAC system with voice output” and “would he benefit from picture software.” However, Dr. Calculator neither evaluated Charles K. nor inquired of any SLP whether or how he had been evaluated for AAC needs.
Similarly, Dr. Calculator’s observation that it was problematic that 39 AAC devices remained unused in storage is not helpful for compliance determination without evidence that any individual needing and potentially benefitting from such a device was denied the opportunity to be trained on or use such a device.
11Dr. Calculator’s dissatisfaction with the model at STS is evidenced in his statement that he found the model of service delivery at STS was inconsistent with accepted practice. Report Vol. 1 § III at 156.
When asked if he thought the staffing of SLPs was sufficient, he answered that it was not adequate in order to do everything that had been
17

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 18 of 32
requires no specific model of service delivery. See Report to the
Court No. 21 (Revised), Remedial Plan Court Requirement 27. Dr.
Cascella testified that “Southbury has a model for doing person-
centered individualized communication assessment, communication
programming, and that system needs to be respected.” Report Vol.
1 § II at 80.12 It is inappropriate for the Court to determine
which of several professionally acceptable choices in service
delivery should be made. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321.
recommended [by him]. Report Vol. 1 § III at 154. The communication services system at STS can be described as a modified
consultative/collaborative model. The model is consultative to the extent that service recommendations are made based upon evaluations by SLPs and residential support staff are primarily responsible for implementing habilitation programs. The model is collaborative in that interdisciplinary team members work together to provide a range of communication services to meet the individual’s needs. Report Vol. 1 § I at 99-100; Report Vol. 2 § IV at 161-62, 199-200. In contrast, a direct service model usually employs a Speech-Language Pathologist working one-on-one or in small groups with an individual, most often on a weekly basis. Report Vol. 1 § I at 100. The consultation model is found across most work settings that employ SpeechLanguage Pathologists. Report Vol. 3 at 153 (Defendants’ Exh. 13).
See also Report Vol. 1 § III at 72-73. There are numerous instances where Dr. Calculator made suggestions for service improvements for which he could cite no professional standards to support such suggestions and which were above and beyond the requirements of the Remedial Plan. For example, Dr. Calculator criticized STS for typically failing to complete a follow-up evaluation on a resident after an evaluation had already been completed and there was a subsequent referral, yet he could cite to no specific instances where that occurred nor could he cite to any professional standard that required such action. Among other service improvements he found necessary for compliance but for which he could cite no professional standard nor any Court Requirement were: “[a]ll referrals to the communications department will prompt a visit by the SLP to the day habilitation and/or residential program; and “[a]nytime a change in program is implemented, the SLP will visit the client’s day program and residence to initiate the new program.”
12As Cascella noted, a communication assessment looks at the individual, examining care-giver patterns, environmental factors, the opportunities that are given to people to communicate, whether people are given opportunities to participate in making decisions about their own life, and whether communication training or intervention can give them that capacity. Report Vol. 1 § II at 78-79.
18

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 19 of 32
With regard to staffing needs, the Special Master notes that
the Director of STS Clinical Services, Nedra Navage, acknowledged
that the needs of an aging population at STS may result in
increased speech therapy needs. Report at 21. However, in his
February 2001 review of Communication Services, the Master’s
consultant, Dr. Calculator, stated that “[a]s the population
continues to age, the need for communication services may
diminish.” Report Vol. 3 at 233 (United States’ Exh. 2). Dr.
Calculator explains this as follows:
[T]here are many senior citizens at STS whose communication skills have not changed in years, despite intervention, and whose skills are adequate in their residences and day programs. Rather than implementing communication interventions, these individuals would benefit more from participation in social groups, where communication is integrated for purposes of enhancing the pleasure they receive from social interactions. There are also individuals with severely limited communication skills, whose skills have not changed in years despite various forms of intervention. Once this is documented, there may not be a need for communication services other than those provided in conjunction with the OPS review (the same would hold for some members of the elderly population). In the event of a change in communication status/ability, either positive or negative, these same individuals would become priorities for communication services.
Report Vol. 3 at 233.
And, even if the aging population at STS develops increased speech
therapy needs, there was no evidence presented that more staff
would be required to meet those needs.
At the time of the hearings, STS had 4.5 full-time-equivalent
(“FTE”) SLP positions authorized in the Communications Department.
19

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 20 of 32
One position was vacant, so there were 3.5 FTEs. See Report Vol. 2, § V at 207. The Special Master adjusted these hours to account for the administrative duties of Linda Kane-Hahn, the Supervisor of the Communications Department, and calculated a FTE figure of 2.8. See Report Vol. 2, § V at 208. Defendants’ latest Quarterly Report states that one full-time SLP position has remained open since August of 2005, with recruitment efforts ongoing, and one position was filled in November of 2005. See Thirty-Fourth Quarterly Compliance Report [Doc. No. 1387]. Nedra Nevage, the Director of Health Services, testified at the hearing that STS has had difficulties recruiting SLPs for the Communication Department because there are not many speech and language professionals interested in working with the population at STS. Report Vol. 2 § V at 23-24. The Court recently ordered Defendants to provide updated and detailed information on the efforts to recruit and hire a Speech-Language Pathologist to fill the vacancy created in August of 2005 [Doc. No. 1394]. Defendants have submitted such information, and the Court is satisfied that such efforts show full compliance with the requirements of CR 27. See Defendants’ Response to Order Dated March 8, 2006 [Doc. No. 1395].13 The Court
13When fully staffed, STS has a complement of 4.5 FTE SLPs. Since STS has found it difficult to recruit a half-time SLP, they have been working since May 2005 to fill 5.0 FTE positions. Defendants have worked with a national contractor to advertise and recruit for SLP positions, and that contractor has placed advertisements in the professional journals serving SLPs as well as engaged in direct marketing to a few thousand SLPs in New England and the Northeastern United States. The contractor has also used a telephone bank to contact approximately 500 SLPs a week to solicit interest in working for the contractor (who would then provide the SLP service to STS). The SLP
20

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 21 of 32
expects that Defendants shall continue to make their best efforts to fill vacancies, as they arise, up to the level of 5.0 FTE Speech-Language Pathologists.
At the hearings, the Communications Department Supervisor Linda Kane-Hahn testified that, in her professional opinion, STS has maintained compliance with the Court Requirements pertaining to Communication Services, and that current staffing meets the needs of the residents at STS, based on her own experience and feedback from her staff of SLPs. Report Vol. 2 § V at 183, Report Vol. 3 at 179 (Defendants’ Exh. 16). One of the SLPs, Carleen Bell, stated that Communication Services at STS meet accepted professional standards, and she and her colleagues are responsive to the needs of the STS residents, meet their job requirements and have no problems keeping up-to-date with their work. See Report Vol. 1 § II at 139-140, 203, 218-219. Another SLP, Victoria Murren, testified that the model of service provision at STS serves the residents’ best interests, and that STS is in compliance with the Court Requirements. Report Vol. 2 § VI at 107-108; Report Vol. 1 § II at 278. While acknowledging this testimony, the Special
who began work in November of 2005 resigned in February of 2006, leaving a vacancy of 1.5 FTEs. Subsequently, Defendants received the curriculum vitae for another SLP from the contracting agency, and Defendants have represented that they expect that candidate will shortly join the Communications staff, leaving a 0.5 FTE vacancy. Defendants will continue to recruit for another full-time-equivalent SLP to bring the complement up to 5.0 FTEs, and maintain that all speech-language needs of the residents at STS are being met in accordance with accepted professional standards in the interim. Defendants believe a complement of 5.0 FTEs will allow them to “significantly exceed accepted professional standards, as has always been the goal of STS.” Defendants’ Response to Order Dated March 8, 2006 at 1-4.
21

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 22 of 32
Master gives more weight to the statement of a “Communications Department staff person” that, with their larger caseloads, SLPs are unable to spend adequate time in cottages and are “spread pretty thin.” Report at 23. That staff person is Jim Grenier, a support staff person in the Communications Department, referred to elsewhere in the Master’s Report as someone who “is not a professional; his highest education is high school.” Report at 19. Grenier is not an SLP and his opinion that SLPs are spread thin does not equal evidence of non-compliance with the Court Requirements. The Master also credits the testimony of Dr. Michael Neiman, a contracted part-time SLP, and finds that “Dr. Neiman testified that SLP staffing at the time of the hearing was insufficient, [stating] ‘I feel that the addition of some more staff would be beneficial.’” Report at 24. The Court finds no evidence in the record that Dr. Neiman testified that staffing was insufficient. Dr. Neiman did testify that the addition of more staff would be beneficial, and when asked how many additional positions STS would need to provide appropriate and timely communication services, he stated: “I would say, in addition to the current clinical staff which comprises Linda Kane-Hahn, Carleen Bell and Victoria Murren, another full-time position . . . so an additional 35 hours, whether it be somebody else 35 or would that include me plus whoever else could supplement that to equal 35.” Report Vol. 2 § IV at 44-47. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Kane-
22

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 23 of 32
Hahn’s position was 30 hours per week, and both Ms. Bell and Ms. Murren were full-time at 35 hours. Clearly, Dr. Neiman’s opinion was that the addition of one FTE position would be beneficial, as it would bring STS up to three full-time SLPs in addition to Ms. Kane-Hahn, not that additional staff beyond the authorized complement was needed. Even if Dr. Neiman had meant that the addition of staff beyond the authorized complement of 4.5 FTEs was beneficial, neither the Remedial Plan nor the Youngberg standard require the addition of speech-language pathology staff simply because it would be beneficial.
The Master found that Defendants’ expert Dr. Cascella was in agreement with Drs. Calculator and Reichle that a needs assessment was required to determine how many SLPs are needed at STS. The Master also found that Drs. Calculator and Reichle determined that, at a minimum, the number of SLPs on staff had to be doubled to meet minimal standards of service, prior to any determination through a needs assessment. Report at 24. Dr. Cascella did opine that a needs assessment should occur, but his testimony was that such a needs assessment was not required for or related to a finding of compliance with the Court Requirements of the Remedial Plan pertaining to Communication Services. See Report Vol. 1 § II at 115. Neither Dr. Calculator nor Dr. Reichle cited to any professional standard from which Defendants were substantially departing to justify doubling the number of Speech-Language
23

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 24 of 32
Pathologists at STS. Formal Fidelity Mechanism The Special Master concludes that STS has no mechanism “at any
level” to ensure or demonstrate that communications programs are appropriately implemented. Report at 17, 27. He finds that “a communications program in an OPS is meaningless unless it is faithfully implemented and the speech/language professionals. . . can depend on the reliability of staff reports of both implementation and the client’s response to the program.” Report at 15. He further asserts that the Defendants’ expert witness Dr. Cascella, the Special Master’s consultants and STS staff all state that there is no method in place at STS to ensure fidelity and reliability of communications programs, and that such a system should be put in place. Report at 15, 17.
Court Requirements 43, 44 and 52 do not require a formal fidelity mechanism with regard to Communication Services, or any particular type of system to ensure fidelity and reliability. Training Programs under CR 43 must be evaluated at least yearly to ensure that the opportunities provided are those defined in each resident’s Overall Plan of Service (OPS). Day Programs under CR 44 must be developed, implemented and evaluated to ensure they meet each resident’s individual needs. Training Programs under CR 52 must be consistently implemented to protect residents from risks to personal safety and unreasonable restraint. Defendants can
24

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 25 of 32
evaluate the effectiveness of the programs under CR 52 through both staff interviews and sample observations. See Remedial Plan at 232a, 233, 250a. Beyond these strictures, the professionals in the Communications Department must determine how best to carry through these requirements based on their professional opinion.
At STS, each resident is assigned to a specific Speech-Language Pathologist’s caseload. A functional communication assessment is conducted on each resident at least every five years by an SLP, more often if a referral is requested. Report Vol. 2 § V at 14344. SLPs receive referrals from numerous sources, including the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), direct care staff, and program supervisors. Report Vol. 3 at 145 (Defendants’ Exh. 12). Contrary to Dr. Calculator’s observation, the evidence established that SLPs regularly visit residents at cottages and day program sites and always personally observe residents when conducting communications assessments. Report Vol. 3 at 145 (Defendants’ Exh. 12), 181 (Defendants’ Exh. 16). A functional communication assessment tool was developed in response to the suggestions in Dr. Calculator’s 1999 report, and both he and the Special Master commended Defendants for developing the tool and Dr. Calculator suggested STS consider publishing the tool. Report Vol. 2 § V at 127-28. Fourteenth Quarterly Report at 12 [Doc. No. 544]. From early 2001 until the time of the Communications hearing, the Communications Department at STS conducted approximately 511 evaluations of
25

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 26 of 32
residents using this tool. Report Vol. 2 § V at 249-251. If the conclusion of a particular evaluation is that a resident will benefit from a teaching strategy,14 and the recommendation is approved by the IDT, the SLP provides the support staff with the behavioral objectives, rationale and basic steps for the teaching strategy. Report Vol. 2 § V at 137-38. The support staff then writes out a teaching strategy which is subsequently edited, reviewed and approved by the SLP. Id. See also Report Vol. 2 § V at 35. The data for teaching strategies and AAC systems is compiled monthly from each cottage and entered into the Quarterly Review form; Jim Grenier notifies SLPs if there are any anomalies. Report Vol. 2 § IV at 88-89; Report Vol. 3 at 177 (Defendants’ Exh. 14). The SLPs review both the tabulated data and the raw data and verify the data recorded by the direct care staff on a quarterly basis. That review is part of the OPS process.15 Report Vol. 1 § II at 258-260; Report Vol. 3 at 144 (Defendants’ Exh. 12).
The Master and Plaintiff United States are correct that, in his testimony, Dr. Cascella agreed that it would be a good practice to have a fidelity mechanism. But, he did not find such a mechanism
14A “teaching strategy” is designed to teach a person a new communication skill that is not in their current repertoire. In contrast, person-specific communication guidelines are developed to ensure that staff will make sure the resident’s existing skills are actualized throughout an individual’s daily routine. Report Vol. 1 § I at 45.
15Under the OPS process, the residential team reviews the habilitation programs for all residents annually, including communication services plans. Additionally, the teaching strategies and other communications guidelines for a particular resident are reviewed by the IDT on a quarterly basis. These are also the OPS guidelines for ICF/MR facilities. Report Vol. 1 § I at 27.
26

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 27 of 32
was required under the Remedial Plan Court Requirements. He expressed concern that there was no staff person “specifically watching staff implement teaching strategies,” but this was not linked to a specific Court Requirement. Report Vol. 1 § I at 96. See also Report Vol. 1 § II at 103-04. The Court agrees that such a mechanism would be a good practice, but it is not required to find compliance. The Master asked Cascella to clarify whether or not such oversight was required under CR 52, to which Cascella replied: “[I]f you look at the overall plan of service in a quarterly review process, you would learn . . . how consistent plans are being implemented.” Id. at 97. Dr. Cascella went on to testify that, although he expressed disappointment that no formal oversight mechanism regarding teaching strategies was in place, “there are other mechanisms in place that guarantee the consistent implementation . . . there are many other mechanisms in place that monitored communication programs.” Id.
Dr. Cascella noted at least eight methods of quality assurance at STS, in addition to the annual and quarterly review process, including: 1) new and ongoing training procedures for communication habilitation, which include proactive methods for supporting communication in residential and vocational settings; 2) a residential program monitoring and quality assurance form which is completed by residential supervisors based on monthly observations of staff that document particular quality of service indicators
27

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 28 of 32
including communication; 3) a “family group system” requiring residential staff members to review and sign off on OPS documentation quarterly, including teaching strategies; 4) a Quality Management Council, whose discussions include issues relating to habilitation services and which meets monthly; 5) Quality Improvement teams which review habilitation issues on the unit level quarterly; 6) a Program Review Committee which meets twice per month and provides oversight of behavior habilitation plans; 7) monthly Quality Enhancement Reviews which assess the quality of residential and day services; and 8) a facility-wide monthly “report card” where the Office of Quality Enhancement and the Quality Management Council review residential data documenting referrals and follow-up sessions for habilitation. Report Vol. 3 at 71-73 (Defendants’ Exh. 6).16 In asking STS staff to detail the teaching strategies employed for individual residents of STS, Cascella found that “the staff members had a good working knowledge of the communication teaching strategies, . . . person-specific guidelines, and that they had a level of sensitivity regarding the ways in which the residents communicated, and they were readily able to interpret idiosyncratic actions and assign communication value to those.” Report Vol. 1 § II at 67-68.
In his testimony, Dr. Calculator agreed with Dr. Cascella that
16Cascella also noted that, in his experience with New York and Connecticut institutions and group home agencies, he has not seen more quality assurance measures than those in place at STS. Report Vol. 1 § I at 86.
28

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 29 of 32
clients are receiving services as defined in their OPS and that none of Dr. Cascella’s opinions are inconsistent with accepted professional standards. Report Vol. 1 § III at 32-34. Dr. Calculator could point to no needed service that was not provided, nor could he show one person who should have had a teaching strategy at STS but did not have one. Report Vol. 1 § III at 58. Dr. Calculator had recommended, in finding “partial” noncompliance, that STS “conduct reliability checks in day programs or . . . residences one time per month” but he agreed that there was no written standard to which he could cite to support such a recommendation. Report Vol. 1 § III at 63-64.
The Special Master stated that a communications program is meaningless unless it is faithfully implemented and the SLPs can depend on the reliability of staff reports as to its implementation and the client’s response. There was no evidence presented at the hearings that any of the programs were not being implemented as intended by the SLPs or that the SLPs could not depend on the reliability of staff reporting.
Compliance with Specific Court Requirements Pertaining to the Communication Services Aspect of Habilitation Under the Remedial Plan, STS must show compliance with the following Court Requirements as they pertain to Communication Services: CR 27 Occupational, Physical and Speech Therapy; CR 43 Training Programs (EC 3, 4); CR 44 Day/Vocational Programs (EC 13); and CR 52 Implementation of Training Programs (EC 3, 4). The
29

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 30 of 32
Special Master made no specific findings for each of these Court Requirements. Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds compliance with each Court Requirement as it pertains to the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation. Nothing at the hearing or in the record casts doubt on Defendants’ self reporting of compliance. There was no evidence presented that training programs were not provided or evaluated under CR 43, or that all residents who need day programs are not provided with such or are not provided with a program that meets their individual needs under CR 44,17 or that training programs are not evaluated or consistently implemented under CR 52. All residents receive the mandated communications evaluation every five years or sooner, the OPS process evaluates and reviews residents’ training needs yearly, all those who need day programs are in one that has been designed to meet their needs, and a variety of Quality Assurance mechanisms guarantee consistent implementation of programs under CR 52. Report Vol. 3 at 71-74 (Defendants’ Exh. 6), 185 (Defendants’ Exh. 19); Report Vol. 1 § I at 27. Furthermore, STS has implemented many of the recommendations made by Dr. Calculator, including the revision of the communication assessment tool, the creation of sign
17Dr. Cascella’s review of communication services with regard to CR 44 determined that more than 99% of STS residents participate in a day program: in 2003, 173 residents attended day programs off-campus, 450 residents attended a day program at STS, 15 residents had home-bound programs, and 5 residents did not attend a day program. Report Vol. 3 at 74 (Defendants’ Exh. 6). As Cascella noted, the IDT meets annually and quarterly to determine if each resident’s day program needs are being met.
30

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 31 of 32

language books for individual residents, and expansion of the AAC

inventory and database.

Ms. Nevage stated that these

recommendations were implemented to improve Communication Services

at STS beyond the requirements in the Remedial Plan, but were not

understood to be necessary to achieve compliance with the Court

Requirements. Report Vol. 3 at 186 (Defendants’ Exh. 19).

Conclusion

The Court finds that, after reviewing the record in light of

the Court Requirements under the Remedial Plan and the

Constitutional standard, STS has not substantially departed from

accepted professional standards in the provision of Communication

Services to the residents of STS and has been in sustained

compliance with the Court Requirements in the Remedial Plan

pertaining to Communication Services. Therefore, this Court must

defer to the professional judgment of the staff at STS under its

modified consultative-collaborative model. “The ultimate issue is

whether patients’ basic liberty interests are being safeguarded,

not whether the optimal course of treatment as determined by some

experts is being followed.” Society for Good Will to Retarded

Children, 737 F.2d at 1248. The Court is assured that the liberty

interests of the residents at Southbury Training School are being

safeguarded with regard to the Communication Services aspect of

Habilitation as envisioned under the Consent Decree, the

Implementation Plan, the Remedial Plan and all associated orders.

31

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1404 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 32 of 32 All Remedial Plan Court Requirements related to the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation are hereby RELEASED from active judicial oversight.
SO ORDERED. ______________________________ ELLEN BREE BURNS, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated at New Haven, CT, this ____ day of March, 2006.
32

 
 Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., :

Defendants

:

No.3:86CV252(EBB)

Order Purging Defendants of Contempt and Ending Active Judicial Oversight Before the Court is the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 62: Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (“Report”) [Doc. No. 1381]. The Court accepts and approves the Report1 and incorporates it into this Order by reference. On September 11, 1985, following an investigation by the United States Department of Justice under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq., Plaintiff United States brought this action against the State of Connecticut, the Governor, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR"), and the Director of Southbury Training School (“STS”) pursuant to CRIPA, informing Defendants that Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that persons residing in or confined to STS were being subjected to egregious and flagrant

1The Court addresses all remaining aspects of the Remedial Plan in this ruling. The Master’s Report to the Court No. 62 did not address Communications as the Master previously found Defendants in non-compliance on that issue, and the matter was still pending before this Court at the time the Master submitted the Report.
The Report contains minor inaccuracies which this Court does not adopt. See e.g. Report at 22, Recommendation 1 – this Court found Defendants in contempt on June 19, 1996.

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 2 of 13
conditions depriving them of their rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. In lieu of litigation, the United States and Defendants entered into a Consent Decree which this Court so ordered on December 22, 1986. The Consent Decree required the Defendants to submit an Implementation Plan, which was adopted by the Court on July 21, 1988.
On June 19, 1996, this Court found Defendants in contempt of the Consent Decree, the Implementation Plan and the Court Orders of April 24, 1990 and December 9, 1991 (collectively the "Remedial Orders"). United States v. State of Connecticut, 931 F. Supp. 974 (D. Conn. 1996), appeal dismissed, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21006 (2d Cir. June 13, 1997). This Court stated that a finding of contempt was appropriate when the Court Orders were clear and unambiguous, the moving party established non-compliance by clear and convincing evidence, and Defendants had not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to comply with the Court Orders. Id. at 976. Plaintiff alleged, and the Court so found, that the Defendants were in contempt of the Remedial Orders in three areas: psychological services, medical services and physical therapy services. Id. The Court found that, although the Defendants’ quarterly reporting showed compliance with over 90% of the Remedial Orders’ requirements, the systemic flaws at STS caused many residents to suffer grave harm, including death. Id. at 983-84.
2

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 3 of 13
To ensure that the purposes of the Remedial Orders would be effectuated, the Court, with the concurrence of the parties, appointed David Ferleger as Special Master under its inherent power to appoint an agent to oversee the implementation of a consent decree.2 A Remedial Plan was developed by the Special Master in conjunction with the parties and adopted by the Court on April 21, 1998. Since that time, the Special Master has proceeded to review the outstanding Remedial Plan requirements and recommend release when compliance has been achieved and sustained. This Court now determines that Defendants have fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of the Remedial Plan, and Defendants are released from the finding of contempt and active judicial oversight.3 The Special Master is discharged from his duties with the gratitude of the Court for his service. The Court Requirements in the Remedial Plan will continue as an injunction, the Consent Decree and Remedial Orders will remain in effect, and this Court will retain jurisdiction until the judgment is discharged, as provided in the Court’s Order of April 24, 1990 [Doc. No. 73].4
The Master’s Report commends Defendants for their successful effort to achieve sustained compliance and highlights priority
2931 F. Supp. 974, 984 (D. Conn. 1996) (citing In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 312-13 (1920); Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. 1985); Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir. 1982)).
3N.L.R.B. v. J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 563 F.2d 8, 16 (2d Cir. 1977). 4Thus, for example, the Court will still receive the quarterly compliance reports as mandated by the Consent Decree until the Consent Decree is terminated. See Consent Decree § VI. 2.A.
3

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 4 of 13
areas, termed “sentinel mandates,” which, based on the last nine
years’ experience, the Special Master finds are “most in need of
vigilant attention” by the State of Connecticut and the United
States to ensure that the Defendants maintain their commitments
under the Consent Decree and Remedial Orders.5 Along with these
sentinel components, the Master expects that the Quality Assurance
Plan, Outcome Expectations identified by Defendants in 2002,6 a
periodic expert evaluation of the Quality Assurance Plan, and the
continuing injunction imposed by the Consent Decree, the Remedial
Plan and the associated orders will serve as the safeguards and
maintenance of effort protections for residents of STS.
The Special Master’s report highlights the progress in each of
the areas he deems priorities. This Court commends the parties on
5See Special Master's Report to the Court No. 62: Safeguards & Maintenance of Effort. These areas are:
A. Habilitation and Case Management B. Staff Training C. Physical Therapy D. Protection from Abuse and Neglect E. Implementation of Behavior Plans F. Aging Plan G. Advocacy H. Medical 6Defendants’ “STS. . . After Judicial Oversight ‘What Dreams May Come’” (Jan. 31, 2002). This document was never filed with the Court; it is referenced in the Special Master’s Report to the Court No. 40: Quality Assurance Plan [Doc. No. 811] and Report to the Court No. 62: Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort [Doc. No. 1381]. The outcomes are as follows: 1. Good health and good health management; 2. Freedom from undue restriction or restraint; 3. Meaningful and enjoyable activities, commensurate with one’s
capacity and stamina; 4. Opportunity for personal growth and development; 5. Minimization of untoward events; 6. Engagement with friends, family, staff and peers; and 7. Safety.
4

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 5 of 13
the progress made in those areas, and specifically notes below the compliance achieved in the three broad areas which were the focus of this Court’s finding of contempt in 1996.
Physical Therapy In 1996, this Court found the provision of physical therapy services at STS to be below professional standards, mainly due to grossly inadequate staffing. Only seventeen of the 244 residents receiving physical therapy services were receiving such services from a licensed physical therapist. Among other shortcomings, guidelines to assess staff competence to provide physical therapy services were nonexistent, no methodology existed to document the provision of services, and residents were in danger of receiving physical therapy services from incompetent persons. In short, residents were at risk of receiving “ineffective, useless, and detrimental therapy.” 931 F. Supp. 974, 983. The Remedial Plan required Defendants to provide appropriate physical therapy within 30 days of a referral, and mandated that clients would receive treatments ordered by physicians and implemented by physical therapists as well as procedures recommended by therapists and implemented by assigned persons. Extensive record-keeping was mandated, and Defendants were required to document service provision as well as the monitoring of that service provision. The same consultant who found deficiencies prior to the contempt proceeding reviewed services in 2001 and found Defendants in
5

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 6 of 13
compliance with most aspects of the Remedial Plan pertaining to physical therapy. Defendants and Plaintiff thereafter worked cooperatively to address a few areas of concern raised by the consultant. The result of such efforts was the development of STS policies on the implementation of physical therapy intervention programs and client positioning needs, and the recommendation for release of Defendants from all remaining provisions of the Remedial Plan pertaining to Physical Therapy. By 2002, Defendants has been found compliant with regard to physical therapy staffing and the quality of physical therapy provided to residents.
Medical Services The Remedial Orders require the provision of adequate medical care pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional. At the time this Court found Defendants in contempt of the Remedial Orders, patient problems lists were incomplete or inaccurate, record-keeping procedures were below professional standards, there was no adequate medical follow-up for some documented medical concerns, and the elaborate process developed for prescribing medicine worsened the quality of care. 931 F. Supp. at 980-82. The Court detailed the unfortunate errors and appalling examples of inadequate medical care which possibly contributed to the death of one resident. In another instance, the program review committee (PRC), which functioned as the final decision-maker regarding medication, disapproved a psychiatrist’s
6

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 7 of 13
medication request for a particular resident. In effect, “unqualified (e.g. unlicensed) personnel . . . [were] making major decisions regarding pharmacological interventions.” Id. at 982.
In January of 2006, the Special Master’s consultant reviewed the provision of medical services at STS. His report found Defendants in compliance with all remaining aspects of the Remedial Plan pertaining to medical services. See Consultation and Review of Medical Services: Report to the Special Master (“Medical Services Review”) [Doc. No. 1386]. In contrast to the situation in 1996, the consultant found that “the process of maintaining and monitoring the quality of care appears to be well established at STS,” and “the medical staff at STS are extremely dedicated and well-trained,” delivering “high quality medical services to a complex group of patients.”7 The consultant opined that the instrument and process used for quality assurance is appropriate and identifies areas of concern so that corrective action can be taken. Problems regarding the documentation of referrals and timely access to medical specialty services appear to have been
7Consultation and Review of Medical Services: Report to the Special Master at 34. The consultant, Dr. Bauer, also noted that a few of the medical providers at STS opined that the quality of medical care afforded the residents of STS is considerably better than that provided in the general population.
While finding compliance with all outstanding aspects of the Remedial Plan pertaining to medical services, the Court notes that the consultant also made recommendations for further improvement in the delivery of medical services at STS. Such improvements would bring STS above and beyond the requirements of the Remedial Plan. This Court assumes that the system in STS is now self-sustaining and that Defendants will strive to improve beyond the period of active judicial oversight.
7

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 8 of 13
resolved with the implementation of effective scheduling and tracking systems for consultations at the STS clinics and in the community and the designation of a community nurse scheduler.
Furthermore, STS has come into compliance on resident problem lists by the inclusion of an Active Problem List (APL) at the front of each resident’s medical chart. These lists were often incomplete or inaccurate at the time of the contempt finding; the consultant found that STS has largely transitioned toward typed APLs that follow a standardized template, thus providing a greater clinical benefit in the opinion of the consultant. Even the few handwritten APLs reviewed were found adequate.
With regard to acute hospital admission services and specialty services, STS has developed a smooth working relationship with two nearby hospitals, and there is an efficient system for emergency transport to hospitals. Each resident’s chart has an emergency packet containing essential information to accompany them to the hospital.
With regard to unscheduled hospitalizations, the consultant found that the rate of hospitalizations does not seem out of the expected range, and the monitoring process in place at STS to evaluate the quality of the process is carried out with “diligence and integrity.” Medical Services Review at 29. The consultant noted that his independent efforts to verify that level of care suggest that “the clinical management of unscheduled admissions is,
8

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 9 of 13
in fact, well done at STS.” Id. at 30. As a result of these findings of compliance and the Special Master’s recommendation that the Court release the outstanding Remedial Plan requirements relating to Medical Services, this Court released Medical Services from active judicial oversight.
Psychological Services In 1996, the Court’s concerns regarding Psychological Services focused on the ineffective implementation of behavior plans, the failure of STS to protect its residents from injury to themselves and unreasonable risk of injury by other residents, the failure of the institution to keep residents actively engaged, and the use of behavioral medication in lieu of training programs and habilitation. STS was conforming to the letter of the Remedial Orders, but not effectuating the spirit and purpose of the orders, and thereby not producing the required results. In stark contrast to the situation in 1996, by August 2005, over 89% of the residents at STS had benefitted from the Overall Plan of Service (“OPS”) Initiative/Habilitation Initiative begun in late 2002. This Initiative was a “best practice” adopted by STS to provide personcentered overall plans, moving away from the old model of deficitdriven planning.8 Additionally, with regard to protection of residents from abuse and neglect, the Special Master’s Report notes the dramatic
8See Ruling on Case Management Plan Compliance [Doc. No. 1347] at 23-25.
9

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 10 of 13
changes at STS that serve to keep clients safer. There are several trained staff working in an autonomous Human Rights Office who conduct extensive and professional investigations and track and analyze trends and cases of abuse and neglect. Follow-up on recommendations from investigations occurs regularly, and incidences of abuse and neglect have declined significantly. And, as the Special Master noted in Report to the Court No. 54: Abuse/Neglect Client Training [Doc. No. 1107], residents of STS are now trained in protecting themselves from abuse and neglect and in reporting such treatment to the authorities.
Furthermore, in contrast to the situation in 1996, where the evidence demonstrated that staff members did not keep the residents actively engaged, the consultant appointed by the Special Master to review Habilitation at STS in November of 2005 found that “[i]n every unit[,] staff (including supervisors) were actively interacting with people, as opposed to congregating together or occupying themselves with administrative tasks.” Habilitation Services at Southbury Training School (“Habilitation Report”) at 11 [Doc. No. 1344 Exh. 1]. And, in contrast to the ineffective implementation of behavior plans at the time of the contempt finding, the consultant found in 2005 that “the level of cognitive or physical ability didn’t translate into ‘cookie cutter’ [Behavior] Plans. Each was unique and reflected individual strengths, abilities, needs and wants, which in turn were
10

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 11 of 13
translated into individualized goals for the coming year.”9 Habilitation Report at 12. The Habilitation Report ended with the following observations: “Every single staff person was positive, engaging with the people they serve, and having fun. . . . We saw lots of little displays of caring that were unexpected.” Habilitation Report at 21. Conclusion
Special Master David Ferleger has effectively rendered a great public service in shepherding this process through to its conclusion. He has submitted to the Court twenty-six periodic status reports, sixty-three numbered topic-specific reports, many special reports and recommendations to the parties, and numerous other analyses.
The Court appreciates the efforts of the United States to bring STS into compliance since the mid-1980s. The Court expects the United States will continue to monitor the welfare of the residents of Southbury Training School well beyond the period of active judicial oversight.
Defendants are commended for the tremendous improvements they undertook in the years since this Court found them in contempt of the Remedial Orders. The dramatic turnaround at STS required commitment, dedicated resources and extraordinary systemic changes
9The consultant noted that 75% of the population at STS is classified in the severe or profound range of disability.
11

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 12 of 13
documented in the record. The contempt finding has resulted in the reform of Southbury Training School mandated in the Remedial Plan and its associated plans and orders. The remedial process has done much to advance the interests of the residents of Southbury Training School. Ten years ago, this Court found systemic flaws at STS which placed residents at risk of great harm, even death. Today, residents of STS are safer and benefit from a state-of-theart model of institutional care as Defendants have met the “adequate care” requirements in the Remedial Plan and, in many instances, gone beyond the court-mandated requirements to provide “best practices.”
For the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The purposes of the Remedial Orders having been
effectuated, Defendants are purged of the contempt adjudicated by the Court on June 19, 1996. 2. Defendants are released from active judicial oversight of all requirements in the Remedial Plan and its associated orders. 3. The Court Requirements in the Remedial Plan will continue as an injunction, the Consent Decree and Remedial Orders will remain in effect, and this Court will retain jurisdiction until the judgment is discharged.
12

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1405 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 13 of 13
4. The obligations of Special Master David Ferleger under the July 30, 1997 Order of Reference are concluded, except that, within 45 days, he shall finalize any administrative details and billing for his and consultants’ fees and expenses.10 SO ORDERED. ______________________________ ELLEN BREE BURNS, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this ____ day of March, 2006.
10 If the balance in the Registry is insufficient to cover these final costs, defendants shall make sufficient deposits to the Registry to that end consistent with the Court’s Order of February 16, 2006 [Doc. No. 1385], modifying the Order of Reference and the Order of August 26, 2005.
13

 
 'I' ~I--
Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1120 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

I"'," 1" !I

,...- ~',

,

!

, '

,
UNI ED STATES OF AMERICA,

I;'
, , .• I

"
l.' '. j ; jj

Plaintiff,

v.

C. A. No. 3:86-cv-252 (EBB)

OF CONNECTICUT, et al.,

Defendants

Order
AND NOW, this -Ll_r-t day of ~~'-~---7_'" ~_~ 2004, upon
con ideration of the Special Master's ~R~e~p~o~r~t~~t~o~t~h~e~~C~o~u~r~t :.:N.:::Oc.:.-jI-.::5..::1:...::c--.:..:M",o;.:::r:...:t:..:a",I",J.=.'t:::.J---=R:.:;e:::.v~i.::e",w ( Feb. 13 , 2 0 04 ), and wit hou t obj ction from the parties, said report is APPROVED and ACC PTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Remedial Plan Response Proocol 11 (Mortality Review) is AMENDED as set forth in Attchment A to this order.
SO RDERED.

Datd at New Haven,

,

200

~---- --~-~~---- --~-~-

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1120 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 2 of 6

oll1es:

II. Mortality
(revised February 13, 2004)

Related Consent Decree Provisions:

1. 'I Training programs professionally designed to reduce or eliminate unre sonable risks to personal safety or unreasonable use of restraints and deve ped by qualified professionals shall be available to all residents whom it is etermined by qualified professionals are in need of such programs in orde .to reduce or eliminate such risks.

2'1 That degree of care shall be provided which is sufficient to protect all resid nts from unreasonable risks to their personal safety both by the cond ct of staff and of other residents, and from unreasonable use of bodily restr ·nt.

3. i Adequate medical care shall be afforded all residents pursuant to the se of professional judgment by a qualified professional.

4. :Behavior Modifying Medications and other medications must be prcts ibed and administered to residents pursuant to the exercise of profe sionaljudgment by a qualified professional.

5. ! Restraints, seclusion procedures and behavior modifying medications, when appropriate, must be administered safely and pursuant to the exercise of pr fessional judgment by a qualified professional.

6. ! The physical environment of the facility shall be improved, as neces ary, so as to insure that it poses no unreasonable risks including fire safet I risks to the personal safety of residents. An unreasonable risk is that wmc is known to exist or should be known to exist, with the exercise of profe sionaljudgment.
, ,
I Specific Outcomes:

Rate: IUse of rate for mortality to be examined in accordance with Remedial Plan arrative section.

Revise per Special Master

Februa 13, 2004

152

Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1120 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 3 of 6
P r A: Response Protocols:
F r the two specific actions required pursuant to Special Master's Report to t ourt No. 51: Mortality Review, documentation of status is required in D fendants' quarterly reports until the action is completed. Post-completion, n further documentation in quarterly reports is required.
D fendants are under an ongoing obligation to implement the procedures mechanisms described in these three actions.
T e two actions are:
A. The Director of Health & Clinical Services shall revise DMR Procedure, I. .PR. 005, Section D (4)(e) to more clearly indicate the regional mortality re .ew committee actions shall include referrals to other state agencies, in estigatory entities (e.g., Office of Protections and Advocacy, Department of Social Services), and may take any other appropriate actions based on fin iugs of the committee.
COMPLETED? Yes No COMPLETION DATE: _ __ Attach documentation and, if not completed, explain status and next steps, and intended completion date.
B. TS shall develop mechanisms for tracking corrective action plans and for USl g data in quality improvement activities.
COMPLETED? Yes No COMPLETION DATE: _ __ Attach documentation and, if not completed, explain status and next steps, and intended completion date.

Re sed per Special Master

Feb ary 13, 2004

153

-'-1
Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1120 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 4 of 6

P Ilrt B: Response Protocols:

T ~e following response protocols will be followed.

C se Identification

N te: When the STS Medical Director or Director of Clinical Services is not p' ~s¢nt or unavailable (due to vacation, day off, illness or absence from the fa ility), and "notification" is required by this Response Protocol, their id n1!ified designee shall be given the notification.

Procedure

Yes No

1. N edical Director notification of death withi two hours of STS notification.
2. S .S Administration notification within two
hour: ofSTS notification. 3. G~ardian notification initiated within two hours !ofSTS notification.
4. ,1l1lJ.ily notification initiated within two hours 'of STS notification. 5. ~MR death report to Director next worki bgdav after death.
6. DiIre¢tor notification ofDMR next working day a er death.
7. Nt Ix:t working day after death, a medical critiq e of terminal medical management.
8. Wthin next 3 working days of the medical
critiq e under Procedure 7 above, a review of relate ~ previous medical care.
9. Ii rector of Clinical Services notification
next,"orking day after death.
10. \ ilithin next working day of notification to Direc or of Clinical Services under Procedure 9 abo e, a nursing critique of terminal nursing m a n a Itrement. 11. ~ithin next 3 working days of nursing critiql e under Procedure 10 above, a review of

Re, sed per Special Master Febjtuary 13, 2004

154

Comments & Date Accomplished

I I
Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1120 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 5 of 6

relat d \previous nursing care. 12. Wi~in next 3 working days of the medical
and nutsing reviews under Procedures 8 and
11 apove, a critique of the findings of the med' ral and nursing reviews.
13. M'prtality Review packet preparation is
rs com leted within 30 days of death.
14.S Mortality Review Committee meeting with n 60 days of death. MRC report
addr ss,es issues of concern, including any
reco jinmendations and follow-up. The ComI:ni~tee shall ensure that checklists and
mort lity review forms shall be reviewed to ensu e that information is accurate and cO~f le~e; medical summaries included in the pack ts shall be signed and dated by the
physi tian.
15. SlS Mortality Review Committee meet ngs shall include discussion among Com jinittee members to clearly identify findir ,gs: and to recommend actions and/or corre ~ti",e actions that will strengthen the quali It' of supports provided to individuals at STS. S"TS shall develop written corrective actio plans when indicated per MRC findin Irs,
16. T eMRC chairperson shall ensure that all findi ~lg:S and recommendations are docUl ~ented on the Mortality Review forms.
17. 1Ihtl STS Mortality Review Committee (MR( ) will report its review findings to the
IMR' within 90 days of the individual's death (see I tocedures 13 & 14 above) and send at least bI1e complete packet to the DMR
liRe Central Office within five (5) business days of
the l\1 review meeting conducted pursuant to Pre I~dlures 14-16 above .. 18. '" !itl~in five (5) business days of receipt of the p cket under Procedure 17 above, the

Re~se<l per Special Master

Febf'aJly 13, 2004

155

,

, ,

I I
Case 3:86-cv-00252-EBB Document 1120

'.

I I

DMl pentral Office Director of Health &

Clin' at Services shall review the packet for

""t iden .fi ation of, and further action required

fo"

rulditionol i"o," 0' concern" If the

Dire(to is not present or not available for the

five (5 day period, his or her qualified

desig~e may perform the review.

19.1Ihe Independent Mortality Review Board

(IME (8) shall review the STS packet at the

next d eduled IMRB meeting.

Filed 02/17/2004

Page 6 of 6

Nursing Revie*~/Title: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (compliance wi~ rrocedures 10 and 11)

Medical Direct~r '

Date: _________

(compliance wit/h ~ll procedures, except Procedures 10, 11 and 17-19)

Central Office Director of Cli~k.l Services

Date: ________

Revl~e1per Special Master Feb,fuarjY 13, 2004

155a

.J

 
 931 F.Supp. 974 (1996)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., Defendants.
No. 3:86CV-00252 (EBB).
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.
June 19, 1996.
975 *975 Mark Masling, Deval Patrick, Iris Goldschmidt, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C., for U.S.
Linsley J. Barbato, James P. Welsh, Attorney General's Office Education/Mental Retardation Dept., Hartford, CT, for defendants State of Conn., William A. O'Neill, Dept. of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith.
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
ELLEN B. BURNS, Senior District Judge.
The Plaintiff United States of America has moved the court to declare the Defendant State of Connecticut officials in contempt of the Consent Decree dated December 22, 1986, and the Court Orders dated April 24, 1990 and December 9, 1991, respectively. For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 1, 1984, the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") notified Connecticut officials of the DOJ's intention to investigate the living conditions at Southbury Training School ("STS"),[1] in accordance with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.[2] On September 11, 1985, following its investigation, the Plaintiff brought an action against the State of Connecticut, its governor, the commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR"), and the director of STS, pursuant to CRIPA. In lieu of litigation, the United States and various Connecticut officials[3] entered into a Consent Decree which this court so ordered on December 22, 1986.
The Consent Decree required the Defendants to submit an Implementation Plan (the "Plan") addressing the procedure they would use to implement the Consent Decree's mandates. This court approved the Plan on July 22, 1988. Subsequent to entering into the Consent Decree, the parties agreed to two additional Court Orders on April 24, 1990 (the "1990 Court Order") and December 9, 1991 (the "1991 Court Order"), respectively.[4]
In November, 1993, attorneys for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, along with various experts, examined STS's conditions. The DOJ's experts included: Dr. Renee C. Wachtel, M.D., Director of Developmental Pediatrics, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine; Dr. Alan E. Harchik, Ph.D.; and Ms. Susan Harryman, Director of the Physical Therapy Department at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, and Instructor in the Department of Pediatrics at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine. All of the experts' findings indicated that STS was not complying with the Remedial Orders. (See Pl.Exs. 4, 8, and 22.)

On June 20, 1994, the Plaintiff sent the experts' findings to the Defendants, together with a letter alleging that the 976 Defendants were not in compliance with the Remedial Orders. The Plaintiff also included a list of *976 actions
that the Defendants should take to remedy the alleged violations.
In response, the Defendants retained a group of experts to examine the Plaintiff's experts' findings, and to make independent findings and suggestions. The Defendants' experts included: Dr. Fred Volkmar, M.D., Professor of Child Psychology at the Yale University Child Study Center; Dr. Henry Schneiderman, M.D., F.A.C.P.; Dr. James E.C. Walker, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, at the University of Connecticut; Ms. Rhea Sanford, R.N., M.S.N., Clinical Nurse Specialist at the John Dempsey Hospital of the University of Connecticut Health Center; and Ms. Karen Green McGowan, R.N., Clinical Nurse Consultant. After the Defendants' experts concluded their examination, counsel for the respective parties met to discuss a possible resolution of the Plaintiff's contempt allegations. The Plaintiff proposed two principle measures to remedy the Defendants' alleged contempt: appointment of a Special Master to increase the level of monitoring of conditions at STS, and a significant reduction of STS's population within three years. Despite extensive discussions, the parties failed to reach an agreement.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed the instant application for an order to show cause why the Defendants should not be held in contempt. This court held four days of hearings on the Plaintiff's application, during which the Plaintiff presented expert testimony regarding the Defendants' alleged noncompliance; and the Defendants presented testimony from several of its employees.
II. DISCUSSION
A. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts have the inherent power to hold a party in civil contempt "to enforce compliance with an order of the court, or to compensate for losses or damages." Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924, 931 (2d Cir.1981) (quoting McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499-500, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949)). Also, 18 U.S.C. § 401 gives federal courts the "power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as ... (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command."
A finding of contempt is appropriate when: (1) the court order's provisions are clear and unambiguous; (2) the moving party establishes noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the defendant has not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to comply. International Longshoremen's Assn. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 U.S. 64, 75-76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 207-08, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967); EEOC v. Local 638, 753 F.2d 1172, 1178 (2d Cir.1985), aff'd 478 U.S. 421, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986). Furthermore, because sanctions for civil contempt are remedial in nature, a court may find a party in contempt, irrespective of whether that party intended to comply with the court's order. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. at 191, 69 S.Ct. at 499-500; Manhattan Industries, Inc. v. Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd., 885 F.2d 1, 5 (2d Cir.1989) (court declares that "sanctions for civil contempt can be imposed without a finding of wilfulness.") (citations omitted).
B. FINDINGS OF NONCOMPLIANCE
At the hearing, and in its papers, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were violating the Remedial Orders in three areas: Psychological services, medical services, and physical therapy services. The court will address each of these areas in turn.
1. Psychological Services
Psychological services are critical to the residents' development at STS. The Remedial Orders set forth in detail numerous requirements regarding STS's psychological services. Among other things, STS is required to provide:

Training programs professionally designed to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks to personal

977

safety or unreasonable use of restraints and developed by qualified professionals ...[5]*977

Consent Decree § I(1). As shown in its compliance reports, STS has developed an overall plan of

services ("OPS") for its residents, thereby complying with the letter of the Remedial Orders.

However, STS fails to satisfy the spirit of the Remedial Orders, as its implementation of the overall

plan of services has not yielded the required results.

For example, STS has a written behavior plan for most of its residents, which, in part, requires psychology staff members to conduct behavior assessments to determine the possible conditions that both lead to and maintain challenging problem behaviors. Yet, STS's records show that assessments are not being performed regularly, and when they are performed, they rarely generate useful information or actions. At the hearing, and in his report, Dr. Alan Harchik explained that many of the behavior assessments he reviewed were several months old, and identical rewrites of previously conducted analyses. (Pl.Ex. 22 at 6.) Further, he noted that of the twenty-one cases he reviewed, there was little relation between the analyses and the treatment procedures. More specifically, he described several cases in which the patients were either not showing any progress or were regressing, but no further action was taken. (Id.)

STS's behavior plans also required staff members to implement an "ignore and redirect" procedure when confronted with maladaptive behavior. Yet, the plans did not specify whether the behavior or the resident should be ignored, what the resident should be redirected to do, or what the staff should do if the behavior continued but restraint was not required. Consequently, "staff members always paid attention to residents when they exhibited problem behavior by making statements to the resident about the problem behavior ... [but failed] to redirect them to something more appropriate or to engage in an alternative behavior or activity." (Id.)

A September, 1994 report on the death of Stanley B. shows clearly STS's delinquency in implementing treatment procedures to address problems discovered during behavior assessments. Stanley B. was one of STS's approximately twenty smoking residents. STS's staff was well aware that he was "a `sloppy' and at times careless smoker who sometimes burned holes in his clothing."[6] However, Stanley B.'s 1993 OPS did not provide any instruction to the staff regarding his smoking habits, or his need for supervision while smoking. (Pl.Ex. 12, Final Investigation Report of Thomas Harmon at 9-10 [hereinafter "Harmon Report"].)

In 1989, STS staff developed an OPS for Stanley B. which established a goal to teach him to extinguish his pipe in a safe manner.[7] To achieve that goal, he had to complete a series of smoking-related tasks, independently, during eight consecutive training sessions. (Harmon Report at 11.) However, only two quarterly reports regarding this goal were found, neither of which indicated that Stanley B. was progressing. Moreover, although a later 978 report indicated a slight decrease in his *978 performance, STS staff did not take any action to address the problem.[8]

On the morning of April 2, 1994, Stanley B.'s clothing caught on fire while he smoked his pipe. As a result, he suffered burns to one-half of his body, and died later that evening.
The Health Care Financing Administration's (the "HCFA")[9] October, 1994 survey also evinces STS's inability to implement its programs effectively. In its report, the HCFA stated that its inspection indicated STS was not providing continuous, aggressive, and active treatment programs. (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 34 Survey at 1.) Furthermore, HCFA noted that its survey was the fourth consecutive survey to yield such results. (Id.) HCFA then discussed several instances in which pica programs[10] for several clients were either lacking, or not being implemented as written at their day programs: (1) A staff interview indicated that Client # 07 ingested a piece of plastic at her day site (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 32 Survey at 5); (2) during a one-hour observation, Client # 09 was observed to ingest feathers from a duster, and lacked involvement in a routine (id.); (3) Client # 08 lacked the implementation of the "eye-gouging" component of her behavior program (id. at 6); (4) Staff observed Client # 08 stick her finger in her eye, but did not redirect her to remove it as indicated in her behavior program (id.); (5) observation and documentation indicated that Client # 02's behavior program to reduce his self-injurious behavior of hitting his head with his hands was not implemented as written (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 34 Survey at 2); (6) a review of Client # 06's behavior data since the implementation of his program designed to prevent incidents of

ingesting cigarette butts indicated that Client # 06 ingested cigarette butts at least seventy-eight times between June 17, 1994 and January 1, 1995 (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA 26 Colony Ct. Circle Survey at 2); (7) STS's failure to implement its procedure to keep toxic substances out of reach of the client resulted in Client # 03 ingesting a water and bleach mixture (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 22 Survey at 2); and (8) although Client # 02 fell three hundred and twenty-four times between January, 1994 and October, 1994, STS lacked programming to address this behavior. (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 34 Survey at 2.)
STS has not only failed to protect its residents from injury to themselves, but has also failed to protect its residents from unreasonable risk of injury by other residents. A cursory review of STS's accident report for the year beginning September 1, 1993 reveals numerous incidents of residents' acts of aggression toward their peers.[11] While the court acknowledges that a facility such as STS is not able to prevent every incident, the court notes that numerous incidents listed in STS's accident reports occurred on several occasions. (Pl.Ex. 20.) [12]
The court, however, finds that STS's accident reports are misleading, when viewed in isolation. When the court 979 juxtaposes STS's reported and substantiated abuse and neglect allegations between 1992 and 1994 with those
*979 of the other institutions in the DMR's six regions, the court finds STS's number to be the lowest. (See, Def.Exs. AB and AC.) Of course, such a comparison does not exonerate STS from its duty to minimize accidents. However, STS appeared to be combating the problem more effectively than any of the other institutions in the region.
Although positive reinforcement is one of the most effective, efficient, and nonaversive procedures available for dealing with such maladaptive behavior, it is not a standard part of STS's behavioral programs. Further, when STS did include positive reinforcement in a behavior plan, attempts by the psychology and direct-care staff to implement the procedure demonstrated a "total lack of understanding of positive reinforcement." (Pl. Ex. 22 at 7.) For example, the staff allowed one resident to perform preferred chores to reinforce appropriate behavior, and directed him to do the same chores when he became agitated. In another case, a resident, who was restrained at least once a day for exhibiting aggressive behavior, received his reinforcement snacks despite his disruptive conduct. Yet another resident's behavior plan called for reinforcement every five minutes, but the staff member did not administer the procedure, reasoning that it does not work. "By not applying the simplest, most basic principles of intervention and positive reinforcement, residents at STS are not receiving a suitable training program."[13] (Pl.Ex. 22 at 7.)
Another flaw in STS's psychological services is its failure to keep its residents actively engaged. Dr. Harchik performed a study across eleven cottages to determine the number of residents engaged at any given time.[14] He found that the residents were "almost never engaged." (Pl.Ex. 22 at 11.) In fact, the average percentage of residents engaged across the eleven cottages was 31%, an extremely low average by professional standards. [15] Instead of engaging the residents in activities, staff members were observed watching TV, talking on the telephone, talking to each other, and engaging in other miscellaneous activities. (Pl.Ex. 22 at 11-13.)
STS has failed to discover and address such systemic defects, because its staff does not execute STS's "review and modify" procedures regularly. Once again, STS is in compliance with the letter of the Remedial Orders, but fails to produce the results. As dictated by the Remedial Orders, STS procedural guidelines require that its staff hold regular monthly reviews of behavior treatments for those residents receiving medication, and that a doctorallevel psychology staff conduct monthly reviews of specific behavior plans ("QA reviews"). Also, an interdisciplinary team is required to perform a quarterly review of all plan objectives. Furthermore, STS's Program Review Committee (the "PRC") is required to review those residents receiving behavior medications at least every two years. (Pl.Ex. 22 at 9.) However, while at least half of the behavior programs he reviewed required modification,[16] the QA reviews performed prior to his report did not recommend modification of any existing behavior plans.[17] (Pl.Ex. 22 at 9.)
Finally, the Defendants violate the Remedial Orders by administering behavioral medication in lieu of training 980 programs. The Defendants' own expert found that STS administered psychotropic medications for behavior *980
problems when behavioral programs were more appropriate. Dr. Fred Volkmar found that:

Psychiatric services at STS appeared to be entirely focused on issues of medication ... Essentially, there appear to be no psychiatric services other than those related to medications, e.g., no in-service training, no supervision, no psychotherapy, no consultation regarding psychiatric aspects of medical conditions, and so forth. Psychiatrists are not really active members of the treatment teams but rather are brought in as, in effect, outside consultants. The psychiatric consultations are not well integrated with other aspects of the rehabilitation and medical program.
This has had the unintended effect of "marginalizing" psychiatry at STS with consequent implications for the quality of service which is provided.
Report of Dr. Fred R. Volkmar at 6 [hereinafter "Volkmar Report"].
B. Medical Services
The Remedial Orders require that STS provide adequate medical care to all of its residents.[18] Several of the experts' reports and STS compliance reports reveal that STS has established a substantial number of medical programs. However, clear and convincing evidence shows that the Defendants' medical services at times violate the Remedial Orders' requirements, thereby placing residents in grave danger.
Perhaps the most blatant example of STS's failure to provide adequate medical care is found in the various reports on the death of John T.[19] In caring for John T., STS's medical staff made a series of severe errors which possibly contributed to his ultimate death. Among those errors were the following: (1) STS staff's management of diarrhea and severe malnutrition in June, 1992 was delayed and inadequate;[20] (2) John T.'s physician, one Dr. Guevarra, failed to diagnose his deteriorating condition in a timely or adequate manner, during the last ten days of August, 1992;[21] (3) on the day of John T.'s death, STS staff failed to recognize that he had lapsed into unconsciousness for several hours;[22] (4) Dr. Guevarra failed to question why John T. was receiving an extraordinarily high dosage of Dilantin (three times as high as his normal dose);[23] (5) Dr. Guevarra failed to check John T.'s blood to determine whether he was carrying a toxic level of Dilantin;[24] (6) Dr. Guevarra did not provide clearly defined orders regarding John T.'s medicine prescription;[25] (7) Dr. Guevarra prescribed a 981 "cocktail of medications" without *981 regard to the detrimental effects of ordering multiple medications.[26]
As shown above, STS's care of John T. was plagued with appalling examples of insufficient medical care, and such systemic inadequacies might be sufficient alone to find the Defendants in contempt of the Remedial Orders. However, the court will discuss several additional examples below.
STS's maintenance of its active and inactive problem lists is inadequate. Active and inactive problem lists are a crucial part of effective medical care. Report of Karen Green McGowan at 4 [hereinafter "McGowan Report"]. Problem lists provide an accurate picture of a patient's current and past health history. (Id.) Furthermore, such lists are very useful to medical consultants, and when STS refers a patient to a new physician. (Id.) Conversely, problem lists are utterly useless if they are not accurate. At STS, most of the patients that the experts observed had problem lists. However, the majority of the lists reviewed were either incomplete or inaccurate.[27] (McGowan Report at 4.)
STS's recordkeeping procedures are also below professional standards, causing important medical information to be obscured, and jeopardizing its residents' health. Ms. McGowan found that STS was attempting to maintain the residents' medical records. Nevertheless, she explained that it took her from one and one-half to two hours per client to retrieve information in the client's record, because there was "[t]oo much crucial information in too many places, much of which [was] either incomplete, repetitive or inconsistent." (McGowan Report at 3.) Also, the HCFA's report cited several cases of primary care physicians altering patients' medication without informing the interdisciplinary team, and patients' medication records not accurately reflecting the actual dosage of medication that the patients were receiving.[28]

Even when medical concerns were properly listed in a patient's record, STS often failed to follow-up with the appropriate medical care. For example, in several instances, medical records indicated that patients were experiencing significant weight loss, but STS failed to take action.[29] (McGowan Report at 11; Pl.Ex. 4 at 14, 15, 16, and 21.) On other occasions, patients were diagnosed as having serious illnesses, but inadequate medical action was taken. (Pl.Ex. 4 at 13.)
Dr. Volkmar noted that STS's system for prescribing medication was at times "very complicated," and had "possible medical-legal implications." (Volkmar Report at 7-8.) He explained that there were at least six 982 participants *982 involved in any transaction related to medication, which at times decreased the quality of patient care. The participants included: (1) the client, (2) his/her parent or guardian, (3) the psychiatrist, (4) the primary care (prescribing) physician, (5) the treatment team, and (6) the program review committee (the "PRC") "which functioned as the final arbiter for medication decisions." (Volkmar Report at 7.) Dr. Volkmar explained that, although the rationale behind such an elaborate process was to ensure quality care, the process "appeared, at times, to have the opposite effect in that quality of care was potentially worsened." (Volkmar Report at 7.)
He described one instance in which an elderly patient's psychiatrist requested that the patient's tranquilizing medication be changed in light of his Parkinsonian symptoms. However, the PRC not only disapproved of the psychiatrist's request, but also "preapproved" a virtually opposite request of increasing the patient's current medication. Dr. Volkmar stated that "as far as could be determined no member of the PRC had ever seen the patient and ... with the exception of a single physician on the PRC (who presumably was not paying attention) other members would essentially not have been aware of the issues involved." (Id.)
Dr. Volkmar concluded that:
The implications of unqualified (e.g., unlicensed) personnel, in effect, making major decisions regarding pharmacological interventions is problematic. The use, as in the case noted above, of "preapproval" of certain drug regimens by PRC is (presumably) theoretically intended to shorten the review process; it has the most unfortunate effect of undercutting the relationships of the physician and his/her patient by well meaning individuals who basically do not know the patient.... [This practice] appeared to cross the boundary of acceptable practice.
(Volkmar Report at 7-8. See also Pl.Ex. 4 at 10.)
C. Physical Therapy Services
The Remedial Orders require that STS provide adequate physical therapy services for those residents in need of such services. Adequate physical therapy is critical at an institution such as STS, as it serves to prevent physical degeneration, body deformities, and abnormal growth.[30]
At the hearing, and in her report, (Pl.Ex. 8), Ms. Harryman revealed clearly that, as of her inspection on November 15-17, 1993, STS's physical therapy services had a plethora of deficiencies that violated the Remedial Orders. Indeed, she found that nearly every aspect of STS's physical therapy services was below professional standards. Ms. Harryman opined that STS's grossly inadequate staffing was the primary cause of its poor 983 physical therapy services. She explained that, in 1993, a mere seventeen of the 244 *983 residents receiving physical therapy services were receiving assistance from licensed physical therapists ("PT"). The remaining residents were forced to receive training from unlicensed rehabilitation therapy assistants ("RTA"). She concluded that such staffing "precludes residents in need of physical therapy from receiving adequate care." (Pl.Ex. 8 at 4.) STS has, however, taken steps to remedy this deficiency.[31]
Although licensed PTs planned the services that the RTAs administered, STS did not have objective guidelines for monitoring the delivery of physical therapy services, or an established methodology for documenting procedure implementation. Consequently, the RTAs and direct care staff often provided physical therapy services without the requisite guidance. (Pl.Ex. 8 at 4.) Furthermore, STS's training procedures did not provide guidelines

for determining staff competence prior to allowing such staff to administer physical therapy services. As a result, residents were in danger of receiving physical therapy from incompetent personnel.[32] (Id.)
While STS has guidelines and procedures for determining when implementation and/or termination of physical therapy is appropriate, it fails to implement them consistently. At the hearing, Ms. Harryman testified that STS has a procedure for evaluating residents which consists of eight components. However, when she reviewed ten STS physical therapy evaluations, she found that only 36% of the required components were covered in all of the evaluations. (Pl.Ex. 8 at 6.) Further, few of STS's evaluations included goals regarding physical therapy treatment. Thus, it is clear that STS's staff was not assessing the effectiveness of its physical therapy services, or modifying such services, when appropriate. This deficiency placed the patients at risk of receiving ineffective, useless, and detrimental therapy.[33] In fact, STS's inadequate physical therapy services have caused several residents who, only a few years earlier, were ambulatory, to be permanently bedridden.
Finally, STS fails to make effective use of its general physical therapy protocols.[34] Professional standards require that "all physical therapy protocols be dated and reviewed regularly." (Pl.Ex. 8 at 7.) A review of STS's general physical therapy protocols evinced that STS had failed to document or make any additions or revisions to any of its general protocol reviews in nearly one and a half years. Further, in some instances, protocols were not available for patients at all. (Pl.Ex. 8 at 7.)
C. RULING ON CONTEMPT AND REMEDIES
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants are in contempt of the Remedial Orders. 984 [35] Although STS's quarterly reports reveal that it was in *984 compliance with over 90% of the Remedial
Orders' requirements,[36] such "compliance" was not effectuating the Remedial Orders' desired results. Indeed, STS's systemic flaws have caused many residents to suffer grave harm, and, in several instances, death.
To insure that the Remedial Orders' purposes are satisfied in the future, the court will appoint a special master to review STS's operations. It is well settled in the law that federal courts have the inherent power to appoint an agent to oversee the implementation of its consent decrees. In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 312-13, 40 S.Ct. 543, 547, 64 L.Ed. 919 (1920). Indeed, this "court has an affirmative duty to protect the integrity of its decree. This duty arises where the performance of one party threatens to frustrate the purpose of the decree." Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir.1985) (emphasis added) (quoting Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dept., 679 F.2d 541, 555 (6th Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984) (footnote omitted)).
While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b) requires that the appointment of a special master be the exception rather than the rule, it does not "terminate or modify the district court's inherent equitable power to appoint a person ... to assist it in administering a remedy." Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir.1982). Rather, "[b]eyond the provisions of [Fed.R.Civ.P. 53] for appointing and making references to Masters, a federal district court has the inherent power to supply itself with [a special master] for the administration of justice when deemed by it essential." Id. at 1161 n. 240 (citing Schwimmer v. U.S., 232 F.2d 855, 865 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 833, 77 S.Ct. 48, 1 L.Ed.2d 52 (1956) (citation omitted)). See also, Juan F. v. Weicker, 37 F.3d 874, 876 (2d Cir.1994) (court appointed a monitoring panel, and later a single monitor, to oversee consent decree, "because of the difficult issues involved, as well as the importance to the plaintiff class of enforcing the decree."); Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d at 1568 (holding that court's desire to protect the integrity of its decree "justifies any reasonable action taken by the court to secure compliance."); Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that district courts are permitted to appoint a special master to oversee a consent decree); Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 482, 106 S.Ct. 3019, 3053, 92 L.Ed.2d 344 (1986) (Court recognized the "difficulties inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders," and, thus, found the appointment of an administrator "well within the District Court's discretion."); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438 (6th Cir.1984) (holding that a court may appoint a "monitor to observe defendants' conduct and thereby permit the federal court to oversee compliance with its continuing order.").

An appellate court will not disturb a district court's decision to appoint a special master, unless a clear abuse of judicial power is shown. Further, deference to the district court's exercise of discretion is heightened where, as here, the court has been overseeing a large, public institution for a long period of time. Stone, 968 F.2d at 856 (citing Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992)). See also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 688, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2572, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (Court gave substantial deference to district court's years of experience overseeing prison system).
In the instant case, the court finds that the complex nature of the case, together with the delicate interests of STS's residents, call for the appointment of a special master to determine why STS's efforts are not producing 985 the Remedial Orders' intended results, and to make recommendations to the *985 court. In addition, if the special master deems it necessary, the court will appoint an expert review panel, comprised of one expert in each of the three areas discussed above, to assist the special master in making findings and recommendations. The special master shall take the following actions: (1) conduct an immediate and thorough review of all aspects of STS's care and treatment of residents covered by the Remedial Orders to determine the changes needed to meet the Orders' desired ends; (2) formulate specific methods to implement the required changes; and (3) work with the parties to effectuate those changes.
The Plaintiff and Defendants shall report to the court, either jointly or severally, their recommendation(s) for appointment as special master on or before July 15, 1996. The court shall make the final determination.
SO ORDERED.
[1] STS is an institution for the mentally disabled in the state of Connecticut. As of the hearing on this motion, STS housed 843 residents, making it one of the ten largest institutions of its kind in the United States.
[2] CRIPA authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate institutions for the mentally disabled, if credible allegations of unconstitutional conditions of confinement exist.
[3] The Connecticut officials included: William A. O'Neill, Governor; Brian Lensink, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation; Robert Griffith, Director, Southbury Training School; and Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Attorney General.
[4] The court will refer to the Consent Decree, Plan, and two Court Orders collectively as the "Remedial Orders."
[5] The Remedial Orders also mandate the following: Consent Decree § I(2) (requires provision of that degree of care which is sufficient to protect all residents from unreasonable risks to their personal safety both by the conduct of staff, and of other residents); Consent Decree § I(4) (requires STS to prescribe and administer behavior modifying medications pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment); Consent Decree § V(3) (requires STS to provide a sufficient number of training program hours for each resident); Consent Decree § V(5) (requires STS to maintain adequate records); Consent Decree § V(8) (requires that restraints and behavior modifying medications not be used in lieu of training programs); 1991 Court Order § 1(A) (requires modification of training plans when necessary); and 1990 Court Order § 1(U) (requires, when appropriate, "the Interdisciplinary Team, within 30 days of each review, [to] modify the existing Overall Plan of Service of such residents in accordance with professional judgment of qualified professionals.").
[6] In the past, Stanley B. failed to pay attention to the end of his cigarette, and hot ash would fall on, and burn, his clothing. Eventually, staff members limited his smoking to a pipe. Despite such limitation, Stanley B. was still careless in packing his pipe with tobacco, often spilling loose tobacco on the floor and his clothing. (Pl. Ex. 12, Final Investigation Report of Thomas Harmon at 9-10 [hereinafter "Harmon Report"].)
[7] The goal entailed teaching Stanley B. to pack his pipe neatly, dump the pipe's hot ash in an ash-tray, place his pipe in a fire-proof container in his gym bag, and clean up after himself. (Harmon Report at 11.)
[8] When Mr. Harmon questioned STS officials about the termination of Stanley B.'s training, they reasoned that "it could have been realized that the goal was beyond achievement or that other needs were more important. The

record, however, did not indicate why attempts to teach [Stanley B.] safe-smoking habits were abandoned, or how his need to `smoke safely' would otherwise be addressed." (Harmon Report at 12.)
[9] HCFA conducts periodic examinations of those facilities for the mentally disabled receiving federal funding.
[10] Pica is an abnormal desire to ingest substances not normally eaten.
[11] For example: (1) A resident knocked Claire to the floor; (2) a resident pushed Karyn to the floor; (3) a resident punched Ray in the chest; (4) a resident hit Mary on the head; (5) Charlie punched a staff member in the back of his head; (6) a resident punched Judy in the eye; (7) a resident threw Alicia to the ground; and (8) a resident grabbed Brenda's head, and bit out a mouth full of hair. (Pl.Ex. 20.)
[12] For example: (1) A resident slapped Stella two times in two days; (2) James headlocked another resident on three separate occasions in one day; (3) a resident slapped Lillian D. on the head five times; (4) a resident headbutted Christine O. three times; (5) a resident slapped David W. in the face two times; and (6) a resident slapped Richard W. in the face two times. (Pl. Ex. 20 and selected accident reports.)
[13] Dr. Harchik also noted the conspicuous absence of positive staff interaction with the residents. He stated that he observed fifty staff members across eleven settings, and found only one interacting with the residents.
[14] Every ten to fifteen minutes Dr. Harchik would count systematically the number of residents who were engaged. Dr. Harchik's definition of "engagement" included any active participation in an activity (i.e., looking at magazines, eating dinner, and playing with toys). (Pl.Ex. 22 at 11-12.)
[15] Dr. Harchik stated that "80% or lower is considered to be problematic by professional standards." (Pl.Ex. 22 at 12.)
[16] Dr. Harchik found that the patient's behavior was either worsening or not progressing.
[17] Dr. Harchik stated that STS's "clinical response to behaviors worsening appear[ed] to be to look to obtaining a better diagnosis ... or changing medications.... There appears to be little focus upon modifying environmental conditions and intervention procedures." (Pl.Ex. 22 at 9.)
[18] The Consent Decree provides in relevant part: § I(3) (adequate medical care shall be afforded all residents pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional); § I(4) (behavior modifying medications and other medications must be prescribed and administered to residents pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional); and § V(5) (plan shall be established setting forth the record keeping systems, policies, and procedures with respect to each patient's care, medical treatment, and required training that shall be utilized to maintain and make available in each resident's record such information as is professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judgment in that resident's care, medical treatment, and training).
[19] One report described STS's treatment of John T.'s medical condition as "plagued with medical flaws that may have contributed to precipitating [his] death.... Upon return to STS in a debilitated but stable condition, John T.'s evaluation by his [primary care physician] failed to assess and address important aspects of his medical condition." Memorandum of Miguel Aquino at 3 [hereinafter "Aquino Memo"].
[20] Report on John T. by Dr. Rene Jahiel, STS Medical Director, at 1 [hereinafter "Jahiel Report"].
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Dr. Jahiel stated that a "thorough review and investigation on arrival should have revealed the excessive dosage of [D]ilantin and may have clarified the pathological processes ongoing in this patient, including the cause of his apparently severe pain." (Jahiel Report at 6.)
[24] Aquino Memo at 4.

[25] Dr. Guevarra ordered that John T. receive Demerol for "severe pain," Ativan for "agitation", and Tylenol for "mild pain." However, Dr. Guevarra did not clearly define what constitutes the respective levels of pain. Consequently, the amount of medicine given was left open to interpretation, and thus unpredictable. Id.
[26] Dr. Guevarra did not consider, nor did he alert his nursing staff to, the possibility that such a mixture could result in restlessness, insomnia, and self-abusive behavior. Consequently, when John T. exhibited such behaviors, they "were all regarded signs of pain and ... due to [Dr. Guevarra's] initial oversight that failed to consider the potential deleterious effect of the cocktail of medications, the possibility that unusual behavior ... could represent toxicity was never considered." As a result, the administering of medications never ended. Id.
[27] Ms. McGowan reviewed eight lists and found that seven of them were either incomplete or inaccurate. (McGowan Report at 4.) Dr. James Walker stated that the "medical records `problem lists' are not current and progress notes do not indicate the problem being addressed, making review cumbersome and open to oversight. This problem is multiplied by the number of disciplines using the progress notes." Report of Dr. James E.C. Walker at 1 [hereinafter "Walker Report"]. Moreover, a Quality Assurance Review Summary completed by an STS medical staff member revealed the following:
[I]n twenty-five percent of cases, all significant past illnesses were not listed and ... diagnostic procedures were not listed in about thirty-three percent of the active problem lists. In regard to health case unit admissions, ten to twelve percent of residents did not have daily progress notes for at least the first three days after admission.
(Pl.Ex. 4 at 25.) See also, Pl.Ex. 4 at 8, 9, 26-27 (Dr. Wachtel cites other findings of poor problem lists).
[28] Client # 02's medical records showed that, as of December 13, 1994, he was receiving ten mg. of Pindolol daily, when, in actuality, he had been receiving fifteen mg. daily for nearly a month. In another case, Client # 03's primary care physician increased his dosage of Tranxene from three to four times a day, but the increase was not reflected in Client # 03's medical records for over three months. (Pl.Ex. 19, HCFA 26 Colony Ct. Circle Survey at 6.)
[29] Ms. McGowan noted that unplanned weight loss in an environment like STS is almost always indicative of other health issues. (McGowan Report at 11.)
[30] The Remedial Orders mandate the following: Consent Decree § V(4) (procedures shall be used to "reasonably ensure that there is consultation and communication of relevant information between and among personnel regarding residents' care, training needs and priorities ... and that such information is communicated to staff who provide care for that resident"); Consent Decree § V(5) (mandates that record keeping systems, policies, and procedures with respect to each patient's care, medical treatment, and required training be utilized to maintain and make available in each resident's record such information as is professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judgment in that resident's care, medical treatment, and training); Consent Decree § V(6) (requires that measures be taken "to provide adequate medical care, including evaluation of residents with physical disabilities, and the specific steps that will be undertaken to provide appropriate medical and physical therapy services to prevent contractures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body growth and deformity"); 1990 Court Order § 1(F) (requires the Defendants to provide "appropriate physical therapy to each resident with physical handicaps for whom a program of physical therapy has been ordered by a qualified professional, and ensure records of such treatment are made and entered in the resident's medical record"); and 1990 Court Order § 1(G) (requires the Defendants to have a qualified physician assess each physically disabled resident "to determine whether a physical therapy program should be initiated or an existing physical therapy program modified to prevent contractures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body growth and deformity." The physician is then required to refer those residents in need to a registered physical therapist. Within forty-five days from such referral, the physical therapist is required to "assess and evaluate each resident so referred and develop a written physical therapy program for each of them.").
[31] DMR entered into a two-year contract, effective from August 25, 1995, for the provision of 240 hours per week of physical therapy, speech/language therapy, and occupational therapy services, the equivalent of six fulltime positions.

[32] Indeed, Ms. Harryman found that a "severe systemic problem at STS is that indirect physical therapy services ... are implemented by people who are not adequately trained on a regular basis and who do not carry out adequate physical therapy treatment." (Pl.Ex. 8 at 4.) Ms. Harryman reviewed a video-tape which STS uses to train RTAs, and found it to be cursory and incapable of providing sufficient information to ensure safe and appropriate delivery of physical therapy. (Pl.Ex. 8 at 9.) Moreover, Ms. Harryman observed two RTAs implementing physical therapy, and, in both instances, the RTA's procedures were administered incorrectly, thereby placing the resident in risk of physical maladies (i.e., contractures, deformity, musculoskeletal injury). (Pl.Ex. 8 at 7-8.)
[33] Also STS's procedures do not provide for annual physical therapy assessments of clients. This, too, prevents STS from determining the effectiveness of its services. Ms. Harryman opined that "[r]e-evaluation on less than an annual basis is not adequate for any client receiving physical therapy services, which is a major concern in a facility where multiply handicapped residents receive primary therapy services from unlicensed and minimally trained personnel." (Pl.Ex. 8 at 5.)
[34] A protocol is a detailed plan of physical therapy treatment or procedure.
[35] The court notes that some of the most compelling evidence came from the Defendants own experts.
[36] The court does not agree with the Plaintiff's contention that the compliance reports are not pertinent to the instant matter. Rather, the court finds the compliance reports to be a suitable starting point in determining whether the Defendants are complying with the Remedial Orders. Moreover, the court notes that the Plaintiff consented to the Defendants' submission of compliance reports, (Consent Decree § V), and, heretofore, had never contested the appropriateness of the court using such reports as a measure of compliance. Thus, the court will not permit the Plaintiff to contest the validity of the compliance reports at this time.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

u.s. f)) leT co
t \ / H/~VEN. CT

)

v.

)

)

)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )

Civ. No. N-86-2S2 (EBB) c: ........
§ ..a

:o.:cz:::

:r;-l

I

~S :<pA-J . ("')

N
»

("')0

-

~l"'SEl)] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DI SS .&=

-1 CJ

This cause is before the Court on the joint motion of

Plaintiff, the United States, and Defendants, the State of

Connecticut, et al., (the "State"), to dismiss this action. The

parties are in agreement that the State has fully and faithfully

implemented the Consent Decree, the Remedial Plan, and all orders

of this Court in this action. It is therefore ORDERED that all

injunctions are dissolved, that jurisdiction is terminated, and

that this case is closed and DISMISSED with prejudice, and all

parties to bear their own costs.

SO ORDERED this

e
~~ day

of

___(=9-~ ___~_~ _______ ,

2009.

Hi~ ! ~ll en' Bre[ B1Tr~s

;;r-

U ited States Distrlct Judge

 
 • «y*v
~''*?t

U.S.v. Conn.

; '• ! > i IV.:;t ir'.i-j-
I I II

MR-CT-005-001

0 1 MAV 1534
CE_RTI !•' IE D_M AIL
RETURN* R E C E I P T RFiOiJESTi:.D
Honorable V.'illiani A. O'rku GoveiT.oc o'i Cnr.n^ctic.r.. State Capitol Building H a r f o r d , To-ir-. •cf! o-i^; OG iO
Re: Notice of Intent to Investigate 5V:>'!f.h;'.;;rv rrai'iiin.* School
De.-.:" ",ovtrr.ov >.)' 'i>-: ii t :
I r:T; wi'.'ir.-; t«.' l-'V y o u V;v>w o f n\:r int:-:\tior. t o ir.ves*..i9dt«-.- c o n l i t ior,r- w i t h i n Southl-ury T r n n i n q School in Poutiibury, Connec1-. ifut. . "''.IT iru'i-'^ividtiuii ir; ;vrsiHr.t t o rh-_- C i v i l Ric..ts o f In::titu':ior.alii:;<-v. r ^ w n ^ <\c?-.. 4 2 ij.S. •;. §1 9 9 7 .
T h e pjvpos-j c f t'.in invystiy.-ition w i l l b-? t o d e t e r m i n e whether there exist- any violations of the federal constitutional or statutory rights of persons residing in this facility with respect to misuse of restraints; inadequate medical care; abuse/ neijlect and patient safety; and inadequate training as is necessary to further the ' residents' interests in safety and freedom from unreasonable bodily restraint. The initiation of thi3 investigation i i; no way indicates any prejudgment on our part th;;t federal rights have been violated. If any violations are found, we look forward to conferring with you and your staff concerning corrective actions that might be appropriate.
As a means of commencing this investigation, I wish to propose an initial meeting in the near future between our attorneys and representatives of your office. It has been our experience that such a preliminary conference can substantially expedite the investigation process. We will also wish
John Wilson, Public Information Officer Records, Chrono, Peabody, MacCoon, FitzGerald, Keith, Holt, Hold

to arrange for our attorney!",, c o n s u l t a n t s , and perhaps agents of the Federal Bureau o? Investigation to visit the facility. We shall b ein touch w i t h y c u r staff t o w o r k out the s p e c i f i c s of our m e e t i n g a.ni ]at.t r v i s i t s .
1 qre-.tly appreciate your c^operat-ion inthis matter.
Sincerely,
v.'m. B raa f :> rd P. ey n olds Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Joseph T. Liefer:.;an attorney G-?:-.-. ral *•' i r ha e 1 3 . u. e 1rr,o r. r Superinten ;eut
ury Training School
Gareth D. Tliorr.e Connission^r
of Mental Retaliation
Alan 'J Unite-! Srates Attorney

0 1 MAV 1934
CCRT_IFI ED_ri AIL RETURN' "R'ECEfPT RF;OUES7^:D
Honorabit v;i 11 iair. A. o':•;ei 1 ] Governor ol Cni.necticu;. Statti Capitol Building Harfoi-'], ^o-ir;. cticot OGiOG
Re: Notice of IntfMt to Ir.vtst ig^t e
Dea r Govt.-rr.ov >>' '<«; Li "i :
I ;JTI wr-:'• ir.^ to i--.'c yea Viv >»' of m;r inti-:jt ior. to ir.vest.igat*-,- c o n U t i o n r - within Southhuty Training School in Southi>ury, C o n n e c t i c u t . "'si1? invr--, t i ad tion i3 pi'rsiur.t to th-.- Civil Riy.;ts of Inr.titutior.alizo... r<-eir:;ori:r A c t , 42 U . S . C . §1 9 9 7 .
The puvpo-'V cf tl.in inv.^-ti y-it ion will b-v to determine whether there exist any violations of the federal constitutional or statutory rights of persons residing in this facility with respect to r.isusc of r e s t r a i n t s ; inadequate inedical c a r e ; a b u s e , nsijlect and patient saCety; and inadequate training as is necessary to further the residents' interests in safety and freedom from unreasonable bodily restraint. The initiation of this investigatiori in no way indicates any prejudgment on our part that federal rights have been violated. If any violations are found, w<? look forward to conferring with you and your staff concerning corrective actions that might be appropriate.
As a means of commencing this investigation, I wish to propose an initial meeting in the near future between our attorneys and representatives of your office. It has been our experience that such a preliminary conference can substantially expedite the investigation process. We will also wish
John Wilson, Public Information Officer Records, Chrono, Peabody, MacCoon, FitzGerald, Keith, Holt, Hold

+ o arrange for our attorneys, consultants, and perhaps agents of the Federal Bureau oT Investigation to visit the facility. We shall b e in touch w i t h y c u r staff t o work out the s p e c i f i c s of our m e e t i n g =".n^ lat.tr v i s i t s .
i qre?itly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Wm. B ra d fz> rd Reynolds Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Joseph T . Lie'Herr.-.an 7\.ttornsv G'.jn M irha e1 3 . u. e 1 m o n t S u p e r i a t e n ?evi<Southbury Training School
Gareth D. T h o m e Conr;is3ion?r department, of Mental Retardation
Alan N Unite-! Srates Attorney

 
 •iilili

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT: WILLIAM A. O'NEILL

)

Governor of the State of Connecticut;

)

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION;)

BRIAN LENSINK, Commissioner, Department

)

of Mental Retardation; ROBERT GRIFFITH,

)

Director, Southbury Training School,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

COMPLAINT

Civil Act-iorfcNo

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through its Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, brings this action pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §1997, to enjoin .the named defendants from depriving persons residing at the Southbury Training School (STS), of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the United States Constitution. Attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference, is the Certificate of the Attorney General required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997b. In support of its Complaint in this action, the United States alleges the following:
i
JURISDICTION, STANDING, AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §1345.

2. The United States has standing to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997a.
3. Venue in the District of Connecticut is proper pursuant to 28 U.s.C. §1391. The claims set forth in this Complaint all arose in said District, and each of the named Defendants
i
resides in said District. 4. STS is an "institution" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
S 1997(1). PARTIES
5. Defendant STATE OF CONNECTICUT owns and operates STS, which is a state residential mental retardation facility.
6. Defendant WILLIAM A. O'NEILL is the Governor of Connecticut, and, in this capacity, heads the executive branch of the state government. He appoints the Director of the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation.
7. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION is responsible for the administration and operation of STS.
8. Defendant BRIAN LENSINK is the Director of the Department of Mental Retardation, and, in this capacity, has responsibility for the operation of STS. He appoints and supervises the Director of STS.
9. Defendant ROBERT GRIFFITH is the Director of STS, and, in this capacity, is the chief administrator of STS and has responsibility for supervising the operations of STS.
10. The individual Defendants identified in paragraphs 6, 8, and 9 above are officers of the executive branch of the State of Connecticut and are sued in their official capacities.
-2-

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Defendants are legally responsible, in whole or in part, for the operation of STS and for the conditions at STS and the care of persons confined at that institution.
12. At all relevant times, the Defendants or their predecessors in office have acted or failed to act, as alleged herein, under color of state law.
13. Defendants are failing to provide persons confined to STS with adequate medical care and treatment.
14. Defendants are failing to provide persons confined to STS with that level of training necessary to ensure that residents are free from unreasonable bodily restraint and undue risks to personal safety.
15. Defendants are failing to ensure that there is an adequate number of sufficiently trained staff to render professional judgments regarding necessary care, medical treatment and training to residents of STS, and to implement such professional judgments.
16. Defendants are failing to ensure that medications are prescribed and administered to persons confined to STS pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by qualified professionals and are not used in lieu of treatment or training
i
programs or given to such persons for the convenience of staff. 17. Defendants are failing to ensure that persons confined
to STS are protected from unreasonable risks of harm to their personal safety from the conduct of staff and other residents.
-3-

18. Defendants are failing to ensure that the physical environment of STS protects persons confined to STS from unreasonable risks of harm to their personal safety.
19. Defendants are failing to ensure that seclusion, restraint and time out are administered to persons confined to STS only pursuant io the exercise of professional judgment by appropriate qualified professionals and are not used in lieu of treatment or for the convenience of staff.
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED 20. The acts and omissions of Defendants alleged in each of paragraphs 11 through 19 deprive persons confined to STS of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States and such deprivation is pursuant to pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by persons confined to STS of such rights, privileges or immunities.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 21. The Attorney General is not authorized to seek any remedy at law and is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1997 to seek only equitable relief. 22. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to engage in the conduct and practices set forth in paragraphs 11-19 above that deprive persons confined to STS of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, and cause irreparable harm.
-4-

WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with them from continuing the acts, omissions and practices at STS set forth in paragraphs 11-19 above. The United States further prays that this Court grant such other and further equitable relief as it may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

STANLEY A. TWARDY, JR.' United State^/Attorney District of Connecticut

EDWIN MEESE III Attorney General
of the United States

JUL I6 I!

Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

*TI/
ARTHUR E. PEABODC-< JR. Chief Special Litigation Section

di:^i c.-^l__ r J<-os.,

•••i
Date:

BENJAMIN P. SCHOEN

Deputy Chief

Special Litigation Section

_

Date: :

V. COLLEEN MILLER

Attorney

Special Litigation Section

Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

-5-

(Bffixs nf tip Atlanta
B. C 2fl53n

CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I, Edwin Meese III/ Attorney General of the United States, certify that with regard to the foregoing Complaint/ I have complied with all subsections of 42 U.S.C. §1997b(a) (1). I certify as well that I have complied with all subsections of 42 U.S.C. §1997b(a)(2). I further certify pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997b{a)(3) my belief that this action by the United States to be of general public importance and will materially further the vindication of rights/ privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States.
I finally certify that all prerequisites to the initiation of suit under 42 U.S.C. §1997 have been met.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997a(c)/ I have personally signed the foregoing Complaint. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997b(b), I am personally signing this Certificate.

Signed this 11

day of Julu. , 1986, at Washington, D.C,

EDWIN MEESE III Attorney General of
the United States

 
 STATES DISTRICT C O U K FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiff,

)

- _
I- III:?
^;j2'' '" i

STATE OF CONNECTICUT; William A.

) Civil Action No.

O'Neill, Governor of the State of

)

\_y

Connecticut; Brian Lensink,

)

Commissioner, Connecticut Department )

of Mental Retardation; Robert

)

Griffith, Director, Southbury

)

Training School,

)

Defendants.

)

CONSENT DECREE Introduction

1. This case was instituted by the United States on

25

, 1986, pursuant to the Civil Rights of

Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997 et_ seq.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1345.

3. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(5).

4. The United States is authorized to institute this civil

action by 42 U.S.C. 1997a and has met all prerequisites for the

institution of this civil action prescribed by that statute.

5. The Defendants are the State of Connecticut; the

Honorable William A. O'Neill, Governor of the State of

Connecticut; Brian Lensink, Commissioner of the Connecticut

U.S. v.Conn. MR-CT-005-004

Department of Mental Retardation; and Robert Griffith, Director of Southbury Training School; and are sued in their respective official capacities.
6. The Defendants have authority and responsibility for the operation of Southbury Training School and are officers of the Executive Branch of the State of Connecticut.
7. On May 1, 1984, the Attorney General of the United States, by and through the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Wm. Bradford Reynolds, notified the Governor of Connecticut, the Attorney General of Connecticut, and the Superintendent of Southbury Training School, of his intention to commence an investigation of alleged unlawful conditions of confinement at Southbury Training School, Southbury, Connecticut, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997.
8. Following an investigation, on September 11, 1985, the Attorney General, by and through the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, informed the Governor of Connecticut, the Attorney General of Connecticut, and the Superintendent of Southbury Training School that the Attorney General had reasonable cause to believe that persons residing in or confined to Southbury Training School were being subjected to egregious and flagrant conditions that deprived them of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
9. The parties agree that the care, confinement, and training of residents of Southbury implicate rights of these
- 2-

residents that are secured and protected by the Constitution of the United States. The parties entering into this Consent Decree recognize these constitutional interests, and for the purpose of avoiding protracted and adversarial litigation, agree to the provisions set forth herein.
10. In entering into this Consent Decree, State officials do not admit any violation of law and this Consent Decree may not be used as evidence of liability in any other civil proceeding. The parties have entered into this Consent Decree without any legal obligation to make or enter into the agreements contained herein. The terms of this Consent Decree are not applicable to any other Department of Mental Retardation facility.
11. Any violation of provisions of this Consent Decree does not create a private right of action. This Consent Decree is enforceable only by the parties.
12. The provisions of this Consent Decree are a fair and appropriate resolution of this case.
13. This Consent Decree shall be applicable to and binding upon all of the parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and successors. I. Purposes and Objectives
The State of Connecticut and the United States stipulate and agree that the purposes and objectives of this Consent Decree are to establish within the timelines set forth herein the following conditions at Southbury Training School in order to ensure that residents at the facility are not being deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured to them by the Constitution of the United States:
-3-

1. Training programs protessionally designed to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks to personal safety or unreasonable use of restraints and developed by qualified professionals shall be available to all residents whom it is determined by qualified professionals are in need of such programs in order to reduce or eliminate such risks.
2. That degree of care sha.ll be provided which is sufficient to protect all residents from unreasonable risks to their personal safety both by the conduct of staff and of other residents, and from unreasonable use of bodily restraint.
3. Adequate medical care shall be afforded all residents pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional.
4. Behavior Modifying Medications and other medications must be prescribed and administered to residents pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional.
5. Restraints, seclusion procedures and behavior modifying medications, when appropriate, must be administered safely and pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional.
6. The physical environment of the facility shall be improved, as necessary, so as to insure that it poses no unreasonable risks including fire safety risks to the personal safety of residents. An unreasonable risk is that which is known to exist or should be known to exist, with the exercise of professional judgment.
-4-

These purposes and objectives shall be achieved at Southbury Training School by implementing the requirements set forth in Parts III and IV and by developing and implementing the plans described in Part V of this Consent Decree. II. Definitions
As used in this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply:
1. "Physician": A medical doctor lawfully entitled to practice medicine.
2. "Psychiatrist": A physician who either is certified by or is eligible for certification by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology or who has successfully completed an approved residency program in psychiatry and upon completion of post-residency requirements will become eligible for examination for such certification.
3. "Psychologist": A person who has attained at least a master's degree in the field of psychology or special education.
4. "Nurse Practitioner": A person qualified by academic and practical experience or training to provide patient services under the supervision, control, responsibility and direction of a physician and who is certified by the State as a nurse practitioner.
5. "Direct Care Worker": Staff immediately responsible for implementing training programs and providing care to residents.
6. "Qualified Professional": A person who is employed by or under contract with the State, and who is competent, whether by education, training, or experience, to make the particular decision at issue.
—5 —

7. "Restraints": Any devices used to restrict the movement of a resident or the movement or normal function of any portion of resident's body, excluding those mechanical supports designed by a physical therapist and approved by a physician used solely to achieve proper body position or balance and devices used for specific medical and surgical (as distinguished from behavorial) treatment.
8. "Seclusion": Placement of an individual alone in a locked room, or a room from which the patient is physically prevented from egress.
9. "Time Out": A behavior management technique which removes a resident from a situation for a period of time for the purpose of modifying a specific inappropriate behavior.
10. "PRN": A treatment modality ordered on a pro re nata or "as needed" basis.
11. "Behavior Modifying Medications": Drugs which are prescribed or administered for the purpose of modifying behavior. Included are the major and minor tranquilizers and antidepressants. Excluded are drugs that may have behavior modifying effects but that are not prescribed or administered for that purpose, such as anticonvulsants.
12. "Training Program": A program of steps and activities, including behavior management and the teaching of basic self-care skills, determined by a qualified professional consistent with professional judgment to be necessary to protect a resident from unreasonable risks to personal safety and to facilitate his or her ability to function free from undue restraint, and from unreasonable use of behavior modifying medications.
-6-

13. "Resident": A person residing at Southbury Training School who is receiving services from the Department of Mental Retardation.
14. "The State": The Governor of the State of Connecticut, the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation, the Director of Southbury Training School, and any and all of their officials, agents, employees, or assigns, and the successors in office of such officials, agents, employees or assigns who have responsibility for the care and treatment of residents at Southbury Training School.
15. "Professional judgment": A decision by a qualified professional that is not such a substantial departure from accepted professional opinion, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible did not base the decision on such professional opinion, practice, or standards. Ill. Conditions Requiring Immediate Correction
In order to eliminate conditions which pose an immediate and unlawful threat to the life, health, and safety of residents at Southbury Training School, the State agrees to meet the following requirements:
1. Within 30 days after entry of this Consent Decree at least two staff personnel shall be on duty in each living unit housing more than 6 severely or profoundly retarded residents, when the residents are present.
2. Within 30 days after entry of this Consent Decree, at least three registered nurses will be on duty at Southbury Training School and shall be readily available to the general
- 7-

population during the day and evening shifts. At least two registered nurses and two licensed practical nurses will be on duty and readily available to the general population during the night shift.
3. Within 3U days after entry of this Consent Decree, the equivalent of at least one full-time psychiatrist will be provided at Southbury Training School.
4. Within 30 days after entry of this Consent Decree, the State will have devised plans to provide for the emergency evacuation of all living units, appropriate to the population housed therein. Said plans shall be fully implemented within 180 days after entry of this Consent Decree.
5. Within 30 days after entry of this Consent Decree, restraint and seclusion may not be used by staff as punishment, but they may be used, when appropriate, to control residents when they engage in isolated incidents of violent and/or dangerous behavior. The decision to place a resident in restraints, seclusion, or "time out" shall be recorded promptly in the resident's records and a procedure shall be adopted and put into effect to ensure that such decision shall be reviewed by a qualified professional at specified reasonable intervals to determine whether or not the continuation of such restraint, seclusion, or "time out" is professionally justified. IV. Staffing
1. By no later than the dates set forth below, the State shall ensure that a sufficient number of physicians, nurse practitioners, psychologists, registered nurses, licensed practical
-8-

nurses, and direct care workers are employed to assure attainment

and consistent maintenance of at least the ratios of such staff

to residents at the Southbury Training School delineated in

subparagraphs A-G below.

A. Physicians

1:125 by February 1, 1987

B. Nurse Practitioners

1:250 by August 1, 1987

Psychologists D. Registered Nurses

1:30 1:40

by February 1, 1987 by August 1, 1986

E. Licensed Practical Nurses

1:40 by August 1, 1986

Direct Care Workers (on cottage)

1:5 1:10

day and evening shifts night shift by February 1, 1987

1:4

day and evening shifts

1:8

night shift

by February 1, 1988

Direct Care Workers (day programs)

1:5

by February 1, 1988

(clients included in

this ratio are those

programmed on-grounds

and not participating

in supervised employment

or community-based

programs)

2. The United States agrees not to seek contempt for minor

deviations from these ratios in an emergency situation.

3. At the State's discretion, the ratios may be obtained

by hiring additional needed staff or by reducing the resident

population of the Southbury Training School. The State agrees

that, if it decides to reduce the population of the school by

discharging or transferring residents, the determination as to

which residents shall be discharged or transferred will be made

by professional staff qualified to make such decisions.

4. By no later than December 15, 1936, the State shall likewise ensure sufficient consultation or otherwise provide services at Southbury Training School by such medical specialists as may be needed to provide adequate routine and emergency medical care to each resident including, but not limited to, neurologists, gerontologists, gynecologists, orthopedists, and dentists. V. Plans
In order to establish compliance with this Consent Decree, the State shall file with the Court no later than August 15, 1986, its plan(s) for implementing this Consent Decree. Such plan(s) shall set forth:
1. The steps that the State will take in order to meet the staff-to-resident ratios required under the terms of this Decree. Appropriate steps may include transfer or discharge of residents, changes in personnel policies, hiring standards and employment practices, adjustments in salaries or pay levels, and recruitment efforts or other outreach techniques, and other measures calculated either to attract and retain qualified staff, or to reduce the resident population, or both.
2. The number and categories of staff that will be utilized to implement plans required by Paragraphs 3 to 11, below.
3. The procedures (a) to be utilized to provide regular, periodic professional evaluations of each resident in order to identify those in need of training programs; and (b) to provide a sufficient number of training program hours to each resident for whcf^such training program is necessary.
-10-

4. The procedures to be utilized to reasonably ensure that there is consultation and communication of relevant information between and among personnel regarding residents' care, training needs and priorities, and medical needs and priorities and that such information is communicated to staff who provide care for that resident.
5. Recordkeeping systems, policies, and procedures with respect to each patient's care, medical treatment, and required training that shall be utilized to maintain and make available in each resident's record such information as is professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judgment in that resident's care, medical treatment, and training.
6. The measures that will be undertaken to provide adequate medical care, including evaluation of residents with physical disabilities and the specific steps that will be undertaken to provide appropriate medical and physical therapy services to prevent contractures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body growth and deformity.
7. The policies and procedures that will govern the use of drugs, particularly behavior modifying medications, including policies and procedures concerning the handling and storage of drugs, monitoring and review of whether the drugs prescribed for and administered to each resident are appropriate for the needs of that resident, drug side effects, drug dosage levels, use of two or more behavior management drugs, telephone orders and PRN prescriptions, and utilization of drugs with a behavior modification program.
-11-

8. The policies and procedures that will be utilized to provide that restraints/ behavior modifying medications, seclusion, and time out (a) are administered only pursuant to the judgment of a qualified professional; (b) are not to be used as punishment, in lieu of training programs prescribed by a qualified professional or for the convenience of staff; but (c) may be used, when appropriate, to control residents when they engage in isolated incidents of violence and/or dangerous behavior. Said policies and procedures shall provide that the decision to place a resident in restraints, seclusion, or time out or to administer behavior modifying medications shall be recorded promptly in the resident's records and shall be reviewed by a qualified professional at specified reasonable intervals to determine whether or not the continuation of such restraint, seclusion, time out or medication is professionally justified.
9. The procedures that will be utilized to provide that residents shall be protected from unreasonable risks of bodily harm to their personal safety by the conduct of staff or other residents, including requirements to report alleged incidents of bodily harm or unreasonable risk of bodily harm. Said procedures should include requirements for investigating such allegations, disciplinary rules and procedures, and sanctions to be followed upon any findings of bodily harm or unreasonable risk of bodily harm. There shall be devised procedures to provide adequate staff supervision, and procedures that will be utilized to provide for sufficient grounds and other security personnel designed to protect residents from unreasonable risks of bodily harm.
-12-

10. The enforcement mechanisms to be used, including disciplinary measures and sanctions where appropriate, to provide for staff compliance with all policies, rules, and standards of job performance and behavior.
11. The procedures Southbury Training School will utilize to survey all buildings and steps it will take to protect all residents there, particularly those who are blind or non-ambulatory and non-mobile, from unreasonable fire safety risks.
12. All plans shall state in specific terms and reasonable detail the actions to be taken by the Defendants, the dates of such actions, the text of the procedures, regulations, or protocols to be promulgated and issued by the Defendants, and the name and qualifications of a professional who employed his or her professional judgment to review and approve the plan as submitted.
13. All plans shall state the specific date or dates by which each shall be implemented _in_ toto but in no event shall the final implementation date of any plan be later than February 15, 1983. VI. Construction and Implementation
In construing and implementing the terms of this Decree, the following are agreed to by the parties:
1. A. The Defendants shall file the plan with the Court and the United States on or before August 15, 1986. The United States shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of any plan in which to file a response to the plan with the Court. If the United States objects to any plan or portion thereof filed by the State, State and Federal officials shall meet in a
-13-

good faith eftort to resolve their differences. If the State and Federal officials are unable to resolve their differences through negotiation, the adequacy of the contested portions of the proposed plan to achieve the purposes and objectives set forth in Part I of this Consent Decree shall be determined by the Court. Defendants shall have the burden to persuade the Court that the plan is adequate under this standard.
B. If, after a plan is approved, State officials decide to modify that plan or any portion thereof, State officials shall notify the Court and the United States of the proposed modification. The United States shall have sixty (60) days from the receipt of any proposed modification in which to file a response to the proposed modification with the Court. If the United States objects to the modification sought, State and Federal officials shall meet in a good faith effort to resolve their differences concerning the proposed modification. If State and Federal officials are unable to resolve their differences through negotiation, the adequacy of the proposed modification to achieve the purposes and objectives set forth in Part I of this Consent Decree shall be determined by the Court. The Defendants shall have the burden to persuade the Court that the modified plan is adequate under this standard.
C. Plans submitted to the Court, including modifications of plans, to which the United States does not timely object, shall be deemed moved for approval by the Court.
D. All plans required under this Decree, if approved by the Court, shall be issued as orders of the Court and enforceable as such.
-14-

2. A. The State shall submit periodic compliance reports to the United States and the Court. A report will be filed 45 days after the filing of this consent decree with regard to Section III. With regard to Sections IV and V, the State will submit a compliance report on October 1, 1986, and quarterly thereafter, continuing until such time as this Consent Decree is terminated.
B. The format and content of these compliance reports shall be provided for in the State's Plan(s).
3. The United States and its attorneys, consultants, and agents shall have reasonable access to the facilities, records, residents, and employees of the Southbury Training School upon reasonable notice to the State for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the Decree. Such access shall continue until this Consent Decree is terminated.
4. All parties shall bear their own costs, including attorney fees. VII. Termination of Decree
1. The parties contemplate that the Defendants shall have fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of this consent decree, and plans herein required to be submitted and approved by the Court, on or before February 15, 1988.
2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes under this Consent Decree until the Defendants shall have fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of the Consent Decree and plans submitted pursuant thereto and until the judgment be discharged.
-15-

3. On or after the date on which the Defendants shall have fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of this Consent Decree and plans submitted thereto/ the Defendants may move that the injunctions entered herein be dissolved, the judgment discharged, jurisdiction terminated, and the case closed and dismissed with prejudice on grounds that the Defendants have fully and faithfully implemented and maintained all provisions of this Consent Decree and plans submitted pursuant thereto.
4. Dismissal shall be granted unless, within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Defendants' motion, the United States objects to the motion. If such an objection is made with particularity, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion and the burden shall be on the United States to demonstrate that the Defendants have not fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of this Consent Decree or any approved plan(s) or any part thereof and, if objection is based upon failure to implement any plan or part thereof, that such plan or part thereof is essential to the achievement of one or more of the purposes and objectives set forth in Part I of this Consent Decree. If the United States fails to meet this burden, the injunctions shall be dissolved, the judgment shall be discharged, jurisdiction shall be terminated forthwith, and the case shall be closed and dismissed with prejudice.
-16-

5. The Parties reserve the right to withdraw consent in the event that this decree is not approved by theCourt in its entirety. CONSENTED TO BY THE UNDERSIGMED:

FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL Governor

. • ••

/ • - -* .. 1 •> f . . T D a t e :

WM. BRADFORD REYNOLDS

A s s i s t a n t ~A~£"Eorney General

Civil Rights Division

/ i, }/

Date; //-'/ ':•/•; f

f

Date

JOSEPH I. LIEBjERMAN

/ /

STANLEY A. TVJARDY, JR.

Attorney General

United States Attorney

District of Connecticut

BRIAN LENS INK Commissioner Connecticut Department of Mental
Retardation

ARTHUR E. PEABODtAiJR. Chief Special Litigation Section

Date; ROBERT GRIFFITH Director Southbury Training School

Date: BENJAMIN P. SCHOEN Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section

Date: V. COLLEEN MILLER Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530

WHEREFORE, the parties to this action having agreed to the provisions in the Consent Decree set forth above, and the Court being advised in the premises, this Consent Decree is hereby entered as the JUDGMENT of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED, t h i s ^ day of j)>— *-£<J>~> , 1986, at Hartford, Connecticut..
r E UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-n

 
 .*••*•.**
4
J
«O

U.S. v. Conn.
liiiiini MR-CT-005-005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. N-86-252 (EBB)

v.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, William A. O'Neill, Governor of the State of Connecticut; Brian Lensink, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation; Robert Griffith, Director, Southbury Training Shcool. Defendants.

JULY 28, 1987

tfe.)

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF CONSENT DECREE

. The Consent Decree in this action was filed in July, 1986,

Th>e~ Decree was entered as a judgment of this Court on December

22, 1986. The defendant prepared three drafts of the Imple-

mentation Plan required by the Consent Decree. The latest im-

plementation plan was filed on June 6, 1987.

Due to delays in obtaining court approval of the Consent

Decree, further delays in developing an implementation plan

satisfactory to all parties, and original Consent Decree dates

which do not coincide with the State fiscal year, the

defendants thereby move that the following modifications be made to the Consent Decree:
1) (p. 9) That the compliance dates for lines F and G, Direct Care Workers, be changed from February 1, 1987 and February 1, 1988 to AUGUST 1, 1987 and AUGUST 1, 1988, respectively;
2) (p. 15) Sec. VII 1. That the date in paragraph 1 be changed from February 15, 1988 to DECEMBER 1, 1988.
The plaintiff has been advised of this Motion and does not object to the modifications proposed herein. Therefore, the defendants respectfully move that these modifications be accepted by the Court and that the Consent Decree so modified be entered as the Judgment of this court replacing the previous judgment of December 22, 1986.
DEFENDANTS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JAMEfi P. WELSH ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 340 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106-1494 Telephone: 566-1609
-2-

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed in accordance with Rule 5(b)f F.R.C.P., this 28th day of July, 1987, to the following counsel of record:
V. Colleen Miller, Esq. Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 37076 Washington, D.C. 20530
Verlin Hughes, Esq. Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 37076 Washington, D.C. 20530
Stanley Twardy, Jr., Esq. U.S. Attorney 310 Bullard Building 137 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06508
Jamee PT Welsh Assistant Attorney General
-3-

ORDER

WHEREFORE, the defendants, having moved for modification
of the Consent Decree, and the plaintiff, having no objection
to such modifications, this Court accepts the modifications and
enters the Consent Decree as modified as a JUDGMENT of this
Court. Specifically, the modifications made by this Order are:
(1) on page nine (9) of the Consent Decree the compliance dates referenced in lines F and G are changed from February 1, 1987 and February 1, 1988 to AUGUST 1, 1987 and AUGUST 1, 1988, respectively; and
(2) on page fifteen (15) the date in Section VIII, paragraph 1 is changed from February 15, 1988 to DECEMBER 1, 1988.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this at New Haven, Connecticut.

day of

, 1987,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

-4-

 
 U.S. v. Conn.

MR-CT-005-006 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiff,

)

v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, fit a l . .

)
) ) Civil Action No. ) N-86-252 (EBB)

Defendants.

)

STIPULATION It is hereby agreed by and between the parties that the agreed-upon Order set forth below be entered in this action.
ORDER In order to remedy deficiencies at Southbury Training School, Southbury, Connecticut, the Defendants shall, within the time frames specified in each subparagraph below, do the following: 1. (A) (i) By September 1, 1990 employ or contract for nine (9) additional registered nurses who will serve in "Clinical Nurse II"1/ positions. Thereafter,Defendants will maintain the employment of at least 28 registered nurses as Clinical Nurse U s

1/ It is understood by the parties that registered nurses

serving in the "Clinical Nurse II" position are assigned specific

caseloads and work on the Units providing direct nursing care to

Southbury residents. Such care includes performing nursing

assessments, participating in monthly psychotropic medication

reviews, making presentations at Program Review Committee

meetings, performing quarterly assessments and reviews, providing

acute care, chronic; care and monitoring, providing health

education for direct care staff and other duties as set forth in

Attachment II.

=

and otherwise ensure a sufficient number of nonsupervisory registered nurses are employed to maintain, in all units: (a) the caseloads set forth in Attachment I during each of the 1st, 2nd, and split shifts, (e.g. . In Unit I, each Clinical Nurse II on duty during the 1st, 2nd, and split shifts shall have an average 2/ caseload of 36 residents); (b) on duty in the residential units during the evening shift, at least three (3) registered nurses; and, (c) on duty in the Health Care Unit during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd shifts, at least one registered nurse. With respect to each registered nurse in this subparagraph, Defendants shall ensure that he/she has an identifiable group of specific residents as his/her patients. '
(ii) By September 1, 1990, ensure a sufficient number of supervisory nurses are employed to fill each supervisory nursing position (e.g. RN Supervisors, Assistant Director of Nursing, Director of Nursing) set forth in Attachment I;
(iii) By September 1, 1990 employ or contract for such additional Licensed Practical Nurses to ensure that a sufficient number of Licensed Practical Nurses are available to administer medication in all residential units;
(iv) Immediately ensure that the nursing care provided to residents at Southbury Training School meets, at all times, the nursing care standards set forth in Attachment II which is incorporated herein.
2/ No Clinical Nurse II in Units 1, 2, 5, or 9 shall have a caseload of more than 40 residents.
- 2-

(v) Within 45 days, employ or contract for a

sufficient number of physicians to maintain, as specified in

Section IV, paragraph 1A of the Consent Decree, at least a ratio

of one medical doctor serving as a primary care physician for

every 125 residents. With respect to each primary care physician

in this subparagraph, Defendants shall ensure that he/she has an

identifiable group of specific residents as his/her patients.

In maintaining the overall ratio (i.e.f 1:125), Defendants may assign more or less than 125 residents to each primary care

physician based on a professional judgment that the medical needs

of each resident so assigned will be met. No primary care

physician, however, shall be assigned more than 175 residents.

(vi) Immediately ensure that physician care provided

to residents of Southbury Training School meets, at all times,

the standards for physician care set forth in Attachment II which

are incorporated herein.

->.*

(B) By February 12, 1990, appoint a physician eligible

for Board Certification to serve as the facility's medical

director and maintain a physician in that position at all times.

(C) Within 30 days, employ or contract for the

equivalent of at least one qualified psychiatrist to provide

full-time services at Southbury. If Defendants choose to meet

this requirement by providing more than one psychiatrist serving

in a part-time capacity, then each psychiatrist shall be assigned

an identifiable group of specific residents as their patients.

- 3-

(D) Within 10 days, inspect the professional licenses of all staff required to be licensed to ensure that such licenses are current.
(E) Within 10 days, ensure that medications and equipment to be used in case of emerqency are readily available to cottaqe staff in each cottaqe and the Health Care Unit.
(F) Within 30 days, beqin providing appropriate physical therapy to each resident with physical handicaps for .whom a program of physical therapy has been ordered by a 'qualified professional, and ensure records of such treatment are made and entered in the resident's medical record.
(G) (1) Within 45 days, have a qualified physician assess each resident with physical disabilities to determine whether a physical therapy program should be initiated or an existing physical therapy program modified to prevent contractures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body growth and deformity. The physician shall refer those residents for whom such a need is identified to a registered physical therapist. (2) Within 45 days from any such referral, a registered physical therapist shall assess and evaluate each resident so referred and develop a written physical therapy program for each of them.
(H) Within 30 days, employ, contract or otherwise obtain the services of such additional medical specialists as may be needed to provide such medical services as will eliminate, within the following 30 days, all residents currently on waiting
- 4-

3/ for the following medical specialty services: (l) ^orthopedics; (2) scoliosis clinic; (3) gynecology; (4) "1 ^ophthalmology; (5) dermatology; (6) neurology; (7) cardiology;
(8) surgery; (9) endocrinology; (10) ear, nose and throat; and,
*(11) podiatry. (I) Within 60 days, employ or contract for the
services of such medical specialists as may be needed to ensure that no resident is on a waiting list longer than medically indicated or, in any event, longer than 30 days for any medical 'examination or treatment by a medical specialist that has been requested by a qualified professional.
(J) Within 30 days, take such steps as may be necessary to assure that medical test results, medical, psychiatric, and psychology reports, and minutes of the Program Review Committee are completed, typed if required, and placed in resident records within seven working days from the completion of the medical test, examination, treatment, meeting, or other event which resulted in the report.
(K) Within 30 days, have a qualified professional evaluate, for the presence of drug-induced side-effects, those
3/ A "waiting list" as that term is used here, includes of residents whom qualified Southbury professionals have referred for tests, examination or treatment by a medical specialist consultant, including testing facilities. Not included are residents for whom appointments have been scheduled beyond 3 0 days by the medical specialist consultant to whom the resident was referred, so long as the scheduling was a result of the exercise of professional judgment regarding the resident's medical condition by the medical specialist consultant and the primary care physician.
- 5-

^residents who are receiving behavior modifying medication and develop a plan to ensure regular monitoring of such residents for $:r such side-effects at not less than three month intervals, including quality assurance procedures that will document such * monitoring and confirm the accuracy of the evaluations;
(L) (1) Within 15 days, have a qualified professional evaluate for tardive dyskinesia those residents who have received or who are receiving neuroleptic medication and have not.been evaluated for tardive dyskinesia within the last four months. (2) Following completion of the evaluations required by (L)(1) above, ensure that further such evaluations are conducted in accordance with DMR Medical Advisory No. 86-3, as revised, February 23, 1988, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(M) Within 60 days, train medical and direct care staff in how to recognize common side effects of behavior modifying medication, including extrapyramidal effects. Special emphasis will be given to training direct care staff on the common side effects of behavior modifying medications in use in the cottages where they are regularly assigned.
(N) Conduct and document, on a monthly basis, a review of each resident receiving behavior modifying medication to determine whether such medication continues to be medically necessary. A physician and psychologist shall take part in each such review. Each monthly review will include and document: (i) a preceding physical observation of the resident by the physician, (ii) a review and confirmation of the resident's
- 6-

diagnosis in light of data reflecting behavioral symptoms exhibited by the resident and recorded by staff, and ?$"!pc /j_ii) an analysis of whether prescribed or proposed medication is
for those specific symptoms in light of experience. ^ Within 30 days, Defendants will develop quality assurance
procedures that will verify that such reviews are occurring, that they are complete, uniformly comprehensive, and that their results are accurate;
(O) Within 30 days, have a qualified professional review resident medical records, making revisions as necessary to ensure: (1) that medical "problem lists" are comprehensive and current, and (2) that known drug allergies are conspicuously displayed.
(P) Within 45 days, inspect resident records to ensure that they contain the most current data and reports and, as necessary, reorganize resident records to ensure that entries and reports from the different disciplines are uniformly located in the proper section in each record.
(Q) Within 30 days, ensure that resident records, including behavioral program records, accompany residents placed in the hospital annex and develop a plan to monitor implementation of this instruction.
(R) Within five days, ensure that a resident's medical record accompanies the resident to any local hospital to which he/she is admitted and, further, ensure that upon discharge, the local hospital provides Southbury, in a timely manner, with a
- 7 -

scomprehensive record of the resident's diagnosis, course of

ftitiiospitalization while at the hospital, and prescribed treatment.

§?<,*,.

(S) Within 45 days have the Human Rights and Program

fepsReview Committees, including the treating psychiatrist and

-primary care physician, review the training programs, including

»''•-'• ,-relevant data, of each resident who: (1) exhibits self-injurious

or aggressive behavior and (2) is subject to aversive

programming, or receives behavior modifying medication, to

•ascertain whether (i) there is sufficient behavioral data

recorded, (ii) such data is reliable, and (iii) the continuation

of such training or treatment program is justified or the

program, including medication, should be modified for any reason,.

Where inadequate or.unreliable data is found, or the continuation

of the training or treatment program is otherwise not justified,

the matter shall be referred to the appropriate Interdisciplinary

Team which shall, within 30 days from the referral, modify the

existing program in accordance with professional judgment of

qualified professionals, including the primary care physician and

psychiatrist.

(T) Within 30 days, establish a permanent committee of

qualified professionals who shall, on a regular and periodic

basis, review the training programs, including relevant data, of

residents who are not receiving behavior modifying medication and

are not subject to aversive programming but who exhibit self-

injurious or aggressive behavior. This review will ascertain

whether (i) there is sufficient behavioral data recorded, (ii)

- 8 -

such data is reliable, and (iii) the continuation of such

training or treatment program is justified or the program should

be modified for any reason. Within 30 days from the

\ ,

establishment of this committee, it shall evaluate the training

program of each resident identified in subsection (1) and (2)

above, and, where inadequate or unreliable data is found, or the

continuation of the training or treatment program is otherwise

not justified, will refer the matter to the appropriate .

-Interdisciplinary Team which shall, within 30 days from the

referral, modify the existing program in accordance with

professional judgment of qualified professionals, including the

primary care physician.

(U) Within 45 days have the appropriate

Interdisciplinary Team review the Overall Plan of Service of each

resident who exhibits frequent self-injurious or aggressive

behaviors, or is subject to frequent behavior control procedures,

but has no training program to eliminate or reduce the self-

injurious or aggressive behaviors, or the use of behavior control

procedures, to determine whether such a training program is

appropriate. If determined appropriate, the Interdisciplinary

Team, within 3 0 days of each review, shall modify the existing

Overall Plan of Service of such residents in accordance with

professional judgment of qualified professionals.

(V) Within 45 days, implement the existing Plan of

Implementation to assure that: (1) such training programs as are

needed to protect residents from unreasonable risks to their

- 9 -

-im-

safety and from unreasonable bodily restraints are consistently implemented; (2) recordkeeping systems are implemented with respect to each resident's course of training1 as to ensure that sufficient relevant information regarding training is maintained and kept available for use,by appropriate staff; and (3) restraints are administered only pursuant to the exercise of judgment by a qualified professional and they are not used as a form of punishment, for the convenience of staff, or in 'lieu of a prescribed training program.
(W) Within 60 days: (1) develop, implement, and, thereafter, regularly evaluate, a system for observing and recording observations regarding client behavior relevant to training programs and (2) develop and implement a system to verify that the data are reliable.
(X) Within five days, ensure that a resident's primary care physician and medical and training records are present at all meetings of the Program Review Committee at which that resident's medical care, including medication, is discussed. With reference to any other matter considered by the Program Review Committee, the primary care physician shall be available to respond to questions of the committee or appear at the meeting if the committee so requests.
(Y) Within 45 days, only personnel authorized by state and federal law shall administer medication.
2. Defendants shall file with the Court and with the United States reports describing the actions taken, progress made, and

'

- 10 -

the plans developed to fulfill each of the provisions of this Order. Such reports shall be attached as addenda to the next succeeding Quarterly Compliance Report required to be filed '"• , pursuant to paragraph 2A of Section VI of the Consent Decree. Each addendum shall address, at a minimum, each of the lettered paragraphs of this Order, and, as appropriate, shall list the specific residents that the Order provides shall be identified, evaluated, receive medical care or physical therapy or whose 'records were reviewed pursuant to the various provisions herein. Any documents that support statements regarding actions taken or progress toward fulfilling requirements of this Order shall be provided with each addendum.
3. (A) The requirements of this Order shall be in addition to those in the Consent Decree and Plans filed pursuant thereto. The Consent Decree, Plans and this Order constitute the remedial orders in this case. All provisions of the Consent Decree remain enforceable to the extent that they are consistent with this Order.
(B) In agreeing to this Order, the United States does not waive its right to demonstrate at a future proceeding that Defendants are and have been in contempt of this Court's prior remedial orders and to seek sanctions based on those violations.
(C) In agreeing to this Order, the State of Connecticut does not admit any violation of the Consent Decree or its Implementation Plan.
- 11 -

4. (A) The parties contemplate that Defendants shall have fX fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of this Order and

of the Consent Decree by June 30, 1991.

• -

'-

(B) The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action

for all purposes until Defendants have fully and faithfully

implemented all provisions of this Order, the Consent Decree, and

plans submitted pursuant thereto, and until the judgment is

discharged.

•

(C) On or after the date on which Defendants shall

have fully and faithfully implemented all provisions of this

Order, the Consent Decree, and plans submitted pursuant thereto,

Defendants may move that the injunctions be dissolved,

jurisdiction terminated, and the case closed and dismissed with

prejudice on grounds that they have fully and faithfully

implemented the provisions of this Order, the Consent Decree, and

plans submitted pursuant thereto.

(D) Dismissal shall be granted unless, within sixty

(60) days after the receipt of Defendants motion, the United

States objects to such motion. If an objection is made with

particularity, the Court shall hold a hearing on the motion and

the burden shall be on Defendants to demonstrate that they have

fully and faithfully implemented the provisions of the Consent

Decree, any approved plan(s) or part thereof, and this Order, to

which the United States' objection(s) relates. If objection is

based upon failure to implement any plan or part thereof, the

Defendants shall bear the burden of demonstrating that such plan

- 12 -

riff r part thereof is not essential to the achievement of one or
^'"rjaorc of the purposes and objectives set forth in Part I of the Consent Decree. (E) Part VII of the Consent Decree, concerning the termination of the Consent Decree, i"s repealed.
- 13 -

*FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Clarine Nardi Riddle, Esq. Attorney General State of Connecticut

y j R. Dunne ^Assistant Attorney General Civil,Rights Division

; //
Jamps P. Welsh, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of Connecticut

Stanley A. Twardy, ..-Esq. United States Attorney District of Connecticut

'*Xntoinet£e vRichardson Esq. Commissioner Department of Mental Retardation

Arthur E. Chief Special Litigation Section

^Thomas Howley, Ph.D. Director Southbury Training School

Edward A. Stutman Gayle D. Fidler Verlin D. Hughes Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530

SO ORDERED this Connecticut.

rt
day of

., 1990, at New Ha^en,

ELLEN BREE BURNS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- 14 -

MEDICAL DIRECTOR

TASST. DIRVNURSING

|_

HCU

A.DJRESIDENTIAL
DIRECrOR/NURSING
2ND SHIFT HEAD NURSIi &
3RD SUIFV

F RN SUPERVISOR "1 L _ JylAN AGERIAL__ J

F RN SUPERVISOR "1
L - J^HAGS.RIAL_ J

1
RN SUPERVISOR

RN SUPERVISOR
08-ICF

RN SUPERVISOR
I

U4

U5

RN] [RFJIRN]

*(55)

* * 0 ) (2>

(1)

Units J=4 cottage average

RNS generally assigned to 2 cottages

LPNs generally 4 per unit

C U Proposed Average Caseload

<45> (46) (I) (1)

(61) (49) (2) (2) 0 ) O>

S-Split Shift * Present Assigned Caseload ** (1) = 1st shift (2) = 2od shift *** l l u s position, presently filled, is assigned to HCU
wX*if -?I0P°,scd new positions

I
RN SUPERVISOR
i

* •• **
RN SUPERVISOR .|RRN SUPVR

I

1

a

U9

U10 n Daily As>i

jn~riiir[

mails'
n J'ayntU
QA

(53) (5i) 0) (1)

n livening Si (.Sluoc) P6) (34)

••(2) 0 2 ) '

TvpiwiMJni

RNSUPliRVJSOR

I

fIN]

[RN]

p

(LPNI /r^n

,

-

•

.

••>...

^ Q U ^ Nuracll positions \vould »*awiGncd, i.e., Unit 1,2, S (2),

—..— »—^©ClwftvWiwU wllh chronic and incrc«$inB aunwe,

 
 U.S. v. Conn.

MR-CT-005-007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILE
DEC

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al..
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.
) N-86-252 (EBB)
&

STIPULATION

It is hereby agreed by and between the parties that the

agreed-upon Order set forth below be entered in this action.

ORDER

I

1. Immediately, Defendants shall:

A. Establish a permanent committee of doctoral level

psychology staff, chaired by the Director of Psychology, which

shall every 30 days review the data relating to implementation of

training programs for each resident who: (l) exhibits self-

injurious or aggressive behavior or (2) is subject to aversive

programming, or (3) receives behavior modifying medication, or

(4) is otherwise thought to be at risk, to ascertain whether (i)

there is sufficient behavioral data recorded, (ii) such data is

reliable, and (iii) the continuation of such training or

treatment program is justified or the program, including

medication, should be modified for any reason. Where inadequate

or unreliable data is found, or the continuation of the training

or treatment program is otherwise not justified, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate Interdisciplinary Team which shall, within 30 days from the referral, modify the existing program in accordance with professional judgment of qualified professionals, including the primary care physician and psychiatrist. The Human Rights and Program Review Committees shall receive and review, monthly, reports concerning the reviews required by this paragraph, and,
B. In all other respects, implement the Consolidated Behavior Program Review Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. The requirements of this Order are in lieu of those contained in paragraphs l(S) and l(T) of the Stipulation entered as an Order by this Court on April 24, 1990. All other provisions of the Consent Decree, Defendants' Implementation Plan, and the Stipulated Order of April 24, 1990 remain enforceable.
I
ìI
- 2-

•¾ä¿FOR T H E S T A T E 0 F CONNECTICUT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

James P. Welsh, Esq. Assistant Attorney General ^ State of Connecticut

Albert S. Dabrowski United States Attorney (Acting) District of Connecticut

Antoinette Richardson, Esq. Commissioner Department of Mental
Retardation

Arthur E. Peabody, Chief Special Litigation Section

Thomas Director Southbury Training School

Edward A. Stutman Gayle D. Fidler Philip Guzman Trial Attorneys Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530

SO ORDERED this Connecticut.

7t
day of

., 1991, at New Haven,

p BREE BURNS, CHIEF JUDGE UÎJZTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this [Ç _'—I day of

¿l

1991.

1

- 3-

Exnibii A CONSOLIDATED BEHAVIOR PROGRAM REVIEW PLAN

The PLAN reflects a comprehensive view of the clinical areas prioritized by inter disciplinary teams. A major contribution is anticipated from Psychology with the support of Unit Directors.
The PLAN has four major areas of focus that are described below:
1. Reliability of behavioral data. 2. Quality assurance of behavioral programs and behavior med reviews. 3. Interdisciplinary team review of clients "at risk". 4. PRC and HRC reviews of data reliability and program quality.

RELIABILITY OF BEHAVIORAL DATA:
Rationale - Reliability is confirmed to assure that clinical decisions are based on trustworthy data.

Responsible staff - Psychology staff in each unit haavv<e designed and implemented a unit specific approach to reliability sampling. This effort is
managed by psychology and operates with participation by other team members.
It is overseen and supported by the Unit Director.

Method and Documentation - "At risk" clients are prioritized within each unit

and scheduled for reliability sampling of behavioral data. Team members are

designated as participants in conducting reliability checks according to the

unit schedule. Data sheets matching those routinely used are scored by the

independent observers, computations of reliability percentages are shown on

the data sheet, and an entry is made in the Reliability Log for each client

completed. The completed observer data sheets for all clients sampled are

submitted to Psychology with the Reliability Logs en the first day of each

month. A sequently

separate Log is shared wiithh th

used Ui

for i

each

cottaggie

in

the

unit.

Loggs are sub-

ordinator.

the Unit Directors and with the Consent Decree Co-

Samples yielding less than 80S signal questionable trustworthiness in the data and require specific steps for improvement with a timetable for implementation. Clients affected are scheduled for re-checking reliability following implementation of adjustments.

Reliability checks are scheduled for each "at risk" client at a rate of once per 3-4 months to re-confirm acceptable reliability of behavioral data.

Status of data reliability is reviewed rountinely at psychotropic medication reviews (monthly) and at OPS reviews (quarterly).

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF BEHAVIORAL PROGRAMS AND BEHAVIOR MEDICATION REVIEWS
.Rationale - Clinical products and process are reviewed to provide supervisory feedback to psychology staff and assure maintenance of high clinical standards.
Responsible staff - A Permanent Committee chaired by the Director of Psychology and including doctoral level psychology staff reviews behavioral programs and medication reviews for "at risk" clients.
Method and Documentation - Permanent Committee members conduct reviews of "at risk" clients. A total of fifteen clients per month are reviewed, prioritized for review within units according to clinical need.

CONSOLIDATED BEHAVIOR PROGRAM R£VIE¾ PLAN Page -2-
Reviews for Quality Assurance address both behavioral program quality and psychotropic medication review process. Program quality is evaluated with the Quality Assurance Checklist which includes but is not limited ta a review of: sufficiency of data, reliability of data, and justification for continuation of of the existing program. Client programs that are not justified in their present form are prioritized for revision within 30 days. Doctoral supervisors submit monthly documentation of reviews including the completed QA Checklist and a QA Log for each month.
Reviews of psychotropic medication reviews are completed at the same time as QA's if the client is on psychotropic medication. A recent medication review form is surveyed for confirmation of clinical accuracy and comprehensiveness. Comments are offered on the form where appropriate. Each form is dated and signed by the supervisor and submitted as documentation of the review along with a completed Psychotropic Medication Review Log for each cottage.
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM R£YIE¼ Rationale - Review of status of "at risk" clients facilitates team process and prioritization of client needs.
Responsible staff - Psychology staff provide ongoing monthly updates on "at risk" clients, including status of programs. Program development is prioritized to assure each client has a program. The Team and Case Manager update OPS to reflect client needs and status. The Unit Director reviews monthly updates and facilitates priorities to maintain programs for all "at risk" clients.
Method and Documentation - Psychology staff set month to month goals and priorities based upon need for programs. Psychology accuracy in monitoring status of "at risk" clients facilitates prioritization. Monthly updates are provided via computer entry with hard copy back-up. Status by unit is evaluated via monthly management reports. Unit Directors provide independent monitoring of updates and facilitate team goals for "at risk" clients. Quarterly OPS reviews provide documentation of client status.
PRC Ai(O HRC REVIEWS Of RELIABILITY AND PROGRAM QUALITY
Rationale - PRC and HRC provide external review of compliance.
Responsible staff - Psychology provides Reliability Logs and QA Checklist Logs for all units monthly to Consent Decree Coordinator (CDC), who in turn provides information to PRC and HRC. Management Reports provide additional information on unit by unit progress for "at risk" clients.
Method and Documentation - Logs for each month are submitted to CDC for PRC and HRC reviews. Minutes of PRC and HRC provide documentation of reviews.
MJp/ms Ref:OOl

 
 , SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:13 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 514 6273:« 2/26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT Of CONNECTICUT
TINTTKn STATES OP AMF.RTCA

FILED
Juii 19 3 44 A

V.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ET AL. Defendant..*;

No.U:86-CV-252 (EBB)

RULING OK PLAINTIFF18 APPLICATION FOR AH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOOLD MOT BE HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
The Plaintiff United States of America has moved the court to Lhe Defendant SLaLe uf Connecticut- officials in contempt Of
the Consent Decree dated December 22, 1986, and the Court. Orders dated April 2\, 1990 and December 9, 1991, respectively. For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 1, 1984, the United States Department of Just.icp (t.hp "DOJ") notified Connecticut officials of the DOJ'3 intention to investigate the living conditions at Southbury Training school ("STS"),1 in accordance with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persona Act ("CRIPA") , 42 U.S.C. § 1007 SSS- On September 11

AO72A (Ho*. 6/82)

1 STS i.8 an institution for the mentally dioabled in the ohate of Connecticut. As of the hearing on this motion, STS housed 843 residents, making it one of the ten largest institutions of it-a KiiiU iti Llie United

1 CRIPA authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate institutions

for the mentally disabled, if credihle al l*»ijat-.inns of nnrnncH.i-nt' ional

uf

exist.

U.S. v.Conn.

MR-CT-005-009

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17=14 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:# 3/26

1985, following i t s investigation, the Plaintiff brought an action against the State of Connecticut, i t s governor, the commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR") , and the director of STS, pursuant to CRIPA. In lieu of l i t i g a t i o n , the United States and various Connecticut o f f i c i a l s ' entered into a Consent Decree which t h i s court so ordered on December 22, 1986.
The Consent Decree required the Defendants to submit an Implementation Plan (the "Plan") addressing the procedure they would use to implement the Consent Decree's mandates. This court approved the Plan on July 22, 1988. Subsequent to entering into the Consent Decree, the parties agreed to two additional Court Orders on April 24, 1990 (the "1990 Court Order") and December 9, 1991 (the "1991 Court order") , respectively.'
In November, 1993, attorneys for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, along with various experts, examined STS's conditions. The DOJ's experts included: Dr. Renec C. Wachtel, M.D., Director of Developmental Pediatrics, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine; Dr. Alan E. Harchik, Ph.D.; and Ms. Susan Harryman, Director of the Physical Therapy Department at the Kennedy Krieger I n s t i t u t e , and Instructor in thej Department of Pediatrics at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine. All of the experts' findings indicated that STS was not
1 The Connecticut o f f i c i a l s included: William ft. O'Neill, Governor; Brian Lensink, Commissioner, CfinnAAhi «uh. Department of Mental Retardation; Robert Griffith, Director, Southbury Training School; and Joseph I. Liebertnan, Connecticut Attorney General.
4 The court will refer to the Consent Decree, Plan, and two court Orders c o l l e c t i v e l y as the "Remedial Orders."

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 1 4 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:* 4/26

complying with the Remedial Orders. (See PI. Exs. 4, 8, and 22.) On June 20, 1994, the Plaintiff sent the experts1 findings to
the Defendants, together with a letter alleging that the Defendants were not in compliance with the Remedial Orders. The Plaintiff also included a list of actions that the Defendants should take to remedy the alleged violations.
In response, the Defendants retained a group of experts to examine the Plaintiff's experts1 findings, and to make independent findings and suggestions. The Defendants' experts included: Dr. Fred Volkmar, M.D., Professor of Child Psychology at the Vale University child Study Center; Dr. Henry Schneiderman, M.D., F.A.C.P.; Dr. James E.C. Walker, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, at the University of Connecticut; Ms. Rhea Sanford, R.N., M.S.N., Clinical Nurse Specialist at the John Dcmpsey Hospital of the University of Connecticut Health Center; and Ms. Karen Green McGowan, R.N., Clinical Nurse Consultant. After the Defendants' experts concluded their examination, counsel for the respective parties met to discuss a possible resolution of the Plaintiff's contempt allegations. The Plaintiff proposed two principle measures
i
to remedy the Defendants' alleged contempt: appointment of a' Special Master to increase the level of monitoring of conditions at: STS, and a significant reduction of STS's population within three,
i
years. Despite extensive discussions, the parties failed to reach an agreement.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed the instant application for an order to show cause why the Defendants should not be held in

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:15 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 5146273:* 5/26

contempt. This court held four days of hearings on the Plaintiff's application, during which the Plaintiff presented expert testimony regarding the Defendants' alleged noncompliance; and the Defendants presented testimony from several of its employees.
II. DISCUSSION
A. LEGAL STANDARD Courts have the inherent power to hold a party in civil
contempt "to enforce compliance with an order of the court, or to compensate for losses or damages." Powel I v. Ward. 643 F.2d 924, 931 (2d Cir. 1981) (quoting McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Cotf 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949)). Also, 18 U.S.C. § 401 gives federal courts the "power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as . . . (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command."
A finding of contempt is appropriate when: (1) the court order's provisions are clear and unambiguous; (2) the moving party establishes noncompliance by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the defendant has not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to comply. International Longshoremen's Assn, v. Philadelphia Marina Trade Assn.r 389 U.S. 64, 75-76 (1967); F.F.OC v. Local 63 8 753 F.2d 1172, 1178 (2d Cir. 1985), aff'd 478 U.S. 421 (1986). Furthermore, because sanctions for civil contempt are remedial in nature, a court may find a party in contempt, irrespective of

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:15 -STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 314 6273:* 6/26

whether that, party intended to comply with the court's order. v. Jarksnnvi 11P Papor Co. 336 U.S. at 191; Manhattan
Industries. Inc. v. Sweater Bee by Danff, LTD.. 885 F.2d 1, 5 (2d cir. 1989) (court declares that "sanctions for civil contempt can be imposed without a finding of uilfulness.") (citations omitted).
B. FINDINGS OF" NONCOMPLIANCE
At the hearing, and in its papers, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were violating the Remedial Orders in three a r a s Psyrhological services, medical services, and physical therapy services. The court will address each of these areas in turn.
1. Psychological Services Psychological services are critical to the residents'
development at S T S . Tne Remedial orders set torth in detail numerous requirements regarding STS's psychological eerviccc. Among other things, STS is required to provide:
Training programs professionally designed to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks to personal safety or unreasonable use of restraints and developed by qualified professionals . . ."'
' The Remedial Orders also mandate Lhc lullowiuy: Consent Decree S 1(2) (requiraa provision of rharrtoijt-ooof care which ic cu£fici«nt to protoot all residents from unreasonable risks to their personal satetv both by the conduct of staff, and of other rocidente); Consent Decree § I{4) (requires 3T3 to prescribe and administer behavior modilying medications pursuant- tn the exercise of professional juOyiu«nL); Cuuautit Decree 5 V(3) (requires STS to provide a sufficient number of training program hours for each recident); cuneent Decree s V(3) irequires bxs to maintain adequate records): Consent Decree $ V(8) <requiroc that rcatrainto and behavior modifying medications not bo used i.n lieu of training programs); I^I Court nrttar S 1(A) (roqulroc

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 1 6STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 314 6273:2 7/26

Consent Decree 5 1(1). As shown in i t s compliance reports, STS has developed an overall plan ot services ("OPS") for i t s residents, thereby complying with the letter of the Remedial Orders. However, GTG f a i l s to satisfy the s p i r i t of Lhe Remedial orders, as I t s implementation of the overall plan of services has not yielded the required results.
For example, STS has a. wriLLen behavior plan for most of i t s residents, which, in part, requires psychology staff members to conduct behavior assessments to determine the possible conditions that both lead to and maintain challenging problem behaviors. Yet. STS's records snow that assessments ars not being performed regularly, and whon they arc performed, they rarely generate useful infvjtuictl-iyri or actions. At the hearing, and in his report. Dr. Alan Uarrhik explained that many of the behavior assessments he reviewed were several months old, and identical rewrites of previously conducted analyses. (Pi. EX. 22 at 6.) Further, he noted that of the twpnty-one cases he reviewed, there was l i t t l e relation between the analyses and the treatment procedures. More specifically, he described several cases in which the patients were «it.hp.r not showing any progress or were regressing, but no further action was taken. (isL.)
•STS'S behavior plans also required staff me.mh*»rs to implement an "ignore and redirect" procedure when confronted with maladaptive
modification of training plans when necessary); and 1990 Cnurf Or<i<?r S (r«quiv«e, when dpyiujjiiaie, "Ui« Interdisciplinary Team, ultnin 30 days of each review, [to] modify the existing Overall Plan of Service of auch residents
in accordance with professional judgment of qualified professionals.').

AO72A (Rev. a/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 1 6 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:2 8/26

behavior. Yet, the plane did not specify whether the behavior or the resident, should be iqnored, what the resident should be redirected to do, or what-, f.hp. staff should do i f tho behavior continued but rectraint wac not required. Consequently, "staff members always paid attention to residents when they exhibited problem hehavior by making statements to the resident about the problem behavior . . . [but failed] to redirect them Lo something more appropriate or to engage in an alternative behavior or activity." (Tri.)
A September, 1904 report on the death of Stanley B. shows clearly STS's delinquency in implementing treatment procedures to address problems discovered during behavior assessments. Stanley B. vac one of STC'3 approximately twenty smoking residents. STS's staff was WPII fluar? that he was "a 'sloppy' and at times carclcco smoker who sometimes burned holes in his clothing."" HOWP.VPT, Stanley B.'s 1993 OPS did not provide any instruction to the staff regarding his smoking habits, or his ntsed for supervision while smoking. (Pi. tx. 12, Final Investigation Rpport of Thomas Harmon at 9-10 [hereinafter "Harmon Report"].)
In 1989, STS staff developed an OPS for Stanley B. which established a goal to f.p.ar.h him to extinguish his pipe in a safe

* In t h e past., Stanley D. Called t o pay a t t e n t i o n co trie end at n i 3 cir}/»r«>t-.r.», and hot: ash would f a l l on, and burn, h i e c l o t h i n g . E v e n t u a l l y , s t a r r members l i m i t e d h i s smoKinq to a pipe. Despite such l i m i t a t i o n , sfc B. was c t i l l caroloaa in pocking h i s pipe with tobacco, olLcii s y i l i i n y l o o s e tobacco on t h e f l o o r and h i s clnr.hing. (PI. EX. 12, Final I n v e s t i g a t i o n Report.
u£ ThuHutu Harmon at 9-10 (hereinafter "Harmon Keport"].)

AO72A (Rev. 0/02)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE :6-20-96 : 17:17 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:a 9/26

manner.7 To achieve that goal, he had to complete a series of smoKing-related tasKs, independently, during eight consecutive training sessions. (Harmon Report at 11.) However, only two quarterly reports regarding this goal weie found, neither of which Indicated that Stanley B. was progressing. Moreover, although a later report indicated a slight decrease in his performance, ST3 staff did not take any action to address the problem.'
on the morning ot April 2, 1994, Stanley B.'s clothing caught on fira while he smoked hie pipe. As a result, he suffered burns to one-half of his budy, and died later that evening.
The Health Care. Financing Administration's (the "HCFAV October, 1994 survey also evinces ST5's inability to implement i t s programs effectively. in i t s report, the HCFA stated that i t s inspection indicated STS was not providing continuous, aggressive, and active treatment programs. (Pi. Ex. 19, IICFA Cottage 34 Survey at l . ) Furthermore, HCKA noted that i t s survey was the fourth consecutive survey to yield such results. (Id.) HCFA then discussed 3everal instances in which pica programs10 for several
The yUrtl Knt-.ailKri f.Mrhing Stanley B. t o pack h i s pipe n e a t l y , dump che p i p e ' s hoc ash in an aah-tray, place h i s pipe in a f i r e - p r o o f c o n t a i n e r in h i e gym bag, and clean up a f t e r himself. (Harmon Report at. 1 1 . )
1 when Mr. Harmon questioned STS o f r i c i a i s about t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of Stanlay D . ' s t r a i n i n g , they reasoned that. "it. could hove been r e a l i z e d chat Uie qoal was beyond achievement or t h a t other needs u«»r« mnm impnr*ani-. The record, however, did noL i n d i c a t e why attempts t o teach (Stanley b. ] s a f e flmolcing hahife uero abandoned, or hou hia n««d t o 'smoke s a f e l y ' would o t h e r w i s e be addressed." (Harmon Report at 12.)
' HCFA conducts p e r i o d i c nxaminutinnc nf tho«« f a c i l i t i e s foe tho mentally disabled ttscttiviny federal funding.
Pica is an abnormal desire to ingest substances not*, normally

AO72A lH«v

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:17 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:410/26

clients were either lacXinq, or not being implemented as written at their day programs: (l) A st.,iff interview indicated t h a t Client #07 ingested a pieoe of plastic at her day site (Pi. Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 32 survey at 5 ) ; (2) during a one-hour observation, Client /O9 was observfid t.n ingest feathers from a dustor, and lacked involvement in a routine (idj.) ; (3) Client #08 lacked the implementation of the *eye-qouqinq" component of her behavior program fid, at 6 ) ; (4) Staff observed Client #08 stick her finger in her eye, but did not redirect her to remove it as indicated in her beuaviui- proqram (14*.); (5) observation and documentation indicated that Clianr. #n?'«; behavior program to reduce his colf-injurioue behavior of hitting his head with his hands was not implemented us written (PI- Ex. 19, HCFA cottage 34 Survey at 2); (6} a review of Client #06's behavior data since the implementation of his program designed to prevent incidents of ingesting cigarette butts indicated that client #06 Ingested cigarette butts at least seventy-eight times between June 17, 1994 and January 1, 1995 (Pi. Ex. 19, HCFA 26 Colony C t . Circle Survey at 2 ) ; (7) STS's failure Lu implement its procedure to keep toxic substances out of reach of the client resulted in Client #03 ingesting a water and bleach mixture (PI. Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 22 Survey at _ 2 ) ; and (8) althouqh Client #02 Tell three hundred and twenty-four times between January, 1994 and October, 1994, STS lacked programming to address this behavior. (PI. Ex. 19, HCFA Cottage 3 4 Survey dt 2.)
STS has not only failed to protect its residents from injury to themselves, but has also failed to protect ite recidentc from

AO72A (Rev.

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE :6-20-96 : 17:17 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:211/26

unreasonable risk of injury by other reeidcnte. A cursory review of
STS's accident report for the year beginninq September 1, 1993
reveals numerous incidents of rasidents' acts of aggression toward their peere.'1 While the court acknowledges that a facility such as
STS is not able Lo prevent every incident, the court notes tnat
numerous incidents list.p.d in STS's accident reports occurred on several occasions. (Pi. Ex. 20. ) 1 2
The court, however, finds that STS's accident reports are
misleading, when vif»wpd in isolation. When the court juxtaposes
STS'c reported and substantiated abuse and neglect allegations
between 1992 and 1994 with those of the other institutions in the
DMR's siy regions, the court finds STS's number to be the loweet.
(See, Dcf. Exs. AB and AC.) Of course, such a comparison does nuL
exonerate STS from its duty to minimize accidents. However, STfl
appeared to be combating the problem more effectively than any of
the other institutions in the region.
Although positive reinforcement is one of thp. most, pffactive,
efficient, and nonaversive procedures available for dealing with
such maladaptive behavior, iL. is not a standard part of bTS'
'' For example: (1) A racidont knocked Claire to the floor; (2) a resident pushed Karyn to the tloor; (3) a resident punched Ray in tha chant; (4) a resident: hie. Mary on the head; (5) Charlie punched a.ulaCC member In Che back, of his head; (6) a racirtant ptinoheH .Jvtdy in the eya; (1) a r«aident theew Alicid tu the ground; and (8) a resident grabbed Brenaa's nead, and bit out a mouth full of hair. (PI. Ex. 20.)
t? Foe exainpU: (1) A tcsiJcnt slapped Stella two times in two days; (?) JAIWOG headlocked another resident on three coparito occaoiona in one day; (3) a resident slapped Lillian D. on the head five times; (4) a resident-, hpsrfbuttcd Christine O. three times; (0) a resident slapped DdviU W. in the face two times; and (6) a rH.Mi(^H^^ slapppd Richard W. in tha face two timec. Ex. 7.0 and selected accident reports.)

AO72A ». 0/02)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 1 8 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:*12/26

behavioral programs. Further/ when STS did Include positive reinforcement in a behavior plan, attempts by the psychology and direct-care staff to implement the procedure demonstrated a 'total lack of unclerstciiiUiau uC positive reinforcement." (PI- EX. 22 at V.J For example, the staff allowed one resident to perform preferred chores to reinforce appropriate behavior, and directed him tu do the same chores when he became agitated, in another case, a resident., uho was restrained at least once a day for exhibiting aggreeeivc behavior, received his reinforcement snacks despite his disruptive conduct. Yet another resident's behavior plan called for reinforcement every five minutes, but the staff member did not administer the procedure, reasoning that i t dues not work. "By not applying the simplest, most basic principles of intervention and p o s i t i v e reinforcement, residents at STS arc not receiving a suitable training program." !1 (PI. Ex. 22 at 7.)
Another flaw in STS's psychological sprvires i s i t s failure to keep i t s residents actively engaged. Dr. Harchik performed a study across eleven cuLlaqes to determine the number of residents engaged at any g iven time..u He found that the residents were "almost never engaged." (PI. Ex. 22 at 11.) In fact, the average percenLdya of residents engaged across the eleven cottages was 31%, an p.vtre.mely
Dr. HarchiK a l s o nocea tne conspicuous absence ot p o s i t i v e s t a f f i n t e r a c t i o n with t h e r e s i d e n t s . He stated that ha observed f i f t y s t a f f members a c r o s s e i e v e n s e t t i n g s , and found only one i n t e r a c t i n g with t h e r«»irti»nt-.R.
" F.v<»ry t-on fn f i f t e e n minutes Dr. Harchik would count o y c t c m a t i c a l l y the number or r e s i d e n t s who were enqaqea. Dr. HarchiJc's d e f i n i t i o n of "engagement" included any a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in an a c t i v i t y ( i . e . , luukiny at magazines, e a t i n g dinner, and playing wiih i.oyy). (PI- Ex. 22 a t 1 1 - 1 2 . )
11
AO72A (fl»v. 8/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 1 8 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:213/26

AO72A

low average by professional standards.15 Instead of enqaqinq the residents in activities, staff members were observed watching TV, talking on tho telephone, talking to each other, andengaging in other miscellaneous activities. (PI. Ex. 22 <iL 11-13.)
J>TS has railed to discover and address such systemic defects, because its staff doas not execute STS'c "review and modify" procedures regularly. Once ayain, STSis in compliance withthe letter o£ the Remedial Orders, but fails toproduce the results. As dictated by the Remedial Orders, STS procedural guidelines require that its staff hold reyular monthly reviews of behavior treatments for tnose residents receiving madicatinn, and that a doctoral-level psychology staff conduct monthly reviews of specific behavior plans ("QA reviews") . Also, an interdisciplinary team is required to perform a quarterly re.viftw nf all plan objectives. Furthermore, STS'c Program Review Committee (the "PRC") is required to review those residmiLs reeeivinq behavior medications at least every two years. (PI- E*. ?? ar <». ) However, while at least half of the behavior programs he reviewed required modification,10 the QA reviews performed prior tohis report did not recommend modification of any existing behavior plans.1' (PI. Ex. 22 at 9.)
'" Dr. Harohi.lt ctated that "801 or low*r i s cui\sidersd t o be problematic by professional standards." (Pi. Ex. 22 at 12.)
'" Dr. HarehiJc found that tho pati«nfe behavior ujc either worasning or not progressing.
11 Dr. Harchik flr.»t«H rhar ST.?'* "clinical rocponee to behaviore wuiattniuy appear[ed] co be to loox to obtaininq a better diagnosis . . . or changing medications . . . . There appears to be little focus upon modifying environmental conditions and intervention procedures." (Pi- Ex. 22 at 9.)
12

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:19 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 514 6273:si4/26

Finally, the Defendants violate the Remedial Orders by
•administering behavioral medication in lieu of training programs.
The Defendants' own expert found that STS administered psychotropic
medications for behavior problems when behavioral programs were more
appropriate, ur. frred VolJcmar found that:
Psychiatric cervices at STS appeared to be entirely focused on issues of medication . . . Essentially, there appear to be no psychiatric services other than those related to medications, e.g., no in-service training, no supervision, no psychotherapy, no consultation regarding psychialriu aspects of medical •-conditions, and so forth. Psychiatrists are not really active members of the treatment, t-.p.ams but rather are brought in as, in effect, outside consultants. . The psychiatric consultations arc not well integrated with Other aspects Of the rehabi 1 it-.at.ion and medical program.
This has had the unintended p.ff«ct of "marginalizing' psychiatry at STS with cunsequent implications for the quality of service which ic provided.
Report of Dr. Fred R. Volkmar at 6 Thereinafter "volkmar Report"].
D. Medical
The Remedial Orrip.rs rpqnire that STS provide adequate medical
care to all of ita residents."1 Several of the experts' repurts and
STS compliance reports reveal that STS has established a substantial
nnmhpr of medical programs. However, clear and convincing evidence
" The consent Decree provides in relevant part: S 1(3) (adequate
modical cars shall be afforded all rcaideiiLa pursuant "Co the excLuist) of professional judgment by a Qualified profafiaion^l); S T(4) (behavior modifying medications and other medications musL bw prescribed and administered to residents pursuant- rn the 9x«rci.a« of professional judgment by a qualified professional); and s v(5) (plan snail De established setting forth thft rornrrf lc««ping oyctomrs, policies, and procedures with rei^cul. Uu uuch patient's care, medical treatment, and required training rhat shall bo utilized to maintain and make available in «<tcii resident's record Such information as is professionally necessary to permit the exerciec of professional judgment in thai care, medical treatment, and training).
13
AO72A (R8V. 6/02)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:19 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 314 6273:S15/26

shows that the Defendants1 medical services at times viul<ale the Remedial Orders' requirements, thereby placing r e s i d e n t s in grave, danger.
Pcrhapo the n>O3t blatant example of STS's fai.luxe to provide adequate medical care i s found in the various reports on the death of John T." In caring for John T., STS's medical s t a f f made a s c r i e s of severe errors which possibly contributed to h i s ultimate death. Among those errors were the following: (l) STS s t a f f ' s management of diarrhea and severe malnutrition in June, 1392 was delayed and inadequate;2" (2) John T. '» physician, one Dr. (iuevarra, f a i l e d to diagnose nis deteriorating condition in a timely or adequate manner, during the l a s t ten dayc of August, 1992;'' (3) on the day of John T. 's death, STS slafC Tailed to recognize that he had lapsed into unconsciousness for several hours;"" (4) Dr. Guevarra f a i l e d to question why John T. wao receiving an extraordinarily high dosage of Dilantin (three Limes as hiqh as his normal d o s e ) ; "
" One report, described STS'c treatment of John T.'fl medical condition d« "playued with medical flaws that may have contributed to precipitating [his] death. . . . Upon return to STS in a debilitated but stable conUiLiuii, Jutm T.'s evaluation by his (primary r.arr. physician] failed to assess and addrccc iiupurLant impacts of. his medical condition." Memorandum of Miguel Aquino at 3 [hereinafter 'Aquino Memo''].
•" Repoti. un John T. by or. Reno Jahlel, S T S Medical Director, at 1 (h»roi niftier "Jahiol Roport"].
ji - .
la-
'•' Dr. Jahiel stated thar. a "thorough review and inuoctigation on arrival should have revealed Uiw wxewusive dosage or [uiilantin and mar have c l a r i f i e d t-.hn parhological procesaoc ongoing in thic patient, including the cauee of his apparently severe pain." (Jahiel Report at 6.)
14
AO72A (Rev. B/W)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:20 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 514 6273:*16/26

AO72A (R«V.

(D) Dr. Guevdrrd failed to check John T.'s blood to determine Whether he was carrying n toxic level of Dilantin;'' (6) Dr. Cucvarra did not provide clearly defined orders regarding John T.'s medicine piascription;" (7) Dr. Guevarra prescribed a "cocktail of medications" without regard to the detrimental effects of ordering multiple medications.'"'
As shown above, STS's care of John T. was plagued with appalling examples of insufficient medical care, and such systemic inadequacies might be sufficient alone to find the Defendants in contempt of the Remedial orders. However, the court will discuss several additional examples below.
Sis'a maintenance of its active arid inactive problem lists is inadequate. Active and inactive problem lists are a crucial part of effective medical care. Report of Karen Green McGowan at 4 [hereinafter "McGowan Report"). Problem lists provide an accurate picture of a patient's current and past health history. (Id.) Furthermore, such lists arc very useful to medical consultants, and
ii Atjuiuu Mtmo at 4.
"' Or. Guevarra ordered that John T. rorpiw Demerol for "sav«rs pain," Ativan for "ayi.Lati.un", ami Tylenol for "mild pain." However, Dr. Cuevarra did not clearly define what conctitutea the respective levels of pditi. Consequently, the amount of medicine given was loft open to interpretation, and thus unpredictable. TJ,,
" Dr. uuevarra did not consider, nor did he Alert his n u r d rig staff to, the poaaibility that such a mixture could icsuU in restlessness, insomnia, and seLf-abusive behavior. Consequent-ly, when John T. exhibited cuch behaviors, they 'WBCIJ all regarded signs of pain and . . . due to [Or. Guevarra'3] initial Oversight that failed Co concidcr the potential deleterious e££«wl ul Uhu cocktail ot medications, the possibility that unusual hphavior . . . could
represent toxicity was never considered." Aa a result, theadministering of
medications n«v«r mnrlort. Til.
15

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:20 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:si7/26

when STS rerers a patient lu a new physician. (Id.) conversely, problem l i s t s nrt>. uttp.rly useless if they are not accurato. At STS, most of the patients that the experts observed had problem l i s t s . Howftvet, the majority of the l i s t s reviewed were either incomplete or inacrurate/' (McGowan Report at 4.)
STS "s recordkeeping procedures are also below professional standards, causinq important medical information to be obscured, and jeopardizing i t s residents1 health. Ms. McGowan found that STS wac attempting to maintain the residents' medical records. Nevertheless, she explained that i t took her trom one and onp-haif to two hours per client to retriavo information in the c l i e n t ' s record, because there was "(t]oo much crucial information in too many places, much of which (.was] either incomplete, repetitive or inconsistent." (McGowan Roport at 3.) Aleo, the HCFA's report c i t e d several cases of primacy ear« physicians altering patients' medication without informing the. interdisciplinary team, and
"' Ha. McGowan reviewed eight l i s t s and fouad Uia.L acven u[ them e i t h e r incompl «••.« or inarrnrat-p. (McCouan Report at 4.) Dr. Jamee Walker »L«t«a t h a t the "medical records problem l i s t s ' are not current and progress notaa do not indicate the problem being addressed, making review cumbersome and open t o oversight. This problem U mult-.ipl i»ri hy fch* numb«r of d i s c i p l i n e s u»iuy the progress notes." Report or Or. James B.C. walker at 1 [hereinafter "Walker Report"). Moreover, a Quality Assurance Review Summary completed by an STS medical staff member revealed the fallowing:
(I]n tuenty-fiva porcsnt o£ c u s a , a l l ci.gni.fj.oant paot illnc33O3 were not l i s t e d and . . . dlaano3tLc procedures were not Listed In about t h i r t y three percent of the active problem l i s L s . In C«y<*rU to health casa unit aiimi«5inns, ron to twelve parcant of raaidonto aid not hav« daily progress notes Cor at l e a s t the t i r s t three days after adtniccion.
(PI. Ex. 4 at 25.) fi££ also. P i . E*. 4 <*t. 8, 9, 26-27 (Dr. WaCfttel Cites other t* of poor problam l i c c s ) .
16
AO/2A (Riv. 8/821

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 17:21 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:218/26

patient:*' medication ;ecurds not accurately reflectinq the actual dosage of medication that the patients wnrp. rnr.p.iving.2™
Even when medical ooncernc were properly listed in a patient's record, STS often failed to follow-up with the appropriate medical care. For example, in several instances, medical records indicated that patients were experiencing significant weight loss, but STS Tailed to taxe action.: (McGowan Keport at ll; pi. Ex. 4 at 14, 15, 16, and 21.) On other occasions, patients were diagnosed as having serious illnesses, but inadequate medical action was taken. (PI. EX. 4 at 13.)
Dr. Volkmar noted that STS's system for prescribing medication was at times "very complicated," and had "possible uiedical-lfeydl implications." (Volkmar Keport at /-a.) tie explained that there were at least six participants involved in any transaction related to medication, which at times decreased the quality of paLient care. The participants included: (1) the client, (2) his/her parent or guardian, (3) the psychiatrist, (4) the primary care (prescribing) physician, (5) the LredLmenl Leam, and (6) the program review commit.t-.RR (the "PRC") "which functioned as the final arbiter for medication decisions." (Volkmar Report at 7.) Dr. Volkmar explained that, although the rationale behind such an elaborate
" rliont- IO71* medical records «houed that, ac of December 13, 1994, ho was receiving ten mg. of findolol daily, when, in actuality, he Had been receiving fifteen mg. daily for nearly a month. In another case, Client #03'3 primary care physician increased his dosage of Tranxene from thr«e r.o four time a a Uay, but Miu Lncrujiiu wui> nut r« fleeted in Client: #03's medical records for over throo months. (PI. Ex. 19, HCFA 26 Colony Ct. Circle Survey at 6.)
" Ma. HcOowan noted that unplanned weiulit luss in an environment like ATS it* almost always Indicative of other health isauee. (MoCowan Report at 11.)
17
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

SENT BY:liS ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:21 :STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 514 6273:519/26

process was to ensure quality care, the process "appeared, at times, to have the opposite effect in that quality of care was potentially worsened." (Volkmar Report at 7.)

He described one Instance In which an elderly patient's

psychiatrist requested that the patient's tranquilizing medication be changed in light of his Parkinsonian symptoms- However, the PRC

not only disapproved or the psychiatrist's request, but also

"preapproved" a virtually opposite request of inoroaoinq the patient's current medication. Dr. Volkmar stated LhoL "ds far as could be determined no member of the PRC had e.ve.r spun f-.hp pat-.ipnh

and . . . with the exception of a single physician on the PRC (who presumably was not payinq attention] other members would essentially not", have hpsn awars of thp issues involved." (Td. \

Dr. Volkmar concluded that:

The implications of unqualified (e.g., unlicensed) personnel, in effect, making major decisions regarding pharm^cological interventions is problematic. The use, as in the case noted above, of "preapproval" or certain drug regimens by PRC is (presumably) theoretically intended to shorten the review process; it has the most unfortunate effect of undercutting the relationships of the physician and his/her patient by well meaning individuals who basically do not know the patient. . . . IThis practice] appeared to cross the boundary of acceptable practice.

(Volkmar Report at 7-8.

a I sn PI. Kx. A at. 10.)

C. Physical Therapy Services The Remedial Orders require that STS provide adequate physical
therapy services for thosa residents in need of euch cervices. Adequate physical therapy is critical at an institution such as STS,
18

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 2 2 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:220/26

as it serves to prevent phyeical degeneration, body deformities, and
abnormal growth.™
At the hearing, and in her report, (Pi. Ex. 8 ) , Ms. Harryman
revealed clearly that, aa of her inepcation on November 15-17, 1993,
STS's physical therapy services had a plelhoid of deficiencies that
violated the Remedial Orders. Tndp.p.d, she found that nearly every
aspect of STS's physical therapy services was below profcccional
standards. Ms. Harryman opined that STS's yrussly inadequate
staffing was tho primary caus« nf its poor physical therapy
services. She explained that, in 1003, a mere seventeen of the 244
residents receiving physical therapy services were receivinq
™ The Remedial Orders mandate the following: Consent Decree S V(4) (proccdurec chall be used to 'reasonably ensure that there is consultation and communication of relevant information between and among personnel regarding residents' i;<ii«, Ltaiiiijiy needs and priorities . . . and Chat such information ia communicated to staff who provide care for that resident'); Consent Decree S V(S) (mandates that record keeping systems, policies, and procedures with IBSJJBCL Lu cai_l> patient'3 cai'e, medical treatment, and required training be utilized to maintain and malce available in each resident' s record cinch information as ia professionally necessary to permit the exercise of ftoCeoeional judgment in that resident's care, medical treatment, and training); Consent Decree S V(6) (r?qiiir»B t-h*t mi>^Rur»!\ h*» r.aVnn "r.n provide adequate medical care, including evaluation of residents wLth physical disabilities, and the specific atcps that will be undertaken to provide appropriate medical and physical therapy services to prevent contractures, physical degeneratLon, and inappropriate body growth and deformity"); 1990 Court Order $ 1(F) (requires the Defendants to provide "appropriate phycioal hh«rapy r.« «arh rftsiriftnt with physical handicaps for whom a program of physical therapy has been ordered by a qualified professional, and ensure recurUs uf ouch treatment arc made and ontored in the reeident's medical record*); and 1990 Court Order <5 K G ) (requires the Defendants to have a qualified physician aaasas eav.ii ^itiysiially disabled resident "to determine whether a physical therapy program should be inif ^.a^Pl^ r\r an oviefinij phycirai fhorajiy prnijram modified to prevent contraciures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body grouth and deformity." The physiicifln in fchon required to refer thoce reaidente in need to a registered physical therapist. Within forty-five days from such rwftarral, the physical therapist is ic4uiicd Lu "aaaesa and evaluate oncll roflidant so referred and dovolop a written physical therapy program for each of them.").
19
AU/2A (Rev. 8/B2)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 2 2 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF

202 314 6273:221/26

assistance Troiu licensed physical therapists ("PT") . The remaining

residents were forced to receive training from unlicensed

rehabilitation therapy assistants ("RTA"). She concluded that such

staffinq "precludes itssidents in need of physical therapy from

receiving .adequate rare." (Pi. Ex. 8 at 4.) taken steps to remedy t h i s deficiency.il

STS has, however,

Althouqh licensed PTs planned the services that the RTAs

administered, STS did not have objective guidelines tor monitoring

the delivery of physical therapy cervices, or an established

methodology for documentinq procedure implementation. Consequently,

the RTAs and direct care staff often provided physical therapy

services without the requisite guidance. (Pl« Ex. 8 at 4.)

Furthermore, STS's traininq procedures did nwL provide yuidelines

for determining staff competence prior to allowing such staff to

administer physical therapy services. As a result, residents were in danger of receiving physical therapy from incompetent personnel.}i

•" nMB •nr^red into a two-year contract, a f f e c t i v e from August 25, 1995, for tne provision or 240 hours per week of physical therapy, upee<,h/lcmyuay« therapy; and occupational therapy cervices, the equivalent of s i x full-time positions.
" Indeed, Ma. Harryman found that a "cevere systemic problem at STS i s that, indirect physical therapy services . . . are Implemented by people who are nut. aUwquaiwly Lrained un a i c y u l a i . b a s i s and who do n o t c a r r y o u t a d e q u a t e p h y s i c a l c h o r a p y t r o a t m e n t . " < P l . Ex. 8 ar d . ) Me. Harryman rovipucri » v i r t a o tape which STS uses to train KTAS, and found i t to De curaory and incapaDla ot providing s u f f i c i e n t information to ensure safe and appropriate delivery of phyniral therapy. (PI. Ex. 8 at 9.) Moreover, Ms. Harryman observed two RTAS implementing physical therapy, and, in buth iuuLdtiuuu, thu RTA'a pru^eUu'Leo ueco adrainictcrod incorrectly, thereby placing the resident in risk of physical maladies ( i . e . , contracturss, deformity, musculoskeletal i n j u r y ) . (Pi Ex. 9 at 7-8.)
20
AO7?A (R«v. SU82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:23 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:222/26

While STS has guidelines and procedures for determining when implementation and/or termination of physical Lherapy is appropriate, it fails to implement them ronsifitp.ntly. At the hearing, Ms. Ilarryman testified that GTS has a procedure for evaluating residents which consists of eight components. However, when she reviewed ten STS physical therapy evaluations, she found that only 36% of the required components were covered in all of the evaluations. (Pi. E X . 8 at b.) further, few or STS's evaluations included goals regarding physical therapy treatment. Thus, it is clear thai STS's staff was not assessing the effectiveness of its physical therapy services, or modirying such services, when appropriate. This deficiency placed the patients at risk of receivinq ineffective, useless, and detrimental therapy.° In fact, STS * R i nadpquatp. physical therapy services have caused several residents who, only a few ycarc earlier, were ambulatory, to be permanently bed-ridden.
Finally, STS fails tn make effective use of its general physical therapy protocols.'11 Professional standards require that "all physical therapy protocols be dated and reviewed regularly." (PI. Ex. 8 at 7.) A review of STS's general physical therapy
M a o STS'a pc&ceducca do not provide for annual physical therapy nf rliftnhn. This. too. prevents STS from determining the
efteczLvenesa of ics services, ns. Harryman uyintsd UiaL "(r]«-«valuatiu» un leaa than an annual basis is not adequate for any client receiving physical therapy services, which is a major concern in a facility where multiply haiiUicatiyeJ i«s»iJ*nL«i I'Aoeive primary therapy service! from unlicensed and minimally trained personnel." (Pi. Ex. 8 at S.)
" A protocol io a detailed plan of physical therapy treatment or
procedure.
21
AO72A (Rav. 8/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 2 3STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:223/26

p r o t o c o l s e v i n c e d t h a t STS had f a i l e d t o document o r make any a d d i t i o n s or r e v i s i o n s Lo any of i t s g e n e r a l p r o t o c o l r e v i e w s in nearly one and a h*lf yp.ars. Further, i n some i n s t a n c e s , p r o t o c o l s were not a v a i l a b l e for patientc at a l l . (Pi. Ex. 8 at 7.)
C. RULING ON CONTEMPT AND REMEDIES
The c o u r t f i n d s by c l e a r and convincinq e v i d e n c e t h a i the Defendants are i n contempt of th« R«m«di;»l o r d e r s . 3 5 Although STS'a q u a r t e r l y r e p o r t s r e v e a l t h a t i t was in compliance w i t h o v e r 90% of t n e Remedial Orders' requirements,"' such "compliance" was not e f f e c t u a t i n g the Remedial Orders1 desired r e s u l t s . Indeed, STS's sysLemic Claws have caused many r e s i d e n t s t o s u f f e r grave harm, and, in several instances, death.
To insure t h a t the Remedial Orders' purposes are s a t i s f i e d in the future, the cuuit will appoint a special master to review STS's operations. Tr. i s voil sflt.t.lpd in th« law that federal c o u r t s have the inherent power to appoint an agent t o oversee t h e implementation of i t s consent decrees. in re Peterson. 253 U.S. 300, 312-13
j:i Thp rnnrt-. nnt-.A* that. Rome of the most compelling evidence came from the Defendants own experts.
'" The court does not agree with the Plaintiff's contention that the compliance reports are nut purtinunL Lu the instant uiaLlci. RULIICL, the court finds the compliance reports to bo a cuitabio starting point in datarmi.ni.ng whether the Defendants are compivinq witn tne Remeaiai oraers. Moreover, tne court notes that the Plaintiff consented bo the Defendants' submission of eomplianno rs>pnrr«, ((!nns*nt Dftcrrtft $ V), and, heretofore, had never contested tne appropriateness of the court using such reports as a measure of cumpliam;« Thuo, the court will not permit th« Plaintiff to contest ths validity of the compliance reports at this time.
22
AO72A (P«v. WB2J

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 2 4 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:524/26

(1920) . Indeed, this "court has an affirmative duty t.aprotect the integrity of its decree. This duty arises where thi» Pftrformance of one party threatens to frustrate the purpose of the decree.* Per?er v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) (quoting Stotts V. Memphis rim Dept.. 679 F.2d 541, 555 (Cth Cir. 1982), rev'd on othpr grounds sub nnm.f Fire-fighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Gtottsr 467 U.S. 561 (1984) (footnote omitted)).
While federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b) requires that the appointment of a special mast.pr hfi the exception rather than the rule, it does not "terminate or modify the district court's inherent equitable power to appoint a person . . . to assist it in administering a remedy." Ru;z v. EstRiifi. 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir. 1982). Rather, "(b]eyond the provisions of [Fed.R.Civ.P.53J for appointing and making references to Masters, a federal district court has the inherent power to supply itself with [a special master] fur Lhe administration of justice when deemed by it essential." Tri. at 1161 n.240 (citing schwlmmer V....1LMJL.. 232 F.2d 855, 0C5 (Oth Cir.), cert, denied. 352 U.S. 833 (1956) (citation Omitted)). See also. Juan v. Weicker, 37 F.3d 374, 876 (2d Cir. 1994) (court appointed a monitoring panel, and later a single monitor, to oversee consent decree, "because of the difficult issues involved, as well as the importance to Lhe plaintiff class of enforcing the dpnr««.") ; Rprqgr v. HacKier. 771 P. 2(1 at 1568 (holding that court's desire to protect the integrity of its decree "justifies any reasonable action taken by the court to secure compliance.*); fironp v. San Fransiscq, 968 t'.2d 0i>0 (yth. Cir.

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6-20-96 : 17:24 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 514 6273:*25/26

(stating that, district courts are permitted to appoint a special master to oversee a consent decree) ; x<Pca^ 2 a °^ shoot- Mpfal Workers v. EEOC. 478 U.S. 421, 482 (198G) (Court recognised the "difficulties inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders," and, thus, found the appointment of an administrator "well within the District Court's discration."); Kendrick v. Bland. 740 F.2d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 1984) (holding that a court may appoint a "monitor to observe defendants' conduct and thereby permit the federal court to oversee compliance with its continuing order.").
An appellate court will not disturb a district court's decision to appoint a special master, unles3 a clear abucc of judicial power is shown. Further, deference to the district court's exercise of discretion is heightened where, as here, the. rourfc h«s been overseeing a large, public institution for a long period of time. Stoner 968 F.2d at 8S6 (citing KUfO V. inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1902)). Seo also Hutto v, Pinnoy. 4H7 U.S. fi7fl, 688 (1978) (Court gave substantial deference to district court's years of experience overseeing prison system).
In the instant case, the court finds that the complex nature of the case, together with the delicate interests of STS's residents, call for the appointment of a special master to Hp.tp.rmine. why STS's efforts are not producing the Remedial Orders' intended results, and to make recommendations to the court, in addition, ir the speci master deems it necessary, t-.hp. court wi 1 I appoint an expert review panel, comprised of one expert in each of the three areas discussed above, to assist the special master in making findings and
24
AO72A v. A/82)

SENT BY:US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE : 6 - 2 0 - 9 6 : 1 7 : 2 5 STRIKE FORCE OCDETF -

202 314 6273:226/26

recommendations. The special master shall take the followiny actions: (1) conduct an immediate and thorough review or ail aspects of STS's care and traatmp.nt of residents covered by the Remedial Orders to determine the ohangco needed to meet the Orders' desired ends; (2) fotiuuloLu specific methods to implement the required cnang.es; and (3) work with the parties to effectuate those changes.
The Plaintiff and Defendants shall report to the court, either jointly or severally, their recommendation(s) for appointment- as special master on or before July 15, 1996. The court shall make the final determination.
SO ORDERED.
/5. iC-2w.
ESLLLEN BREE BURNS, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this /* day of June, 1996.

25 AO72A (Rev. 0*62}

 
 Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 1 of 88
CLOSED,REFMC
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:86−cv−00252−EBB

USA v. Connecticut, et al Assigned to: Judge Ellen Bree Burns Demand: $0 Case in other court: 96−06218
96−06218 Cause: No cause code entered Special Master David Ferleger
Plaintiff USA

Date Filed: 07/25/1986 Date Terminated: 12/22/1986 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by David Ferleger Pagoda 10 10 Presidential Blvd. Suite 115 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 610−668−2221 Email: David@ferleger.com PRO SE
represented by Anita C. Snyder U.S. Department of Justice−Penn Ave−DC Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202−514−1411 Fax: 202−514−6903 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deval Patrick U.S. Department of Justice Special Lit. Sec., Civil Rights Div. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−307−3116 TERMINATED: 05/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Iris Goldschmidt U.S. Department of Justice Special Lit. Sec., Civil Rights Div. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−307−3116 TERMINATED: 02/07/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John B. Hughes U.S. Attorney's Office−NH 157 Church St., 25rd floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−821−3802 Fax: 203−773−5373 Email: john.hughes@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 2 of 88
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J. Sperber , IV U.S. Department of Justice−Penn Ave−DC Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202−514−0695 Fax: 202−514−0212 Email: joseph.sperber@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie J. Weinstein United States Attorney's Office − DC 555 4th Street N.W. E4820 Washington, DC 20530 202−514−7133 Email: laurie.weinstein2@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda L. Keyser U.S. Department of Justice Special Lit. Sec., Civil Rights Div. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20035−6400 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Masling U.S. Department of Justice Special Lit. Sec., Civil Rights Div. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−307−3116 TERMINATED: 10/25/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. Jonas Geissler U.S. Department Of Justice − 950 Penn DC − CIV DIV 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Northwest Building, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202−353−8866 Fax: 202−353−3522 Email: jonas.geissler@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Farano U.S. Department of Justice Special Lit. Sec., Civil Rights Div. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−307−3116 Email: richard.farano@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 3 of 88
Robert H. Stern U.S. Department of Justice Special Lit. Sec., Civil Rights Div. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20035−6400 202−307−3116 Email: robert.stern@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/05/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandhya L. Subramanian Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 601 D. Street NW Room 5924 Washington, DC 20004 202−616−9017 Email: sandhya.subramanian@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/04/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd J. Schneider U.S. Dept. of Justice − Civil Rights Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−616−9958 Email: todd.j.schneider@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/08/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant State of Connecticut

represented by James P. Welsh Director−Legal &Govt Affairs Dept. of Mental Retardation 460 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 860−418−6085 Fax: 860−418−6009 Email: james.welsh@po.state.ct.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linsley J. Barbato Attorney General's Office 55 Elm St. Hartford, CT 06141−0120 860−808−5160 Email: Linsley.Barbato@ct.gov TERMINATED: 11/13/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M.J. McCarthy Attorney General's Office−HTFD 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141−0120 860−808−5210 Fax: 860−808−5347

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 4 of 88

Email: mj.mccarthy@po.state.ct.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Blumenthal Attorney General's Office Administration Dept. 55 Elm St., Po Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141−0120 860−566−2026 Email: Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. York York Legal Group LLC 6 Sentry Point Road Lemoyne, PA 17043 717−236−9675 Fax: 717−707−0104 Email: tyork@yorklegalgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Governor William A. O'Neill State of Connecticut

represented by James P. Welsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Dept of Mental Retardation

represented by James P. Welsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Brian Lensink Commissioner, Dept of Mental Retardation

represented by James P. Welsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Blumenthal

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 5 of 88

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

Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Robert Griffith Director, Southbury Training School

represented by James P. Welsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Thomas B. York (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Southbury Training School Home and School Association of Southbury Training School and Southbury Training School Foundation,Inc.

represented by David Paul Friedman Murtha Cullina, LLP−Stmfd 177 Broad Street, 4th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 203−653−5400 Fax: 203−653−5444 Email: dfriedman@Murthalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Frank J. Silvestri , Jr. Levett Rockwood 33 Riverside Ave., PO Box 5116 Westport, CT 06881 203−222−0885 Fax: 203−226−8025 Email: fsilvestri@levettrockwood.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Morris Lerner Lerner &Weltman 270 Amity Road Ste. 124 Woodbridge, CT 06525 203−397−1369 Fax: 203−387−8823 Email: peter.m.lerner@snet.net TERMINATED: 12/16/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Philip Anfang by &through his legal guardian Sylvia Angang

represented by Peter Morris Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 6 of 88

Movant Richard Messier
Movant Thomas Maloney
Movant Carole Ann Carr
Movant Leon Horton
Movant Raymond Mitchell
Movant Leonard Haversat
Movant Gregory Kabbai
Movant David Yeske
Movant People First of Connecticut, Inc.

represented by David C. Shaw Law Office of David C. Shaw, LLC 34 Jerome Avenue, Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002 860−242−1238 Fax: 860−242−1507 Email: dshaw@dcshawatty.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 7 of 88

Movant ARC/Connecticut, Inc
Movant Western Connecticut Association For Human Rights

represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Shaw (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/25/1986 12/22/1986 03/27/1995
04/17/1995 04/17/1995
04/17/1995 04/17/1995 04/17/1995 04/17/1995 04/17/1995 05/09/1995
05/10/1995
05/12/1995 05/16/1995 05/17/1995 07/19/1995

# Docket Text
1435 UPLOADED HARD DOCKET SHEET from 7/25/86−4/17/95 (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
Case closed (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
91 NOTICE of filing Quarterly Compliance Report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
92 MOTION by USA for Leave to File Memo in excess of 40 pages (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [92−1] motion for Leave to File Memo in excess of 40 pages ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
93 ORDER granting [92−1] motion for Leave to File Memo in excess of 40 pages ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
94 MOTION by USA for an Order to Show Cause (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
95 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
96 Exhibits by USA in support of [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
97 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: hearing set for 3:00 p.m. May 15, 1995. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Graham, T.) (Entered: 04/18/1995)
98 MOTION by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith to Extend Time to May 12, 1995, to file opposition to plaintiff's application for order to show cause (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/09/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [98−1] motion to Extend Time to May 12, 1995, to file opposition to plaintiff's application for order to show cause, Brief Deadline set for 5/12/95 [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 05/10/1995)
99 MEMORANDUM by State of Connecticut in opposition to [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 05/15/1995)
100 REPLY by USA to response to [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 05/17/1995)
101 Show Cause Hearing held. Motion for Order to Show Cause, #94, under advisement ( EBB) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 05/18/1995)
102 ORDER: The parties' experts shall be permitted to photograph persons residing within the Southbury Training School provided that every subject, or that subject's

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 8 of 88

08/07/1995 08/07/1995 08/08/1995 08/09/1995 08/09/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/11/1995 08/24/1995
09/05/1995 09/08/1995 11/15/1995 01/04/1996 04/30/1996

parent or guardian, is provided the right to demand, prior to the photograph's submission to this Court, that the photo be altered to mask the ID of the resident. If the resident's ID cannot be masked satisfactorily, the resident, or his parent or guardian, shall have the right to request that the photo and its negative be destroyed. ( signed by Mag. Judge Joan G. Margolis ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
103 APPEARANCE of Attorney for State of Connecticut −− Linsley J. Barbato (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
104 Show Cause Hearing held on 8/7/95 ( EBB) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/09/1995)
105 Show Cause Hearing held August 8, 1995 at 10:00AM ( EBB) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
108 Show Cause Hearing held 8/9/95 at 10:05am ( EBB) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
MOTION in open court by USA for Protective Order written Motion to be filed (Brief due 8/30/95 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
106 Amicus Curiae Appearance entered on behalf of Southbury Training (Attorney Frank J. Silvestri Jr., David Paul Friedman) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
107 MOTION by Home and School Association of Southbury Training School and Southbury Training School Foundation for Leave to File Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
109 Show Cause Hearing held, under advisement (EBB) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/15/1995)
110 Marked Witness List as to State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
111 Marked Witness List as to USA, State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
112 Marked Witness List as to USA (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [107−1] motion for Leave to File Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae, should be filed by 8/24/95 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
113 MEMORANDUM Of Law of Amici Curiae Southbury Training in order to place before the Court their concerns with respect to the remedial orders sought by the USA in the event the Court finds the defendants to be in contempt of the Consent Decree of 12/22/86, the Implementation Plan approved on 07/22/88 &the Court's Orders of 4/24/90 &12/9/91 (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
114 Response to [113−1] to the Post−Hearing Memorandum of Amici Curiae by Southbury Training by USA (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/07/1995)
115 TRANSCRIPT on Hearing on Motion for Contempt Cross−Examination of Thomas Howley by Mr. Masling for dates of 8/10/95 (Court reporter: Thea Finkelstein) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
116 TRANSCRIPT for dates of August 7, 1995 (Court reporter: Finkelstein) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/15/1995)
117 NOTICE of filing of Quarterly Compliance Report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/09/1996)
118 ORDER that the Defendant submit any objections it has to the Court relying upon exhibits G−N by 5/17/96. Plaintiffs opposing papers shall be filed by 5/24/96 (

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 9 of 88

05/14/1996 05/24/1996 06/18/1996 06/19/1996 06/19/1996 07/10/1996
07/10/1996
07/10/1996
07/16/1996 07/17/1996 07/19/1996 07/24/1996 08/14/1996
08/19/1996 08/29/1996 08/30/1996

signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/30/1996)
119 NOTICE of filing of Quarterly Compliance Reports by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/14/1996)
120 Memorandum of law in support of admissibility of exhibits attached to motion for contempt by USA to [118−1] order (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/24/1996)
122 REPLY by USA to response to [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
123 RULING granting [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/19/1996)
124 REPLY by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith to response to [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA re; exhibits (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/20/1996)
125 OBJECTION by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith re: [122−1] response reply by USA, [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause by USA; Motion to Strike (Part 1 of 2) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
125 MOTION by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith to Strike [122−1] response reply by USA Objection to doc.# 122 (Part 2 of 2) (Brief Due 7/31/96) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
126 MEMORANDUM by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith in support of [125−1] motion to Strike [122−1] response reply by USA and [125−1] objection; in support of opposition to [94−1] motion for an Order to Show Cause (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/11/1996)
127 MOTION by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith to Extend Time until 7/19/96 for recommendations (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/16/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [127−1] motion to Extend Time until 7/19/96 for recommendations ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/17/1996)
128 USA's Suggestions Re: the Special Master to be Appointed by the Court (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
129 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to [125−1] motion to Strike [122−1] response reply (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/24/1996)
130 NOTICE OF APPEAL of [123−1] order by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 155196 Certified Copy of Appeal and Docket mailed to USCA Appeal record due on 9/23/96 (Villano, P.) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
131 MOTION by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith to Stay implementation of Court order of 6/18/96 (Brief Due 9/9/96 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/20/1996)
134 Designation of Exhibits For Inclusion in the Record on Appeal filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Villano, P.) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
132 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to [131−1] motion to Stay implementation of Court order of 6/18/96 by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/30/1996)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 10 of 88

09/06/1996 09/09/1996 09/13/1996
10/02/1996 10/02/1996 10/10/1996 10/10/1996 10/10/1996 10/16/1996 10/16/1996 10/16/1996 10/16/1996 10/23/1996
11/18/1996 12/02/1996 12/09/1996 12/16/1996
12/16/1996 05/02/1997

133 RULING on motion to strike pleading: granting [125−1] motion to Strike [122−1] response reply by USA ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/06/1996)
135 Designation of Exhibits For Inclusion in the Record on Appeal filed by USA (Villano, P.) (Entered: 09/12/1996)
136 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to [131−1] motion to Stay implementation of Court order of 6/18/96 by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/16/1996)
INDEX to Record on Appeal mailed to USCA: [130−1] appeal by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Villano, P.) (Entered: 10/02/1996)
137 Scheduling Order from USCA regarding [130−1] appeal by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut USCA Number: 96−6218 (Villano, P.) (Entered: 10/02/1996)
138 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Philip Anfang −− Peter Morris Lerner (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
139 MOTION by Philip Anfang for Gregory D. Crosslin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
140 AFFIDAVIT of Gregory D. Crosslin by Philip Anfang Re [139−1] motion for Gregory D. Crosslin to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Philip Anfang (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/10/1996)
141 TRANSCRIPT for date of 8/8/95 (Court reporter: Thea Finklestein) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
142 TRANSCRIPT for date of 8/9/96 (Court reporter: Thea Finkelstein) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
143 TRANSCRIPT for date of 8/9/96 (Court reporter: Thea Finkelstein) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/16/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [139−1] motion for Gregory D. Crosslin to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/17/1996)
144 ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Index to Record on Appeal at USCA on 10/11/96 received re: [130−1] appeal by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut USCA Number: 96−6218 (Villano, P.) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
145 NOTICE of Quarterly Compliance Report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/22/1996)
146 MOTION by Southbury Training for Peter M. Lerner to Withdraw as Attorney (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
147 MOTION by Philip Anfang for Gregory D. Crosslin to Withdraw as Attorney (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 12/13/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [146−1] motion for Peter M. Lerner to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Peter Morris Lerner for Southbury Training ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) Modified on 12/27/2001 (Entered: 12/16/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [147−1] motion for Gregory D. Crosslin to Withdraw as Attorney ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/16/1996)
148 NOTICE of Filing of Quarterly Compliance Reports by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 05/05/1997)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 11 of 88

06/18/1997 07/15/1997 07/29/1997 07/30/1997 08/04/1997 08/13/1997 08/29/1997 09/10/1997 09/10/1997
09/16/1997 09/17/1997 09/23/1997 09/29/1997 10/01/1997 10/21/1997 10/21/1997 10/22/1997 10/24/1997

149 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) dated 6/13/97 dismissing [130−1] appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. ( FXA, DJ, PNL) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 07/11/1997)
150 ORDER appointing David Ferleger as special master. Mr. Ferleger shall propose dudget &a detailed Order of Reference within 30 days. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 07/15/1997)
151 REPORT to the Court: Order of Reference (Report #1) by Special Master David Ferleger (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
152 ORDER REFERRING CASE to David Ferleger, Esq. as special master &approving Report #1 of the Special Master (signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 08/04/1997)
153 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) dated 7/31/97 dismissing [130−1] appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction ( FXA, DJ, and PNL) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/07/1997)
154 Response by State of Connecticut to [152−1] appointment of special master, including payment in the amount of $18,000.00, receipt #158290 (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
155 Special Master Statement for Fees and Services 7/15/97 through 8/22/97 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
156 Letter MOTION by David Ferleger to Extend deadline to submit quarterly compliance report to a date to be set by special master and no later than Jan. 1, 1998. (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
157 ORDER granting [156−1] motion to Extend deadline to submit quarterly compliance report to a date to be set by special master and no later than Jan. 1, 1998. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
158 NOTICE of filing quarterly compliance reports by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
ENDORSEMENT approving for payment by Clerk [155−1] fees and services from 7/15/97 through 8/22/97 of special master in the amount of $17,256.32 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
159 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 17,256.32 to Special Master David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 09/17/97 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/23/1997)
160 Report to the Court: Quarterly Compliance Report Format and Content (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
161 Special Master Statement for Fees and Services from 8/23/7 through 9/22/97 and proposed approval order by David Ferleger, special master (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/02/1997)
162 Letter MOTION by David Ferleger to appoint part−time assistant to special master (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
ENDORSEMENT [162−1] motion to appoint part−time assistant to special master ordered accordingly ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/22/1997)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [161−1] notice re Special Master's payment, in amount of 9,609.83. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 10/23/1997)
163 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 9,609.83 to David Ferleger,Special Master pursuant Check #3032 to [0−0] order dated 10/22/97 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/24/1997)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 12 of 88

10/30/1997 11/05/1997 11/13/1997 11/17/1997 11/19/1997 11/20/1997 12/05/1997 12/05/1997 12/08/1997
12/11/1997 12/17/1997 01/15/1998 01/21/1998 01/21/1998 01/22/1998 02/02/1998 02/06/1998 02/06/1998

164 Special Master's First Quarterly REPORT with RECOMMENDATIONS submitted by Special Master David Ferleger (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/03/1997)
165 Special Master Statement for Fees and Services from 9/23/97 through 10/22/97 by David Ferleger (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/06/1997)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [165−1] notice of payment to Special Master Ferleger in amount of $15,264.92 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
166 NOTICE of filing of Quarterly compliance report with revised format and content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/18/1997)
167 LETTER dated 11/18/97, from Assistant Atty General James Welsh Regarding: Special Master Account by State of Connecticut, amount deposited: $36,000, receipt # 159158 (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 11/19/1997)
168 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 15,264.92 to David Ferleger, Special Master pursuant to [0−0] order dated 11/13/97 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/20/1997)
169 NOTICE re Statement for Fees and Services by Special Master David Ferleger, in amount of $11,656.41 (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
ENDORSEMENT granting [169−1] notice of statement for fees and services in the amount of $11,656.41 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/15/1997)
170 ORDER approving and adopting [164−1] report and recommendations of Special Master are now binding upon the parties by operation of the Order of Reference, page 6. Special Master recommends an extension of time until 4/1/98 re target date for the Remedial Plan. Special Master recommends that the Court approve the "Court−Ordered Requirements to the Deleted" which are attached to the first Quarterly Report. Court Approves and Adopts Recommendation 4. SEE for further details. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns) (Jefferson, V.) (Pesta, J.). (Entered: 12/08/1997)
171 LETTER dated 12/10/97 Regarding: deposit of $18,000 for Special Master. Receipt # 159367 by State of Connecticut (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 12/11/1997)
172 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 11,656.41 to David Ferleger, Special Master pursuant to endorsement dated 12/15/97 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/17/1997)
173 LETTER dated 01/15/98 Regarding: Deposit of money for Special Master in the amount of $18,000.00 Receipt # 159631 by State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
174 NOTICE of Statement for Fees and Services from 12/2/97 to 1/5/98 in amount of $7,344.72 by Special Master David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
ENDORSEMENT granting [174−1] notice for payment to Special Master Ferleger ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 01/21/1998)
175 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 7,344.72 to David Ferlerger,SM pursuant to [0−0] order dated 01/21/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
176 LETTER dated 1/30/98 Regarding: check in amount of $18,000 to Clerk's Registry Account re Special Master, receipt # 159739 from James Welsh, by State of Connecticut (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 02/02/1998)
177 NOTICE of Statement for Fees and Services for Period from 1/6/98−1/30/98 in amount of $15,012.24 by Special Master David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
178 NOTICE of Filing of Second Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format and Content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 02/09/1998)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 13 of 88

02/13/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 03/02/1998 03/02/1998 03/05/1998 03/11/1998 03/11/1998 03/11/1998 03/19/1998 04/02/1998 04/03/1998 04/03/1998 04/07/1998 04/13/1998 04/21/1998 04/21/1998
05/04/1998 05/05/1998

ENDORSEMENT approving [177−1] notice re payment to Special Master Ferleger in amount of $15,012.24 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
179 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 15,012.24 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 02/13/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
180 SPECIAL MASTER'S Second Quarterly Report to the Court with RECOMMENDATIONS, submitted by David Ferleger, Special Master (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
181 NOTICE of Special Master: Statement for Fees and Services from 2/3/98 through 2/26/98, $23,094.16, by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
182 CORRECTION to Recommendation 12 by David Ferleger Re [180−1] report and recommendations (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
183 LETTER dated 3/4/98 Regarding: eighth of twelve payments re Special Master Account Receipt #160022, in amount of $18,000 by State of Connecticut, by Atty. James Welsh (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 03/06/1998)
ENDORSEMENT approving [181−1] statement for fees and services by special master ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/11/1998)
184 MODIFICATION of TRAINING PLAN, that was attached to [180−1] report and recommendations, filed by Special Master Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 03/12/1998)
185 ORDER approving Special Master's Second Quarterly Report with attached Training Plan ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/12/1998)
186 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 23,094.16 to DAvid Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 03/10/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
189 LETTER dated 3/30/98 Regarding:check in amount of $18,000 representing ninth of 12 equal payments for Special Master by State of Connecticut from AAG James Welsh (receipt # 160255) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
187 REPORT to the Court No. 3: Remedial Plan, by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
188 REMEDIAL PLAN, Dated 4/1/98 by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
190 ORDER re Remindial Plan recommended by the Special Master ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 04/07/1998)
191 NOTICE of Special Master: Statement for Fees and Services Period from 2/27/98 through 4/1/98 in amount of $23,488.34, by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 04/13/1998)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [191−1] notice re payment to Special Master ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
192 ORDER re: [188−1] Remedial Plan. Remedial Plan is adopted by Court and incorporated in this Order. Parties shall fully comply with the Remedial Plan. SEE for further details. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 04/23/1998)
193 NOTICE of filing of Third Quarterly Compliance with Revised Format and Content by defendants (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 05/04/1998)
194 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 23,488.34 to David Ferleger, Special Master pursuant to [0−0] order dated 04/17/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/05/1998)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 14 of 88

05/05/1998 05/15/1998 05/27/1998 06/01/1998 06/01/1998 06/02/1998 06/02/1998 06/04/1998 06/09/1998 06/11/1998 06/12/1998
06/26/1998 06/26/1998
07/06/1998 07/10/1998 07/21/1998 07/27/1998 08/03/1998 08/04/1998

195 LETTER dated 5/4/98 Regarding: check in amount of $18,000 representing tenth of twelve equal payments for Special Master by State of Connecticut from AAG James P. Welsh, (receipt # 160548) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 05/06/1998)
196 ORDER approving special master statement for fees and services in the amount of $11,394.04 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/19/1998)
197 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 11,394.04 to David Ferleger pursuant to [196−1] order dated 05/15/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/27/1998)
198 Third Quarterly REPORT by David Ferleger (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/01/1998)
200 NOTICE of Defendants' Response regarding Restraint Discussion in Third Quarterly Report by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
199 ORDER approving [198−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1998)
201 special master BOND in the amount of $ 18,000.00 by State of Connecticut. Receipted on 6/3/98 # 160799 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
202 NOTICE of Special Master Statement for Fees and Services from 5/7/98 through 5/28/98 in amount of $30,877.74 by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
ENDORSEMENT approving [202−1] notice ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/10/1998)
203 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 30,877.74 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 06/09/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/11/1998)
204 ORDER...the budget for the 2nd year of the Office of the Special Master shall not exceed $505,975 for the period 8/1/98 − 7/30/99. The defendants shall pay the Special Master fees &expenses not to exceed this amount for the above time period...SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/23/1998)
205 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 18,000.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. #161030 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/26/1998)
206 ORDER...To clarify that 15 payments are required by the 6/11/98 Order, paragraph 5 of said Order is amended to read as follows: before 8/1/98, the defendants shall deposit with the Clerk of Court..registry account, the amount of $41,081 representing one−twelfth of the above estimated annual budget...before the first day of each succeeding month..until 10/1/99, defendats shall submit a sum in the amount of $505,975 to the Clerk for a total of 15 payments... (signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 06/30/1998)
207 NOTICE of Special Master: Statement for Fees and Services, period of 5/29/98 through 6/30/98 in the amount of $20,344.45 by David Ferleger (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [207−1] notice of Special Master for Fees and Services in amount of $20,344.45 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
208 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 20,344.45 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 07/10/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/21/1998)
209 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER extending until 10/21/98 Quality Assurance draft report and plan due (signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/27/1998)
210 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by State of Connecticut. Rec. #161334 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
211 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [180−1] report and recommendations re: retention of consultant by special master (Former Employee) (Entered:

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 15 of 88

08/05/1998
08/13/1998
08/13/1998 08/14/1998 08/18/1998
08/18/1998 08/19/1998 08/20/1998 08/31/1998 09/03/1998
09/03/1998 09/03/1998
09/04/1998 09/11/1998 09/16/1998 10/06/1998 10/08/1998 10/08/1998 10/08/1998 10/08/1998

08/05/1998)
212 NOTICE of Filing of Fourth Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised format and Content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/05/1998)
213 Response by USA to [211−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [180−1] report and recommendations to retention of consultant (Former Employee) Modified on 08/13/1998 (Entered: 08/13/1998)
214 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for the period of 7/1/98 through 7/30/98 in the amount of $18,639.83 (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
215 NOTICE of filing of correspondence in regard to defendants' objection to retention of consultant by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
ENDORSEMENT granting [214−1] motion for Costs and Fees for the period of 7/1/98 through 7/30/98 in the amount of $18,639.83 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/19/1998)
216 ORDER approving retention of Dr. Charles Galloway by Special Master ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/19/1998)
218 Fourth Quarterly REPORT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/21/1998)
217 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 18,639.83 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 08/19/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/20/1998)
219 FIRST YEAR OPERATIONS REPORT TO THE COURT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/01/1998)
ENDORSEMENT denying nunc pro tunc [131−1] motion to Stay implementation of Court order of 6/18/96 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/03/1998)
220 MOTION and APPROVAL ORDER by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 8/1/98 through 8/31/98 (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/03/1998)
221 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER approving and adopting [218−1] Special Master's Fourth Quarterly report . . . for clarity the Court addresses recommendations − see Order for details (signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/03/1998)
222 ORDER amending [199−1] order . . . see order for details ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/04/1998)
223 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by State of Connecticut Rec. # 161696. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/11/1998)
224 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 50,368.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [222−1] order dated 09/04/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/16/1998)
225 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for 9/1/98 through 9/30/98 (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/06/1998)
226 BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by State of Connecticut In Re: Special Master. Receipt #161930 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
227 NOTICE of FILING Evaluation Protocols by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
228 SPECIAL MASTER'S OBSERVATION ON 10/11 − 10/16 EVALUATION by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
229 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 4 SAFETY OF SOUTHBURY TRAINING SCHOOL CLIENTS by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/08/1998)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 16 of 88

10/08/1998
10/09/1998 10/09/1998 10/09/1998 10/14/1998 10/15/1998 10/16/1998 10/19/1998 10/20/1998 10/30/1998 11/02/1998 11/02/1998
11/04/1998 11/04/1998 11/06/1998 11/23/1998 11/30/1998 12/02/1998 12/02/1998

230 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [227−1] Individual Protocol for Evaluation of Compliance by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
232 APPEARANCE of Attorney for USA −− Laurie J. Weinstein (Collins, S.) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
233 Response by USA to [230−1] comments and objections by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith to individual protocol for evaluation of compliance (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
234 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [227−1] notice by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
235 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [229−1] Report Number 4 and Recommendation 15 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
236 Special Master's ORDER re: continuing monitoring &implementations of the Court's Orders...SEE FOR DETAILS (signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 10/16/1998)
ENDORSEMENT approving [225−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 9/1/98 through 9/30/98 (signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 10/16/1998)
237 STATUS REPORT No. 4 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) Modified on 11/30/1998 (Entered: 10/20/1998)
238 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 46,930.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 10/16/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/20/1998)
239 NOTICE OF FILING OF FIFTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of CT (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/30/1998)
240 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for 10/1/98 through 10/30/98 for $80,634.00 (Brief Due 11/23/98 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/02/1998)
241 Response by USA to [235−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, to [229−1] Report to Court #4 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) Modified on 11/02/1998 (Entered: 11/02/1998)
ENDORSEMENT granting [240−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 10/1/98 through 10/30/98 for $80,634.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
242 ORDER regarding [229−1] Report to the Court No. 4−taken under advisement, setting Status Report deadline 2/4/99 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) Modified on 11/30/1998 (Entered: 11/04/1998)
243 BOND ( Special Master ) in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill , State of CT. Receipt # 000028 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
244 ORDER paying Special Masters $80,634: $79,000 forthwith, balance due under order of 11/4/98 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/24/1998)
245 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 79,000.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [244−1] order dated 11/23/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
246 Fifth Quarterly REPORT by David Ferleger (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 12/02/1998)
247 ORDER directing Clerk to Seal Volume 2 of Special Master's Report to the Court/Review of Compliance (to be filed soon) ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/02/1998)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 17 of 88

12/02/1998 12/08/1998 12/09/1998 12/09/1998 12/15/1998 12/16/1998 12/23/1998 12/23/1998 12/28/1998 12/28/1998 12/29/1998 01/04/1999 01/04/1999 01/04/1999 01/04/1999 01/04/1999 01/06/1999 01/19/1999 01/22/1999 01/22/1999

248 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER ordering filing of briefs on 12/15/98 regarding Complaint by John Goodrich ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
249 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Order to file Special Master's Fifth Quarterly Report under Seal (Brief Due 12/29/98 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
250 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. #000315 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
251 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 11/1/98 through 11/30/98 (Brief Due 12/30/98 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/10/1998)
252 Response by USA to [248−1] special master's order re: Goodrich complaint (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
253 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [248−1] special master's order re: Goodrich complaint (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
254 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 1,634.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [244−1] order dated 11/23/98 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
ENDORSEMENT granting [251−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 11/1/98 through 11/30/98 in the amount of $51,378.00 ( signed by Judge Peter C. Dorsey ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1998)
255 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 40,000.00 to Davdi Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 12/23/98 Balance owed $11,378.00. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/28/1998)
256 MOTION by USA for Leave to File Objection to Special Masters Fifth Quarterly Report Nunc Pro tunc (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
257 ORDER regarding status conference of 12/22/98 and Special Master's Order of 11/30/98 SEE DOCUMENT 257 FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/31/1998)
258 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for 12/1/98 through 12/23/98 (Brief Due 1/25/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [256−1] motion for Leave to File Objection to Special Masters Fifth Quarterly Report Nunc Pro tunc ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
259 ORDER granting motion for leave to file Objection to Special Master's Fifth Quarterly Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
ENDORSEMENT denying [249−1] motion for Order to file Special Master's Fifth Quarterly Report under Seal ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [258−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 12/1/98 through 12/23/98 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/21/1999)
260 ORDER regarding hearing delay SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master Ferleger) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
261 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. # 000630 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/19/1999)
262 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 11,378.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 12/23/98 Balance of $51,378.00 ordered. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/22/1999)
263 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 29,000.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 01/04/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/22/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 18 of 88

01/25/1999 02/03/1999
02/03/1999 02/03/1999 02/05/1999 02/10/1999 02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/12/1999 02/16/1999 02/18/1999 02/22/1999
02/23/1999 02/23/1999 02/26/1999 03/02/1999
03/04/1999 03/04/1999

264 ORDER re settlement of matter with John Goodrich; hearing of 1/26/99 cancelled ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
265 Memorandum in Opposition by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to United States' Objection to Special Master's [246−1] Fifth Quarterly Report by David Ferleger (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
266 Special Master's ORDER regarding 1/27/99 parties' meeting regarding new allegations of neglect against Dr. X; ORDER SEALED (signed by David Ferleger, Special Master) (Inferrera, L.) Modified on 03/02/1999 (Entered: 02/03/1999)
267 REPORT to the Court No. 6: Safety of Southbury Training School Clients −− Update by David Ferleger (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
269 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by State of Connecticut. Receipt. #000787 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/11/1999)
268 ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the Special Masters Fifth Quaterly Report is accepted and approved SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/10/1999)
270 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 1,911.00 to David Ferlger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 01/04/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/11/1999)
271 LETTER dated 2/10/99 Regarding: statement of fees by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/11/1999)
272 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 2/24/98 to 2/3/99 in the amount of $36,135.00 (Brief Due 3/4/99 ) (Former Employee) Modified on 02/11/1999 (Entered: 02/11/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [272−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 2/24/98 to 2/3/99 in the amount of $36,135.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
273 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 36,135.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 02/12/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/16/1999)
274 NOTICE OF FILING SIXTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
275 STIPULATION regarding Recommendation 12 [185−1] and 3/11/98 Order by Southbury Training, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut, USA (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
276 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 7 − Community Placement: Preliminary Study by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/23/1999)
277 ORDER approving and adopting [274−1] Sixth Quarterly Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/23/1999)
278 NOTICE OF FILING OF SIXTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of CT (Former Employee) Modified on 03/04/1999 (Entered: 02/26/1999)
279 ORDER; Special Master's Order of 2/2/99 placed under seal; order identical to now−sealed order except change of name; parties shall keep confidential contents ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Former Employee) Modified on 04/08/1999 (Entered: 03/03/1999)
280 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 2/3/99 to 2/26/99 for $27,513.00 (Brief Due 3/25/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
281 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 8: Defendant's Proposed Modifications to the Remedial Plan by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 19 of 88

03/04/1999 03/16/1999 03/16/1999 03/18/1999 03/22/1999 04/08/1999 04/09/1999 04/09/1999 04/12/1999 04/16/1999 04/26/1999 04/27/1999 04/28/1999 05/04/1999 05/07/1999
05/11/1999 05/12/1999
05/18/1999 05/19/1999

ENDORSEMENT granting [280−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 2/3/99 to 2/26/99 for $27,513.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
282 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. # 001119 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
283 Response by State of Connecticut to [278−1] Special Master's 6th Quarterly Report to the Court by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
284 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 27,513.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 03/05/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/18/1999)
285 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [281−1]Special Master's report by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
286 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for the period 3/1/99 to 4/5/99 for $19,180 (Brief Due 4/29/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [286−1] motion for Costs and Fees for the period 3/1/99 to 4/5/99 for $19,180 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/09/1999)
287 Special Masters BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. # 001316 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/09/1999)
288 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 19,180.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 04/09/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
289 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 9: Defendants' Aging Plan by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
290 ORDER accepting and approving [289−1] report no. 9−Defendant's Aging Plan ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns) Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
291 REPORT to the Court No. 10; Defendants' Case Management Plan by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
292 ORDER [291−1] Report to the Court No. 10: Case Management Plan accepted and approved; ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/29/1999)
293 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 4/5/99 to 4/26/99 for $24,099 (Brief Due 5/25/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
294 Response by USA to [285−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [281−1] Special Master's report by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
295 REPORT TO THE COURT 8A: DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE REMEDIAL PLAN by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
296 NOTICE OF FILING OF 7TH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT WITH REVISED FORMAT AND CONTENT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1999)
297 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. # 001625. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [293−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 4/5/99 to 4/26/99 for $24,099 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/19/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 20 of 88

05/21/1999 05/25/1999 05/25/1999 05/26/1999 05/28/1999 06/01/1999 06/01/1999 06/01/1999 06/02/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999
06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/07/1999 06/08/1999 06/09/1999 06/10/1999 06/14/1999
06/14/1999

298 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 24,099.00 to DAvid Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 05/19/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/21/1999)
299 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [296−1] report to the court no. 7 (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/25/1999)
300 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time to 06/08/99 to file a response to report to the court no. 8a (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 05/25/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [300−1] motion to Extend Time to 06/08/99 to file a response to report to the court no. 8a ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
301 REPORT TO THE COURT: SECOND YEAR OPERATIONS by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/28/1999)
302 7th QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
303 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 4/27/99 to 5/25/99 for $30,713.00 (Brief Due 6/22/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
304 ORDER re: [299−1] response to Report to the Court No. 7 SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [303−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 4/27/99 to 5/25/99 for $30,713.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1999)
305 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 30,713.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 06/02/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
306 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [301−1] report: Second Year Operations and Proposed Third Year Budget by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
307 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Seal 7th Quarterly Report (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
308 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time to 06/28/99 to respond to the special masters 7th quarterly report (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [308−1] motion to Extend Time to 06/28/99 to respond to the special masters 7th quarterly report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/07/1999)
309 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [295−1] Special Master's Report 8A by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/09/1999)
310 NOTICE of addition of page omitted from 7th Quarterly Report by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/09/1999)
311 Special Master's Order regarding Case Management Plan SEE FOR DETAILS (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/11/1999)
312 Response by USA to [309−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith [295−1] Special Masters Report by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
313 OBJECTIONS by USA to [307−1] motion to Seal 7th Quarterly Report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/14/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 21 of 88

06/14/1999
06/17/1999 06/21/1999 06/21/1999 06/29/1999 07/02/1999 07/02/1999 07/08/1999 07/13/1999 07/15/1999
07/15/1999 07/19/1999
07/23/1999
07/26/1999 07/30/1999 08/04/1999 08/06/1999 08/06/1999

314 Response by USA to [306−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith of [301−1] Special Master's Proposed Budget by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/15/1999)
315 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. #001907 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
316 ORDER for status conference − 7/14/99 1:30 Moser Library, Southbury Training School, South ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/22/1999)
317 ORDER regarding staff awareness of compliance information and Plan verification mechanisms SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master Ferleger) (Former Employee) Modified on 07/15/1999 (Entered: 06/22/1999)
318 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [302−1] report by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/29/1999)
319 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 5/26/99 to 6/1/99 in the amount of $23,799 (Brief Due 7/23/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/02/1999)
320 ORDER amending special master's 5/28/99 Order Brief Deadline due 7/26/99 ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) Modified on 07/15/1999 (Entered: 07/07/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [319−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 5/26/99 to 6/1/99 in the amount of $23,799 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/08/1999)
321 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 23,799.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 07/08/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/13/1999)
322 ORDER: All modifications set forth in the remedial plan as set forth in Attachment A to this order are hereby APPROVED AND ADOPTED The 4/21/98 order is amended to include these modifications ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
323 ORDER: Defendant shall pay the Special Master fees and expenses not to exceed $534,892 SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
324 MEMORANDUM OPINION: The court will request Mr Ferleger to provide a summary of fiscal operation of the Office of the Special Master in six months SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 15 Page(s) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
325 ORDER requiring filing of memoranda re: legal issues by 8/16/99; status conference scheduled 8/18/99 2:30 Brief Deadline filing of memoranda 8/16/99 SEE FOR DETAILS( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/28/1999)
327 REVISED REMEDIAL PLAN PROVISIONS PURSUANT TO ORDER OF 7/15/99 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
326 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees in the amount of $29,966 from 6/28/99 to 7/28/99 (Brief Due 8/20/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [326−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $29,966 from 6/28/99 to 7/28/99 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
328 EIGHTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
329 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 29,966.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 08/04/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/06/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 22 of 88

08/09/1999 08/10/1999 08/11/1999 08/13/1999 08/23/1999 08/27/1999 08/27/1999 08/27/1999
08/30/1999
09/02/1999 09/03/1999 09/07/1999 09/08/1999
09/08/1999
09/09/1999
09/09/1999 09/14/1999 09/23/1999 09/27/1999 09/28/1999

330 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 82,162.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. #002321 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/10/1999)
459 STATUS REPORT (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/11/2000)
331 SUPPLEMENT TO 7TH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/11/1999)
332 ORDER changing starting time of 8/18/99 meeting at Southbury Training School ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/16/1999)
333 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER regarding hearing on 9/29/99 9:30 a.m. regarding ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
334 EIGHTH QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE COURT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/1999)
335 MOTION by David Ferleger for Fees and Services from 7/29/99 to 8/26/99 for $46,960.00 (Brief Due 9/17/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/1999)
336 ORDER approving and adopting [331−1] Supplement to report, approving and adopting [302−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/27/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [335−1] motion for Fees and Services from 7/29/99 to 8/26/99 for $46,960.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
337 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 46,960.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 08/30/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/02/1999)
338 ORDER scheduling evidentiary hearing for 10/29/99 10 a.m. SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
339 AMENDED ORDER changing date of evidentiary hearing to 10/27/99 10 a.m. ( signed by Special Master Ferleger ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
342 Letter MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Reconsideration of [333−1] order dated 8/23/99 re: eappearance of Drs. McDonald Castro and Dolinsky at 9/29/99 hearing (Brief Due 9/29/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/14/1999)
343 ORDER re: [342−1] motion for Reconsideration of [333−1] order dated 8/23/99 under advisement, Brief Deadline set for 9/14/99 [342−1] motion for Reconsideration of [333−1] order dated 8/23/99 ( signed by Special Master Ferleger )(Former Employee) Modified on 10/22/1999 (Entered: 09/14/1999)
340 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [334−1] Eighth Quarterly Report by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
341 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. #002851 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
344 ORDER approving and adopting [334−1] report SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/16/1999)
345 ORDER canceling hearing set for 9/29/99 SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
346 TRANSCRIPT for date of August 18, 1999 (Court reporter: Ellen Szamier) (Collins, S.) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
347 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [339−1] Special Master's Amended Order and Motion for Instruction to Special Master to make compliance determinations regarding placement policies (Part 1 of 2) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/28/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 23 of 88

09/28/1999
09/30/1999 10/04/1999 10/07/1999
10/08/1999 10/08/1999 10/08/1999 10/13/1999 10/14/1999 10/14/1999 10/15/1999
10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/19/1999

347 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [339−1] Special Master's Amended Order and MOTION for Instruction to Special Master to make compliance determinations regarding placement policies (Part 2 of 2) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
348 ORDER approving and adopting [345−1] order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) Modified on 10/21/1999 (Entered: 10/01/1999)
349 ORDER regarding community placement issues under remedial plan and conference call of 9/30/99 SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/04/1999)
351 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Withdraw [347−1] motion for Instruction to Special Master to make compliance determinations regarding placement policies by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [347−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Brief Due 10/28/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/08/1999)
350 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for 8/27/99 to 10/5/99 for $42,051.00 (Brief Due 10/29/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/08/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [350−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 8/27/99 to 10/5/99 for $42,051.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/08/1999)
352 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. # 002851 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
353 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 42,051.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 10/08/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/13/1999)
354 MOTION by USA to Expedite responses to request for production (Brief Due 11/4/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
355 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting [354−1] motion to Expedite responses to request for production; defendants shall respond by 10/22/99 ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/14/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [351−1] motion to Withdraw [347−1] motion for Instruction to Special Master to make compliance determinations regarding placement policies by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [347−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
356 ORDER vacating [277−1] order re: special reporting on status of discipline for substantiated abuse ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
357 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [327−1] Revised Remedial Plan Provisions by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
358 AFFIDAVIT of Charles Hamad Re [357−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [327−1] Revised Remedial Plan Provisions by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
359 AFFIDAVIT of Frederyk Balicki, Jr. Re [357−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [327−1] re: Revised Remedial Plan Provisions by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
360 RULING overruling [357−1] objection to [327−1] Special Master's Compliance Review ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 1 Page (Former Employee)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 24 of 88

10/19/1999
10/21/1999 10/26/1999 11/03/1999 11/04/1999 11/04/1999 11/05/1999 11/05/1999 11/05/1999 11/08/1999 11/12/1999 11/15/1999 11/17/1999
11/18/1999 12/02/1999 12/06/1999 12/06/1999 12/07/1999 12/08/1999

(Entered: 10/19/1999)
ENDORSEMENT withdrawing [347−1] motion for Instruction to Special Master to make compliance determinations regarding placement policies, withdrawing [347−1] objection ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/20/1999)
361 Evidentiary Hearing held ( EBB) (Collins, S.) (Entered: 10/21/1999)
363 ORDER vacating Paragraph 3.d of [277−1] order re: [274−1] sixth quarterly report by David Ferleger ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) Modified on 11/05/1999 (Entered: 11/05/1999)
362 STATEMENT by David Ferleger for Fees and services for 10/6/99 − 11/1/99 for $33,686 (Brief Due 11/24/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/03/1999)
364 Special Master's ORDER re: [348−1] order approving [345−1] order; parties to file proposed findings of fact within twenty days of transcript ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) Modified on 11/05/1999 (Entered: 11/05/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [362−1] motion for Fees and services for 10/6/99 − 11/1/99 for $33,686 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
365 ORDER re: benchmark dosage use for compliance ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
366 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding response protocol rates ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/05/1999)
371 TRANSCRIPT for date of October 18, 1999 (Court reporter: Ellen Szamier) (Collins, S.) (Entered: 11/26/1999)
367 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 11−Management Information System Plan by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/09/1999)
368 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 12/10/99 to file objections (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
369 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut Rec. #003663 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [368−1] motion to Extend Time until 12/10/99 to file objections to formal recommendations contained in Report to Court No. 11 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/19/1999)
370 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 33,686.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 11/04/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
374 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Receipt dated 12/3/99 # 003964 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
372 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 11/2/99 to 12/2/99 for $75,420 (Brief Due 12/27/99 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/06/1999)
376 OBJECTION by USA re: defendant's motion to special master to release 21 court requirements from active judicial oversight (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/09/1999)
373 NINTH QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE COURT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/07/1999)
375 ORDER requiring filing in writing of parties views on Court Requirement 26 by 12/15/99 ( signed by Special Master Ferleger ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/08/1999)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 25 of 88

12/09/1999 12/10/1999 12/21/1999 12/21/1999
12/21/1999
12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/27/1999 12/28/1999 12/29/1999 01/03/2000 01/03/2000 01/05/2000 01/06/2000
01/07/2000 01/11/2000
01/13/2000 01/13/2000

ENDORSEMENT granting [372−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 11/2/99 to 12/2/99 for $75,420 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/09/1999)
377 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 75,420.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 12/09/99 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/10/1999)
378 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER See for Details ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
380 ORDER regarding 11/5/99 motion for special master formal recommendation for release of certain court requirements from active judicial oversight−order motion denied as moot SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
381 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master Re: Motion for Special Master Formal Recommendation for Release of Certain Court Requirements from Active Judicial Oversight SEE FOR DETAILS (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
379 ORDER approving and adopting [367−1] Special Masters report No. 11 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
382 BUDGET STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
383 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [383−1] Special Masters Budget Status Report SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
384 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 12 − QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
385 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [373−1] 9th quarterly report of David Ferleger (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
390 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 41,081.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. dated 01/03/00 # 004384 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
386 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for 12/3/99 to 12/30/99 for $61,743 (Brief Due 1/24/00 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/03/2000)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [307−1] motion to Seal 7th Quarterly Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
387 ORDER approving and adopting [373−1] Ninth Quarterly report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
388 OBJECTIONS by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [386−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 12/3/99 to 12/30/99 for $61,743 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [386−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 12/3/99 to 12/30/99 for $61,743 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
389 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [384−1] Report to the Court No. 12 and Support of Formal (Unnumbered) recommendation contained therein (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
391 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 61,743.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 01/06/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
392 CLARIFICATION/SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re:

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 26 of 88

01/13/2000 01/26/2000
01/27/2000 01/31/2000 01/31/2000 02/07/2000 02/07/2000 02/09/2000 02/11/2000 02/14/2000 02/15/2000 02/22/2000 02/24/2000 02/28/2000 02/29/2000 03/02/2000 03/02/2000 03/03/2000

[384−1] Report to the Court No. 12 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
393 ORDER granting attached letter motion re: order [380−1] ( signed by Special Master ) SEE FOR DETAILS (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/18/2000)
394 ORDER revising and replacing 12/22/99 [383−1] order approving and adopting [382−1] Special Master's report. Order of 12/22/99 revised and replaced as follows: 2/1/00 payment: Defendants' payments to be quarterly. 2/1/00 payments shall be $123,243. Subsequent payments in amount of $123,243 due 5/1/00, 8/1/00, 11/1/00 and $82,162 due 2/1/01. Order of 6/22/99 amended only as to above payment schedule. Order of 6/22/99 remains in effect 2 pgs SEE Order for details ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
395 ORDER approving Special Master's Report to the Court No. 12 re: Defendant's Quality Assurance Plan See for details ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
396 ORDER denying as moot cancelling motion (Doc. No. 342) hearing on order of 9/23/99 ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) Modified on 02/09/2000 (Entered: 02/01/2000)
397 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 123,243.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. # 004863 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
398 ORDER; Court requirements 26 and 34 released from judicial oversight; ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
399 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 12/31/99 to 1/31/00 for $43,663.00 (Brief Due 2/28/00 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [399−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 12/31/99 to 1/31/00 for $43,663.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
400 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 43,663.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 02/09/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
401 ORDER re compliance report of 2/00 and 10/99 compliance review; parties may respond by 3/10/00i SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/15/2000)
402 ORDER approving attached revised pages of Remedial Plan ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/15/2000)
403 ORDER adopting and incorporating page 104C of remedial plan (Doc. 327) ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) Modified on 02/23/2000 (Entered: 02/23/2000)
404 TENTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT with revised format and content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/24/2000)
406 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER; defendant's letter request for extension of time GRANTED; deadline for response to statements of fact in Compliance Report 3/22/00 ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/01/2000)
405 TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT; attachment C UNDER SEAL by David Ferleger (Former Employee) Modified on 07/28/2000 (Entered: 03/01/2000)
407 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees fro, 2/1/00 to 3/1/00 for $43,447.00 (Brief Due 3/23/00 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
408 TENTH QUARTERLY REPORT (REPLACEMENT PAGES 1 and 12) by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/02/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [407−1] motion for Costs and Fees fro, 2/1/00 to 3/1/00 for $43,447.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/03/2000)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 27 of 88

03/08/2000 03/10/2000 03/13/2000 03/14/2000 03/14/2000 03/15/2000 03/17/2000 03/20/2000 03/20/2000
03/20/2000
03/21/2000 03/24/2000
03/31/2000 03/31/2000 04/03/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/10/2000

409 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 43,447.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 03/02/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/08/2000)
410 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time to 3/17/00 to respond to Tenth Quarterly Report (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
411 ORDER; re: conference call of 3/1/00 and responses to draft questions re: remedial plan; see instructions to experts; see Special Masters Order of 12/20/99; SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
412 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 13: Two Remedial Plan Modifications: Abuse/Neglect and Preventive Maintenance by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [410−1] motion to Extend Time to 3/17/00 to respond to Tenth Quarterly Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/15/2000)
413 ORDER re: Special Master's Report No. 13 and order of 4/21/98; Special Masters recommendations are binding ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/15/2000)
414 ORDER approving and adopting [412−1] Recommendation 24 report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/20/2000)
415 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 3/21/00 to allow the pleading to reach the court by mail (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
416 General Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of to [405−1] Tenth Quarterly Report by David Ferleger and Objection to Formal Recommendation 23 (Part 1 of 2) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
416 General Response to Tenth Quarterly Report and OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [405−1] Recommendation 23 contained therein (Part 2 of 2) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [415−1] motion to Extend Time until 3/21/00 to allow the pleading to reach the court by mail ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
417 ORDER approving and adopting [405−1] Recommendation 22 and deferring Recommendation 23 contained in Tenth Quarterly Report; SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/27/2000)
418 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
419 ORDER extending time to 3/31/00 to respond to statements of fact in Compliance Report ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [418−1] motion for Costs and Fees for $48,562.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/11/2000)
420 ORDER re 2/11/00 Special Master's Order; parties may request hearing within 15 days of receipt of this Order ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/07/2000)
421 Response by USA to [413−1] order; Notice of Filing 3/15/00 Submission (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/07/2000)
422 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [413−1] order; notice of filing defendants' 3/15/00 submission (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/10/2000)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 28 of 88

04/12/2000 04/24/2000 04/24/2000 04/24/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/27/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/08/2000 05/24/2000 05/31/2000 05/31/2000 05/31/2000
06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000

423 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 48,562.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 04/03/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
424 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 14: Client Activities: Court Requirement 14 and DMR Policy 11 by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
425 Response by David Ferleger to [395−1] order: Status of Quality Assurance Plan (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
426 ORDER re: [420−1] special master's order, Brief Deadline set for response to Special Master's Order by 4/25 ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/26/2000)
427 ORDER; pursuant to order 3/10/00 parties shall respond to experts proposal by 4/28/00 ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/26/2000)
429 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 123,243.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. #R000018 NH. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
428 Addition of page omitted from attachment G to Report to the Court No. 14 (Former Employee) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
430 ORDER to seal attachments B and C to Report to the Court No. 14 (Doc. No. 424) ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
431 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 3/31/00−5/2/00 for $16,442.00 (Brief Due 5/24/00 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [431−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 3/31/00−5/2/00 for $16,442.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
433 ORDER attaching corrected pages 126a and 127a of [412−1] Remedial Plan ( signed by Special Master ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
432 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 16,442.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to Do. # 431 dated 05/04/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
434 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Seal Special Master's 11th Quarterly Report (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/24/2000)
435 OBJECTIONS by USA to [434−1] motion to Seal Special Master's 11th Quarterly Report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/31/2000)
436 ORDER: Ordered that recommendation 23 is denied as moot ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/31/2000)
437 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time to file a response and/or objections to the special master's eleventh quarterly report (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/01/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [437−1] motion to Extend Time to file a response and/or objections to the special master's eleventh quarterly report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/01/2000)
438 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees in the amount of 32,904 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [438−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of 32,904 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
439 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 32,904.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to dated 06/06/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/08/2000)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 29 of 88

06/26/2000
07/07/2000 07/10/2000 07/12/2000 07/13/2000
07/13/2000 07/18/2000 07/18/2000
07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/26/2000 08/08/2000 08/08/2000 08/08/2000 08/08/2000 08/08/2000
08/08/2000 08/08/2000 08/08/2000

440 NOTICE OF FILING OF 11TH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT WITH REVISED FORMAT AND CONTENT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/27/2000)
441 ORDER; Remedial Plan Requirements released from judicial oversight; training plan released from judicial oversight; SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/07/2000)
442 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/11/2000)
ENDORSEMENT approving [442−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $31,030 for the period June 1, 2000 − July 6, 2000. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
443 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Withdraw [434−1] motion to Seal Special Master's 11th Quarterly Report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
444 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 31,030.00 to David Ferleger, Special Master, pursuant to [441−1] order and endorsement order dated 7/12/00 (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 07/13/2000)
ENDORSEMENT withdrawing [434−1] motion to Seal Special Master's 11th Quarterly Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/18/2000)
445 Response and Objections to Results of Fall 1999 Compliance Review by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [440−1] 11th Quarterly report (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
448 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 123,243.00 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut. Rec. #R000061 (NH). (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/27/2000)
446 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 15: June 2000 Spot Check of Compliance Reporting by David Ferleger (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/21/2000)
447 ORDER placing attachment C to 10th Quarterly Report (No. 405) under seal FILED UNDER SEAL ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/27/2000)
449 ORDER Regarding remedial plan Court requirement #88 SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
450 ORDER regarding Court requirement number 2 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
451 ORDER regarding Remedial Plan Court requirement 62 SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
452 ORDER regarding remedial Plan Court requirement 86 SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
453 ORDER regarding Motion for Special Master Formal Recommendation for Release of Certain Court requirements from Active judicial Oversight SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/08/2000)
455 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER regarding Remedial Plan Court Requirement 2 (Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
456 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER regarding Remedial Plan Court Requirement 86 (Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
458 STATUS REPORT #16 regarding dental care by Southbury Training (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 30 of 88

08/09/2000 08/09/2000
08/17/2000 08/18/2000 08/18/2000 08/22/2000 08/24/2000 08/30/2000 09/01/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000
09/12/2000
09/14/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000
09/27/2000
09/29/2000 09/29/2000
10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/11/2000 10/16/2000

454 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER re Remedial Plan Court Requirement 88 (Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
457 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER regarding Motion for Special Master Formal Recommendation for Release of Certain Court Requirements from Active Judicial Oversight (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
460 ORDER granting [446−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
461 Special Master's ORDER (see order for details) ( signed by David Ferleger ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
462 MOTION by David Ferleger for Fees and Services (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [462−1] motion for Fees and Services ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 08/23/2000)
463 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 34,598.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 08/22/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/24/2000)
464 Erratum by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
465 OBJECTION by USA to Special Master's [461−1] order (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
466 MOTION by David Ferleger for Installment Payment Order by Special Master in the amount of $15,427.00 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [466−1] motion for Installment Payment Order by Special Master in the amount of $15,427.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/08/2000)
467 ORDER: Parties to provide Special Master with responses to experts reports and recommendations by 9/29/00; hearing before SM on 9/13/00 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
468 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 15,427.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 09/08/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
469 SPECIAL MASTER BUDGET STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
470 AMENDED ORDER Docket Number 451 is hereby amnded. Ordered that Court Requirement 62 be Released from active judicial oversight. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
471 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Ordered that the attached corrected page 104c of the Remedical Plan is filed. ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
472 TWELFTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
473 ORDER: Defendants 9/27/00 letter requesting a one week extention to respond to expert report is Granted. The due date for parties responses is extended to 10/6/00. ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/02/2000)
474 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Brief Due 10/25/00 ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [474−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 10/05/2000)
475 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 21,541.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 10/05/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
476 STATUS REPORT No. 17: Abuse and Neglect Review by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/17/2000)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 31 of 88

10/24/2000 10/25/2000 10/25/2000 10/30/2000 10/30/2000 10/30/2000 10/31/2000 11/02/2000 11/03/2000 11/06/2000 11/06/2000 11/09/2000 11/09/2000
11/14/2000 11/20/2000 11/22/2000
11/30/2000 12/01/2000 12/04/2000 12/06/2000

477 MOTION by USA to Substitute Attorney Robert H. Stern (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/24/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [477−1] motion to Substitute Attorney Robert H. Stern terminated attorney Mark Masling for USA ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
478 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 123,243.00 Receipt # R000093 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
479 NOTICE of Errata by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
480 MOTION by David Ferleger for payment of fees and costs by Special Master David Ferieger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
481 NOTICE of report to the court (Community Placement) by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
482 ORDER approving and adopting [481−1] notice(Special Master's Twelfth Quarterly Report) ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [480−1] motion for payment of fees and costs by Special Master David Ferieger ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
484 ORDER re: Special Masters Report to the Court No. 17: Abuse &Neglect Review ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
483 ORDER Re: Compliance with Case Management Plan. (see order for details) ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
485 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 32,967.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 11/02/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
486 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 12/4/00 to file response to special master's report (Warner, R.) (Entered: 11/13/2000)
487 NOTICE of Filing of Thirteenth Quarterly Compliance report by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut with supporting documentation (in a box) (Depino, F.) Modified on 11/21/2000 (Entered: 11/13/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [486−1] motion to Extend Time until 12/4/00 to file response to special master's report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/14/2000)
488 Special Master's Formal Recommendation 27 by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 11/21/2000)
489 ORDER vacating portion of Remedial Plan adopted by 4/21/98 [192−1] order; vacated upon 11/20/00 recommendation of Special Masters' [488−1] Formal Recommendation/Status Report by David Ferleger ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
490 MOTION by David Ferleger for payment of special master fees and services (Torday, B.) Modified on 12/05/2000 (Entered: 11/30/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [490−1] motion for payment of special master fees and services ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
491 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 12/11/00 to file response to special master's report (Basile, F.) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
492 ORDER, that Recommendation 28 is approved and accepted and the Quality Assurance Plan ( adopted by Order 1/27/00) is hereby Amended in accordance with Recommendation 28. Defendants to submit plan with 20 days. ( signed by Senior

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 32 of 88

12/07/2000 12/08/2000 12/11/2000 12/26/2000 12/26/2000 01/02/2001 01/02/2001 01/03/2001 01/04/2001 01/08/2001 01/09/2001 01/09/2001 01/12/2001 01/12/2001 01/12/2001
01/12/2001
01/24/2001
01/25/2001

Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/07/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [491−1] motion to Extend Time until 12/11/00 to file response to special master's report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
493 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 44,345.00 to David Ferlerger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 12/01/00 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
494 Response and objection to recommendations by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [488−1] report by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
495 MOTION by USA to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger (Brown, S.) Modified on 12/27/2000 (Entered: 12/27/2000)
496 MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/27/2000)
497 SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
498 SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
499 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
500 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (duplicate of Doc# 499) (Depino, F.) Modified on 01/12/2001 (Entered: 01/04/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [499−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [500−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
501 MOTION by Dept of Mental Retardation to Extend Time to 1/12/01 to respond to Special Master's Report (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 01/10/2001)
502 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 16,964.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order, [0−0] order dated 01/08/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/12/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [501−1] motion to Extend Time to 1/12/01 to respond to Special Master's Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/12/2001)
503 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT DATED DECEMBER 29,2000 AND MOTION FOR RELEASE OF SUBJECT COURT REQUIREMENTS BY by Dept of Mental Retardation (1 of 2) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
503 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT DATED 12/29/00 AND MOTION by Dept of Mental Retardation for release of subject court requirements (2 of 2) (Brief Due 2/2/01) (Basile, F.) Modified on 01/24/2001 (Entered: 01/23/2001)
504 RULING denying [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 4 Page(s) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
505 STATUS REPORT to the court no. 18 identification and assessment of remaining requirements by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 01/26/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 33 of 88

01/30/2001 01/30/2001 02/02/2001
02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/07/2001 02/13/2001 02/14/2001 02/26/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001
03/13/2001 03/14/2001
03/27/2001

506 THIRTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) Modified on 07/12/2001 (Entered: 01/30/2001)
507 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Basile, F.) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
508 Reply by USA to [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger by USA, with respect to [481−1] notice by David Ferleger and MOTION by USA for release of subject court requirements PART 1 of 2 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [507−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
510 NOTICE of filing of thirteenth quarterly compliance report qith revised format and content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
512 Reply by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of to [498−1] Special Master report (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
509 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 22,389.00 to David Ferlger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 02/01/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
511 MOTION by USA for Iris Goldschmidt to Withdraw as Attorney (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [511−1] motion for Iris Goldschmidt to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Iris Goldschmidt for USA ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/08/2001)
513 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 82,162.00 Receipt # R000139 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
514 Marked exhibit List (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
515 ORDER approving and adopting [505−1] report to the court #18 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
516 MOTION by David Ferleger special masters statement for fees and services (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [516−1] motion statement for fees and services ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
517 SUPPLEMENT to 12/29/00 REPORT by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
518 BUDGET STATUS REPORT 1997−2000 by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
520 RULING granting in part and deferred part [503−1] motion for release of subject court requirements, granting in part, denying in part [503−1] opposition memorandum ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 16 Page(s) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
519 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 29,910.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 03/07/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/13/2001)
521 ORDER: Court hereby defers a decision on release pending the results of those discussions with parties and subsequent compliance determinations by the special Master. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/15/2001)
522 STATUS REPORT No. 19 re: Staff Training by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 34 of 88

03/27/2001 03/27/2001 03/29/2001 03/29/2001
04/17/2001 04/17/2001 04/20/2001 04/20/2001 04/20/2001
04/25/2001 04/25/2001 04/27/2001 04/27/2001 05/02/2001 05/03/2001 05/07/2001 05/09/2001 05/09/2001 05/10/2001

523 STATUS REPORT No. 20 re: Occupational Therapy/Phyical Therapy/Speech Staff by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
524 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: On 3/10/00 Dr. Judith Favell and Dr. Stephen Luce as court−appointed experts to assist the Special Master (signed by David Ferleger, Special Master) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
525 ORDER: Hereby ordered that court requirement 33 be released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
526 ORDER: Ordered that a) court requirement (CR)27 EC 1, with regard to Occupational and Physical Therapy staff only, and b) CR 27, EC 2 and EC3 in full, are released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
527 ORDER REFERRING EXTENSION to as special masters...Court extends Order of Reference until 12/31/01 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 04/18/2001)
528 STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT NO.21: SCOPE OF WORK FOR CONSULTANT REVIEW US V. STATE OF CONNECTICUT by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 04/18/2001)
529 Statement by Special Master David Ferleger for Fees and Services from 3/01−4/01 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving [529−1] Statement for Fees and Services from 3/01−4/01 in the amount of $24,817.00. Total to be distributed by Clerk ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/20/2001)
530 ORDER Dr. Friedlander appointed to review CRs 54.5/.6 &56, responses to scope of work instructions due 4/27/01, Special Master to conduct review with Dr. Friedlander 5/2/01 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
531 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 24,817.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 04/20/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
534 APPEARANCE of Attorney for USA −− Richard J. Farano (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
532 Special Master1 BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000178 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/27/2001)
533 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [528−1] report by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
535 ORDER: Courts hereby approves the revised scope of work for Consultant Review of court requirements 54 and 56, issued by the Special Master on 5/2/01 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
536 Reply by USA to [533−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [528−1] report by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
537 Revised Scope of Work for Court Requirements 54 and 56 by Special Master, David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
538 OBJECTION Report No. 21 by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [528−1] report by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/09/2001)
539 MOTION by State of Connecticut to Extend Time to 5/9/01 to respond to Special Master's Report to the Court #21 (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 05/09/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [539−1] motion to Extend Time to 5/9/01 to respond to Special Master's Report to the Court #21 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 05/10/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 35 of 88

05/14/2001 05/16/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/23/2001 05/24/2001 05/24/2001 05/24/2001 05/24/2001 05/24/2001
05/25/2001 05/25/2001 05/25/2001 05/25/2001 05/29/2001
05/30/2001 06/06/2001
06/13/2001 06/18/2001

540 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Special Master's Order regarding the continued appointment of Dr Judith Favell and Dr. Stephen Luce. (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/15/2001)
541 Response by USA to [538−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/16/2001)
542 Statement by David Ferleger for Fees and Services for Apri 20, 2001−May 18, 2001 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving [542−1] motion for Fees and Services for Apri 20, 2001−May 18, 2001 in the amount of $26,158 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
544 FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/24/2001)
543 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 26,158.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 05/21/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/24/2001)
545 REPORT TO COURT NO. 21 (REVISED): Scope of Work for Consultant Review by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/24/2001)
547 ORDER approving [545−1] Revised report to Court No.21 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
549 NOTICE OF FILING OF NINTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
550 NOTICE OF FILING OF FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT WITH REVISDED FORMAT AND CONTENT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
546 Response by USA to [540−1] report and recommendations (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 05/25/2001)
548 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [545−1] report by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
551 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED with the consent of the parties, that said motion for release is Denied without prejudice with regard to CR 41, EC 4 and CR 42, EC2 (signed by David Ferleger, Special Master) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
552 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 22 COMPLIANCE REVIEW: COURT REQUIREMENT 41 AND 42 by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/29/2001)
553 ORDER: Upon consideration of the Special Master's report No 22, it hereby ordered CR 41, EC1,2, &3 and CR 42, EC 1, &3 are released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
554 ORDER: Court approves the Scope of Work ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 05/31/2001)
555 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Protective Order Regarding Prohibiting On−Site Accompaniment of court−approved Consultants (Brief Due 6/27/01 ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
ENDORSEMENT withdrawing [555−1] motion for Protective Order Regarding Prohibiting On−Site Accompaniment of court−approved Consultants ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
556 Special Master's ORDER directing response by 6/28/02 re report of Mark Friedlander, M.D. ( signed by Special Master ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/19/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 36 of 88

06/20/2001 06/20/2001 06/26/2001 06/27/2001
06/29/2001 06/29/2001
06/29/2001 07/02/2001 07/10/2001 07/10/2001 07/16/2001 08/02/2001 08/02/2001 08/06/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001
08/20/2001 08/20/2001
08/20/2001
08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/23/2001

557 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 23 compliance review: court requirement 8, EC 1 by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
558 REPORT TO THE COURT NO. 24: response protocols by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
559 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/26/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving [559−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $22,309.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/28/2001)
560 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 22,309.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 06/27/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
561 ORDER:it is ordered: CR8, EC1 is released from active judicial oversight [557−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
563 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000205 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
562 ORDER: so ordered [558−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
564 ORDER approving [412−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
565 ORDER approving [424−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
566 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER ...see order for details (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
567 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
568 FIFTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
569 Special Master's Memorandum Re: Sustained compliance (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [567−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
570 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER RE: Release from active judicial oversight Court Requirements 5 and 74. Ordered that parties will file briefs on or before 9/17/2001 and the Office of Protection and Advocacy shall also file a brief. (see order for details) ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
571 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 25,755.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 08/13/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
572 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Proposed Review, By Nine (9) Consultants or CR 43, CR 44 and CR 52 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
573 Notice of Filing of Sixteenth Quarterly Compliance REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 08/21/2001)
574 STATUS REPORT to the court No 25: Compliance Review: Court Requirement 69, EC1 and 4 by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
575 STATUS REPORT to the court No 26: Compliance Review: Court Requirement 3, EC 9 by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
576 STATUS REPORT to court No 27: Compliance Review: Court Requirement 58 by David Ferleger (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/23/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 37 of 88

08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/23/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001 08/24/2001
08/29/2001
08/30/2001
09/04/2001
09/10/2001 09/10/2001 09/11/2001
09/12/2001 09/12/2001 09/14/2001 09/19/2001 09/20/2001 09/24/2001 09/24/2001
09/24/2001

577 ORDER by Special Master (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
578 ORDER by Special Master (signed David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
579 ORDER by Special Master; parties to respond to report by 9/12/01 (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/23/2001)
580 Special Master's Order: Meeting set for 10/11/01 at 11am (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
581 Special Master's Order: Status Conference set for 9/13/01 at 11am (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
582 Response by David Ferleger to [572−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Basile, F.) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
583 Reply by USA to [576−1] report by David Ferleger, [575−1] report by David Ferleger, [574−1] report by David Ferleger, [573−1] report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [572−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 08/29/2001)
584 RULING re: [572−1] objection to proposed consultant review (see ruling for details) ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 1 Page(s) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
585 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [572−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
586 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
588 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
587 ORDER: Hereby ordered that court requirement (CR)57, EC 3 is released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 09/12/2001)
589 Special Master's ORDER (David Ferleger, Special Master) SEE Order for detail 3 pgs (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [586−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
590 RESPONSE by USA to unfiled Motion for Release from Active Judicial Oversight (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
591 Response by USA to [570−1] order (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/20/2001)
592 Response by USA with regard to the behavioral programming review of the master's consutants (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
593 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 34,827.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 09/12/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
594 ORDER: Ordered that court requirement (CR) 43, EC 2 is released from active judical oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
595 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Defendant's extention is granted response to the order 9/21/01; (see order for details) (signed by Special Master's David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 38 of 88

09/24/2001
09/24/2001 09/27/2001 09/27/2001
10/03/2001 10/05/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001
10/09/2001
10/09/2001
10/10/2001 10/12/2001 10/16/2001
10/29/2001 10/30/2001 10/30/2001
10/30/2001 10/30/2001
10/30/2001 11/01/2001 11/01/2001

596 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Ordered parties may respond to allegations listed by 10/10/01 ( see order for detail) (signed by Special Master David Fergler) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
597 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
598 Reply by USA to Memorandum dated 9/21/01 (not filed) re: behavioral programming review of master's consultants (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
599 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER The United States wil respond to the Defendants' report on or before 10/22/01 FERLEGER Special Master (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
600 ORDER: see order for details ( signed by Special Master David Fergler ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
601 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
602 ORDER: It is hereby ordered CR 58 is released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
603 ORDER so ordered CR 3, EC 9 is released from active judicial oversight [595−1] order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
604 ORDER so ordered CR69, EC 1 and 4 are released from active judicial oversight [574−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
605 ORDER approving and accepted [568−1] Special Master's report 15th Quarterly Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [601−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
606 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 34,218.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 10/10/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
607 ORDER: Defendants to Provide Proposals under 8/23/01 Order by 11/2/01; Special Meeting with Special Master reset to 11/9/01 @ 11:30 @ Southbury Training School (David Ferleger, Special Master) 3 pgs SEE Order for details (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/16/2001)
609 Application for for instructions to the special master (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
608 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/30/2001)
610 ORDER:Defendants deemed to be in compliance wit remedial Plan Response Protocols 1 &9 hereby released from active judicial oversight with to those provisions ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
611 ORDER: Meeting reset for 11/6/01 at 9am (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
612 ORDER: Hereby determined there is no need for further action with regards to letter received 9/30/01 (Signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
613 ORDER: Parties shall discuss report within 14 days; see order for details (signed by David Ferleger) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
614 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
615 Special Master's ORDER. Parties to discuss questions raised by USA w/in 14 days (signed by David Ferleger) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 39 of 88

11/01/2001 11/01/2001 11/01/2001 11/02/2001 11/02/2001 11/02/2001 11/05/2001 11/08/2001 11/08/2001 11/09/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001 11/21/2001
11/26/2001 11/30/2001 11/30/2001 12/03/2001 12/03/2001

616 ORDER Parties to provide information re: compliance with relevant advocacy obligations ( signed by David Ferleger ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
617 ORDER Parties to discuss report of consultation w/ Elizabeth Chura w/in 14 days. Parties will respond w/in 21 days &file briefs w/in 30 days. ( signed by David Ferleger ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving [620−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the sum of $53,111 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 3 pgs (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
618 NOTICE of Filing Seventeenth Quarterly Compliance Report by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
619 Quarterly Compliance REPORT by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
620 MOTION by David Ferleger Services and Fees (Brief Due 11/23/01 ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
621 ORDER re: objection to Special Master's Order dated 10/15/01 (see order for details) ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
622 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 53,111.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 11/01/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
623 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [621−1] order (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/09/2001)
627 Special Master's ORDER ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
624 Response by USA to [609−1] application for instruction (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
625 Reply by USA to [623−1] objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
626 REPORT No. 30/order of reference extension by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
629 APPEARANCE of Attorney for USA −− Linda L. Keyser (Warner, R.) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
628 ORDER the 12/31/01 date set by the order of 4/17/01 and 7/30/97 order of reference appointing David Ferleger as special master, are both hereby extended until 3/31/02 SEE ATTACHED ORDER ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
630 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER the parties to discuss the report w/in 14 days (signed by David Ferleger) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 11/27/2001 (Entered: 11/27/2001)
631 ORDER: motions for release of Court Requirement 3, 43,44, 52 and Evaluation Criteria 1−8, 3,4,1,2,3 are Stayed pending further order ( David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
632 Response by State of Connecticut to [631−1] Special Master's order (Brown, S.) Modified on 12/04/2001 (Entered: 12/03/2001)
634 ORDER ....please order for detail ( signed by Special Master ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
635 ORDER... see order for detail ( signed by Special Master ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 12/04/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 40 of 88

12/03/2001 12/04/2001 12/05/2001 12/06/2001
12/06/2001 12/06/2001
12/06/2001 12/10/2001
12/10/2001 12/11/2001 12/11/2001
12/14/2001 12/14/2001 12/17/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/19/2001 12/20/2001
12/21/2001
12/21/2001

636 ORDER.... see order for detail ( signed by Special Master ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
633 RULING granting [609−1] application SEE FOR DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/04/2001)
637 STATUS REPORT NO. 32 Behavior Services, June, 2001 review by David Ferleger (Torday, B.) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
638 Special Master's ORDER; no action re: Court Requirement #43 and #52 (attaching a summary of ICF/MR deficiencies identified in surveys from 1998−2001) (Brown, S.) Modified on 12/06/2001 (Entered: 12/06/2001)
639 Special Master's ORDER no action regarding Court Requirement # 61 (attaching copy of ICF/MR deficiencies) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
640 Special Master's ORDER: no action re; Court Requirement #69 (with copy of summaries of ICF/MR deficiencies from 1998−2001) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
641 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [631−1] order (Basile, F.) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
642 STATUS REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut(Sherman, M.) Modified on 12/27/2001 (Entered: 12/11/2001)
643 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [643−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
644 Response by USA to [642−1] report by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
645 STATUS REPORT by USA (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
646 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 42,064.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to 643 dated 12/11/01 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
647 ORDER by David Fergler special master (that a status conference will be held on 12/20/01 @ 1:30 p.m.) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
648 RULING denying [623−1] objection ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 1 Page(s) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
649 ORDER by David Fergler special master (to file a joint status report on 12/28/01) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
650 ORDER by David Fergler special master ( shall file and fax reports by 12/19/01 ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
651 ORDER by David Ferleger special master (for a meeting with consultants on 1/30/02 ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
652 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 12/21/01 to file responsive pleadings (Malone, P.) Modified on 12/27/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2001)
ENDORSEMENT [652−1] motion to Extend Time until 12/21/01 to file responsive pleadings ordered accordingly ( signed by Clerk ) (Malone, P.) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
653 OBJECTION by Southbury Training, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to special masters re: [650−1] order, [649−1] order, [647−1] order, [639−1] order, [638−1] order, [636−1] order, [635−1] order, [634−1] order (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 41 of 88

12/21/2001
12/21/2001 12/26/2001 12/26/2001 12/28/2001 12/28/2001
01/02/2002 01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/07/2002 01/07/2002 01/07/2002 01/07/2002
01/07/2002 01/08/2002 01/08/2002 01/09/2002 01/09/2002
01/10/2002 01/10/2002
01/10/2002
01/10/2002

654 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [637−1] report by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
654 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Order (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
655 Response by USA to memorandum report of the master's consultant in developmental medicine (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
656 STATUS REPORT with regard to the report of the special master's nursing consultant1 by Philip Anfang (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
657 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER (the parties to discuss the report within fourtheen days) by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
658 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER (parties to file responses to reports and briefs within thirty days of this order) by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
659 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Villano, P.) (Entered: 01/02/2002)
660 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
670 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000291 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
662 ORDER by special master David Ferleger (that the 2/10/02 status conference be continued) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
663 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
664 ORDER by special master David Ferleger (an evidentiary hearing is on 3/6/02 @ 1:30 pm) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
665 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to al master's sixteenth quarterly report (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
661 ORDER denying [654−1] motion for Order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [659−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
666 ORDER status conference set for 2/15/02 at 9:00 am ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 01/23/2002 (Entered: 01/09/2002)
667 ORDER that the following requirements are released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/09/2002)
668 ORDER by special master David Ferleger parties shall file responses to consultant report, within 30 days (Sherman, M.) Modified on 01/23/2002 (Entered: 01/09/2002)
669 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 67,855.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to 659 dated 01/08/02 (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 01/10/2002)
671 Reply by USA to [654−1] response by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [637−1] report by David Ferleger (Warner, R.) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
672 OBJECTIONS by USA to [654−1] motion for Order by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, AND, response to objections to special master's orders (part 1 of 2) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 01/11/2002)
672 Objection to motion for protective order, AND Response by USA to [654−1] response by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [637−1] report by David Ferleger (Part 2 of 2)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 42 of 88

01/14/2002 01/15/2002 01/16/2002 01/22/2002 01/22/2002 01/23/2002 01/23/2002 01/23/2002
01/25/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/01/2002 02/04/2002 02/04/2002 02/05/2002 02/07/2002 02/07/2002 02/08/2002

(Warner, R.) Modified on 01/11/2002 (Entered: 01/11/2002)
673 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER will conduct conference calls on 2/4/02 (Sherman, M.) Modified on 03/11/2002 (Entered: 01/15/2002)
674 STATUS REPORT # 33 re court requirement 54 and 56 by David Ferleger (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/15/2002)
675 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER the parties agreed with reference to compliance, may consider deficiencies identified in the federal−state ICF/MR review process (Sherman, M.) Modified on 03/11/2002 (Entered: 01/16/2002)
676 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: Discovery The United States shall propound any writeen discovery requests to the Defendants by 1/31/02 SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DATES (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
677 Response by USA to the special master's order dated 1/4/02 (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
678 ORDER denying [653−1] objection ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
679 Response by David Ferleger to [676−1] report and recommendations (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
681 Response by David Ferleger to [653−1] objection by defendants, movant, [650−1] order, [649−1] order, [647−1] order, [639−1] order, [638−1] order, [636−1] order, [635−1] order, [634−1] order, objection by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [678−1] order, [679−1] response by David Ferleger, [676−1] report and recommendations, [677−1] response by USA, [675−1] order, [674−1] report by David Ferleger, [673−1] order, [669−1] (Sherman, M.) Modified on 01/25/2002 (Entered: 01/25/2002)
680 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut re: [675−1] order, [668−1] order (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
682 ORDER: Special Master's 16 Quarterly Report hereby is approved and accepted ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
684 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [684−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
683 MOTION by USA to Extend Time until 4/1/02 to respond to discovery &5/5/02 to hold evidentiary hearing on medical issues (Malone, P.) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
685 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER to make proposals within thirty days ( signed by David Ferleger) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 02/07/2002 (Entered: 02/05/2002)
686 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER counsel to discuss the report within 14 days and file a joint report within 20 days (signed by David Ferleger) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 02/07/2002 (Entered: 02/06/2002)
687 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER to file and submit comments on or before 2/20/02 (signed by David Ferleger) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 02/07/2002 (Entered: 02/07/2002)
688 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the Clerk shall place Volume 2 of the report under seal (signed by David Ferleger) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 02/07/2002 (Entered: 02/07/2002)
689 PARTIES JOINT REPORT CONCERNING THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S CONSULTANT IN HABILITATION (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 43 of 88

02/11/2002 02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/13/2002 02/14/2002 02/14/2002 02/14/2002 02/19/2002 02/19/2002 02/21/2002 02/25/2002
02/25/2002 02/25/2002
02/28/2002 02/28/2002 02/28/2002 02/28/2002 03/01/2002 03/01/2002

692 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the changes set forth shall be implemented in their quarterly reports (signed by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
690 APPEARANCE of Attorney for State of Connecticut −− Thomas B. York (Malone, P.) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
691 ORDERED that the following requirements are released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
694 ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall discuss the report within 14 days (signed by David Ferleger) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
693 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 52,113.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [684−0] order dated 02/01/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
695 Response by USA to [668−1] order (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
696 Response by USA to Defendants Letter to the Court dated 2/4/02 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
697 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Report to the Court #34 Abuse/Neglect Disciplinary Action is 2/27/02 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
Deadline updated; reset Status Report deadline to 2/27/02 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
698 ORDER of Reference Extension: It is hereby Ordered that the 7/30/97 order of reference is extended for one year from 4/1/02 to 3/31/03 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Basile, F.) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
699 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER granting [683−1] motion to Extend Time until 4/1/02 to respond to discovery &5/5/02 to hold evidentiary hearing on medical issues, d reset Discovery deadline to 4/1/02 , reset Conference for 1:30 on 5/8/02 see Order for detials ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
700 SPECIAL MASTER SCHEDULING ORDER: Special Master's Order of 12/3/01 and 1/11/02 are VACATED. See order for schedule details ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
701 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: On defendants motion for release from activ3e judicial oversight of CR 92; Regarding serv community to former STS residents the following schedule is set (see order for detials ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
702 Response by State of Connecticut to [697−1] report and recommendations (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
703 SPECIAL MASTER 'S SCHEDULING ORDER RE: Gant Chart replaces the Gant Chart attached to Order of 2/22/02( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
704 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: Court Requirements 73 &74, defendnats proposals on advocay, See order for detials of "2001 amendment to the 1997 agreement" ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
705 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: Parties joint report concerning the report of SM Consultant on the Aging Plan (2/2/02) See order for detials ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
706 Response by USA to [697−1] report and recommendations (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/01/2002)
730 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: Defendants motion for time to respond to SM draft of 17th quarterly report, ( motion not filed with court) is granted until 3/22/02 ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/22/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 44 of 88

03/04/2002 03/04/2002 03/04/2002
03/04/2002
03/04/2002 03/05/2002 03/05/2002 03/06/2002 03/06/2002 03/07/2002 03/07/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002 03/14/2002

707 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
708 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master Re: #34 Abuse/Neglect Disciplinary Action Vol. 1 dated 3/1/2002 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
709 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: Defendants' 11/9/00 and 8/7/01 motions for release from active judicial oversight as they pertain to Court Requirement 2, EC 3 and 8 EC#12 are denied without prejudice. (see order and #708) ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
710 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDERi: Medical requirements Scheduling, the Order of 2/22/02 is hereby amended to 3/26/01 at 1:00pm for negotiation session and defendants remedial proposals filed on or before 4/5/02 ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
711 Parties' Joint report concerning the report of the Special Master's consultant on the aging plan by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
712 ORDER approving [708−1] report and recommendations ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
ENDORSEMENT approving [707−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
713 Response with regard to consultants report protocols 2 &16 by USA to [686−1] order (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
714 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 43,128.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to (707) dated 03/05/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
715 MOTION by State of Connecticut for Reconsideration of [698−1] order dated 2/21/02 re: , or alter or amend judgment regarding order of reference extension dated 2/21/02 (Brief Due 3/28/02 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
716 NOTICE of filing Eighteenth quarterly compliance report with revised format and content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/07/2002)
717 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS #35 of Special Master Re: Abuse Prevention;defendants motion for release of Cr 3, EC 1−7, be granted (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
718 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS # 36 of Special Master Re: Response protocols 2 &6; (be released from active judicial oversight) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
719 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Defendants 11/9/00 motion for release from active judicial overisght of Court requirement 3 Ec 8 is denied withoutprejudice ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
720 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: 1/31/02 Order regarding behavior is AMENDED; USA response to Court Requirement 52 Ec 3 due 3/21/02 ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
721 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Defendants motion for extention of time to submit advocacy plan dated 3/8/02 is Granted to 4/16/02 ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
722 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: SM Orders (#717 &719) hereby deletes items which pertain to abuse prevention from schedule order of 7/22/02, as amended ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
723 ORDER approving [697−1] report and recommendations ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
724 ORDER approving [718−1] report and recommendations ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (see order) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 45 of 88

03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/18/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 03/25/2002 03/27/2002 03/28/2002 03/28/2002
04/01/2002 04/03/2002 04/03/2002 04/08/2002 04/09/2002 04/10/2002 04/11/2002 04/11/2002
04/11/2002

725 Special Master's ORDER Re: Order of 2/26/02 is amended, deadline for OPA's to sumbit informatin is extended to 4/15/02 ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
726 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Hearing is set for 4/10/02 to discuss recommendation with regard to Quality Assurance ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
727 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Hearing set for 4/10/02 at 12:30pm to discuss case management ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
728 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER: Hearing set for 4/11/02 at 11:00am to discuss Habilitation Services ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
729 MOTION by USA to Extend Time until 6/19/02 to conduct a meeting on habilitation issues (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 03/21/2002)
731 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Amending [727−1] order setting new time of 2.45pm ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
732 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER Amending [726−1] order settng new time 12.15pm ( signed by Special Master ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
733 MEMORANDUM by USA in opposition to [715−1] motion for Reconsideration of [698−1] order dated 2/21/02 re: by State of Connecticut (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/26/2002)
734 SEVENTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
735 Special Master's ORDER; advocacy plan to be submitted by 4/30/02 ( signed by David Ferleger, Special Master ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
736 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [729−1] motion to Extend Time until 6/19/02 to conduct a meeting on habilitation issues; meeting set for 5/1/02, proposals due 5/16/02 ( signed by David Ferleger, Special Master ) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
741 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000341 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
737 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for 3/02 thru 4/02 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [737−1] motion for Costs and Fees for 3/02 thru 4/02 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
738 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER granting [729−1] motion to Extend Time until 6/19/02 to conduct a meeting on habilitation issues (Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
739 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 40,944.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [737−0] order dated 04/03/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
740 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Parties have 14 days to respond to the draft report (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
742 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for instruction to special master (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
744 RULING denying [715−1] motion for Reconsideration of [698−1] order dated 2/21/02 denying [715−2] motion or alter or amend judgment regarding order of reference extension dated 2/21/02 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 04/12/2002)
Document # 743 deleted as it is a duplicate of 744 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 46 of 88

04/18/2002 04/18/2002 04/19/2002 04/25/2002 04/30/2002 05/01/2002 05/02/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/06/2002 05/07/2002 05/07/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002 05/08/2002
05/08/2002 05/08/2002

745 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the parties' joint agreement be submitted before 5/1/02 parties' meeting ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
746 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER parties' request for an extension until 6/6/02 to make decisions whether an impasse exits is granted ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
747 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER parties shall confer by 5/1/02 and report to the special master orally ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
748 ORDER approved and accepted [734−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
749 MOTION by USA for further Order in accordance with court order of 7/14/99 (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
750 RESPONSE by USA to [742−1] motion for instruction to special master by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
751 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that new forms and revisions to current forms shall be submitted within thirty days ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 05/14/2002 (Entered: 05/03/2002)
752 so ordered [749−1] motion for further Order in accordance with court order of 7/14/99 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
753 ORDER denying [742−1] motion for instruction to special master ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
754 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees from 4/2/02 − 5/2/02 (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
755 so ordered [751−1] order that recommendation 32 is adopted and the attached remedial plan pages replaced (signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [754−1] motion for Costs and Fees from 4/2/02 − 5/2/02 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
756 ORDER the special masters shall facilitate discussions between the parties reaching a settlement of all remaining issues ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
757 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 28,483.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [754−0] order dated 05/07/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
758 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER by 5/29/02 to provide any revised proposal and shall report on the status by 6/6/02 ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 05/10/2002 (Entered: 05/09/2002)
759 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the hearing on medical services, set for 5/8/02 is hereby continued ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 05/10/2002 (Entered: 05/09/2002)
760 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER the parties file a joint recommendation on compliance with the quality assurance plan before 6/3/02 ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 05/10/2002 (Entered: 05/09/2002)
761 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER the parties participate in a conference call will be arranged within ten days ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 05/10/2002 (Entered: 05/09/2002)
762 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER a process to address the findings and concerns in the special master's consultants' report due date for proposal 5/16/02 and impasse

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 47 of 88

05/16/2002 05/22/2002 05/24/2002 05/31/2002
05/31/2002 05/31/2002 06/03/2002 06/05/2002 06/06/2002 06/10/2002 06/11/2002
06/14/2002 06/14/2002 06/17/2002 06/17/2002 06/20/2002 06/25/2002
06/25/2002

date 6/6/02 are hereby continued ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 05/10/2002 (Entered: 05/09/2002)
763 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
764 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER granting motion for extention of time until 06/22/02 to respond to its order of 2/22/02 (signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
765 MOTION by USA to Extend Time until 6/22/02 to respond to Special Master's 2/22/02 Order (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
766 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER by 7/11/02 to review management information system plan; by 8/2/02 with a report, including description of their systems and mechanisms and provide a oral presentation at the 7/11/02 parties' meeting ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 06/10/2002 (Entered: 05/31/2002)
767 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [767−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [765−1] motion to Extend Time until 6/22/02 to respond to Special Master's 2/22/02 Order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
768 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 35,192.00 to David Fergeler, SM pursuant to order re # 767 dated 05/31/02 (Jefferson, V.) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
769 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that oral argument is scheduled for 6/20/02 and shall provide a written report ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 06/06/2002 (Entered: 06/06/2002)
770 Response by USA to [760−1] order (Warner, R.) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
771 ORDER approving and adopting [763−1] Special Master's Report; Court Requirement 45 and Case Management Plan Goals 1,3,4,5,6 are released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
772 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the evidentiary hearing on 6/13/02 is cancelled ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
773 SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER evidentiary hearing for 6/13/02 is hereby cancelled ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
774 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER within 30 days shall meet to discuss implementation of a pilot program set Status Report deadline to 8/31/02 ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
775 STATUS REPORT NO. 38: Aging Plan by David Ferleger Special Master (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/17/2002)
776 Response by USA to [760−1] order, and [745−1] order (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
777 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that a hearing on physical therapy set for 7/11/02 be continued and a status conference review is hereby scheduled for 8/8/02 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 06/25/2002 (Entered: 06/25/2002)
778 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that a hearing on nursing standards set for 7/11/02 be continued and a status conference on the nursing review is hereby scheduled for 8/8/02 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 06/25/2002 (Entered: 06/25/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 48 of 88

06/27/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002
06/28/2002 07/01/2002 07/02/2002 07/03/2002 07/08/2002 07/08/2002 07/08/2002 07/09/2002 07/15/2002
07/15/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002
07/16/2002 07/17/2002 07/17/2002 07/18/2002

779 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
780 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on the motion is stayed pending further orders and a status conference is scheduled on 8/8/02 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 06/28/2002 (Entered: 06/28/2002)
781 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on 7/9/02 parties shall provide the following documents requested and file briefs on 7/26/02 in the matter of compliance with court requirement 92 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
782 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
783 SCHEDULING ORDER SEE FOR DETAILS (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/02/2002)
784 Special Master's ORDER: Defendants to provide agreement on advocacy by 7/8/02 (David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
797 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000383 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
785 FISCAL STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
786 PARTIAL OBJECTION by State of Connecticut re: to report to the court NO. 38 aging plan (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
787 Response by State of Connecticut to eighteenth quarterly report (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [782−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
788 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the signed joint statement of Advocacy Principles with the addendum referenced in the draft on 8/7/02 and on 8/30/02 they shall submit separate vesions of the document, indicating areas of disagreement ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 08/06/2002 (Entered: 07/16/2002)
789 AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL MASTER'S SCHEDULING ORDER is amended to replace "in July 2002" with "in July 2002 or no later than August 2, 2002 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
790 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
791 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on communication services set for 8/8/02 and the hearing set for 8/14/02 are continued until further order of the special master ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
792 SPECIAL MASTER'S SCHEDULING ORDER setting the parties' meetings on the following dates in 2002/2003 (see dkt 792) meetings will begin at 9:00 am unless the parties are notified otherwise ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
793 ORDER approving and accepting [779−1] Special Master's 18th Quarterly Report dated 5/31/02 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
794 RULING is hereby sustained [786−1] partial objection ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
795 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 17,352.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 07/08/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
796 ORDER on Advocacy (Special Master David Ferleger) 5 pgs (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/22/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 49 of 88

07/22/2002 07/24/2002
07/29/2002 07/29/2002 07/31/2002 07/31/2002 08/02/2002 08/05/2002 08/08/2002 08/08/2002 08/08/2002 08/08/2002 08/09/2002
08/16/2002 08/20/2002 08/23/2002 08/23/2002 08/23/2002
08/26/2002

798 ORDER granting time extension to respond to discovery requests (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
799 ORDER Ordered that Court requirement 8, Evaluation Criterion 2, with respect to Steps 10 and 11 of Court Requirement 8, are hereby released from judicial oversight. ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
800 Special Master's ORDER on Habilitation (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2002)
801 Special Master's ORDER on Discovery (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2002)
802 Statement for Fees and Services from 6/28/02 to 7/29/02 by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
803 Special Master's ORDER re: Medical Services Joint Recommendation (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
ENDORSEMENT approving [802−1] bill of costs in the amount of #33,851.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
804 Special Master's Memorandum and ORDER on Compliance Review of Court Requirement 11 (Special Master David Ferleger) 6 pgs (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
805 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 33,851.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [802−0] order dated 08/02/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
806 Special Master's ORDER on Court Requirement 92 Compliance Review (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
807 Special Master's ORDER on Nursing Status Conference (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
808 Special Master's ORDER on Physical Therapy Status Conference (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
809 ORDER remanding to Special Master his report contained within [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger, vacating [504−1] ruling denying [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger by USA ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
810 SPECIAL MASTER'S motion hearing held 8/9/02. Evidentiary hearing ordered for 10/16/02 for 1:30 PM ( signed by Special Master ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2002)
811 STATUS REPORT #40: Quality Assurance Plan by David Ferleger (Warner, R.) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
812 STATUS REPORT #41 re; Physical Therapy by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
813 STATUS REPORT #42 re; Nursing by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
814 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Clarification of [809−1] order , or for Reconsideration of [809−1] order dated 8/9/02 re: [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger, [481−1] notice, [504−1] order (Brief Due 9/13/02 ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
815 MEMORANDUM by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut in support of [814−1] motion for Clarification of [809−1] order, [814−2] motion for Reconsideration of [809−1] order dated 8/9/02 re: [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re:

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 50 of 88

08/27/2002 08/27/2002 08/27/2002 08/27/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 09/03/2002 09/04/2002 09/04/2002 09/05/2002 09/05/2002 09/06/2002
09/06/2002
09/10/2002 09/11/2002 09/12/2002 09/18/2002

placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger, [481−1] notice, [504−1] order (Villano, P.) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
816 ORDER approving and adopting Special Master's [812−1] Report #41: Physical Therapy; and releasing CR 69, EC 2,3,5,6 from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
817 ORDER approving and adopting Special Master's [813−1] Report #42: Nursing and releases from active judicial oversight CR 61, EC 1 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
818 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER ON HABILITATION (See Order for details) ( signed by David Ferleger, Special Master ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
819 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON CR16 (TRANSPORTATION) (See Order for details) ( signed by David Ferleger, Special Master ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 08/28/2002)
820 SPECIAL MASTER'S SCHEDULING ORDER setting the party meeting for 10/24/02 at the Southbury Training School (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
821 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER requesting United States' Position on Certain Behavior Services Requirements (Ferleger Special Master ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
822 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS # 33 Re: Release of Additional Behavior Services Court requirements (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
823 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 9/6/02 to respond to Special Masters Report Number 40 (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
824 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER Re−setting the Communications Impasse Meeting (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [823−1] motion to Extend Time until 9/6/02 to respond to Special Masters Report Number 40 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
825 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [825−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/05/2002)
826 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [811−1] # 40 Status Report; and Motion to Modify #40 Status Report by David Ferleger Part 1 of 2 (Brown, S.) Modified on 09/09/2002 (Entered: 09/09/2002)
826 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Modify [811−1] #40 Status Report; and Objection to #40 Status Report by David Ferleger Part 2 of 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
827 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 37,244.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 09/05/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
828 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER hearing on modification of Court Requirement 16 is re−set for 10/25/02 @ 9 am ( signed by Special Master ) (Warner, R.) Modified on 10/02/2002 (Entered: 09/11/2002)
829 Joint STATUS REPORT by USA, State of Connecticut concerning habilitation pursuant to the Special Master's order dated 7/27/02 (Warner, R.) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
830 RESPONSE by USA to [814−1] motion for Clarification of [809−1] order by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith, [814−2] motion for Reconsideration of [809−1] order dated 8/9/02

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 51 of 88

09/19/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002
09/24/2002 09/25/2002 09/27/2002 09/30/2002 09/30/2002 10/01/2002 10/02/2002 10/02/2002 10/03/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/08/2002 10/08/2002 10/10/2002

re: [495−1] motion to Adopt findings and recommendations re: placement contained within [481−1] notice by Special Master David Ferleger, [481−1] notice, [504−1] order by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
831 RULING denying oral request to reconsider [809−1] order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
832 RULING denying [814−1] motion for Clarification of [809−1] order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
833 ORDER approving Special Master's Recommendation 33: CR 50, ECs 1,2,6,7,8 are released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
834 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER The deadline for Defendants to submit information regarding the day program for DG is extended from September 13, 2002 to September 20, 2002 (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
835 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER The deadline for Defendants to submit the remaining information requested in Special Master's Order of 8/1/02 items 2 and 4 is extended from September 17,2002 to October 7,2002 (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
836 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that on or before 10/8/02 the parties shall submit comments they may have on the attached draft schedule (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
837 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Court Requirement 92 of Edwin S. SEE FOR DETAILS fERLEGER Special Master (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
838 RESPONSE MEMORANDUM by USA in support of [826−1] motion to Modify [811−1] #40 Status Report; and Objection to #40 Status Report by David Ferleger (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
839 NINETEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
850 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000431 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
840 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
841 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Requiring Reports on Negotiations (Ferleger Special Masters) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
ENDORSEMENT approving [840−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $21,973.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
842 NINETEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT by David Ferleger (Depino, F.) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
843 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 21,973.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 10/02/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
844 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for release of court requirement 92 from active judicial oversight (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
845 RULING overruling [826−1] motion to Modify [811−1] #40 Status Report; and Objection to #40 Status Report by David Ferleger ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 9 Page(s) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
846 ORDER remanded to the special master re: [837−1] report and recommendations ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
847 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER granting [844−1] motion for release of court requirement 92 from active judicial oversight ( signed by Special Master David

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 52 of 88

10/10/2002 10/11/2002 10/18/2002 10/23/2002 10/28/2002 10/29/2002 10/31/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/05/2002
11/12/2002
11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/13/2002 11/15/2002 11/15/2002 11/20/2002

Ferleger ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
848 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER granting in part, [836−1] order on or before 10/10/02 at 2:00 pm ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
849 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER before 10/14/02 at 1:00 pm defendants shall file and complete response to the order of 9/23/02 by fax or before the stated time ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/11/2002)
851 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDERED that the compliance review and determination schedule attached is hereby adopted ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 10/23/2002 (Entered: 10/18/2002)
852 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER continuing hearing on CR 16 (transportation) is continued until 11/7/02 at 9:00 am ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 10/23/2002 (Entered: 10/23/2002)
853 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER amending docket# 851 resetting the Habilitation Hearing to Monday 1/14/03 at 10:00 am , set Discovery deadline to 12/27/02 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/28/2002)
854 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master Re: memorandum on joint recommendation to confer by 11/6/02 and shall report by letter, separately or jointly (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
855 Special Master's ORDER: Correcting Typographical Error, Habilitation Hearing reset to 1/14/03 (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/01/2002)
856 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
857 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on transportion (CR16) timeliness is scheduled for compliance review from 1/1/03 to 1/31/03 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
858 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the following Remedial Plan Court Requirements on behavior services will be reviewed by the Special Masters with consultants ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
859 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER that the hearing on modification of Remedial Plan scheduled for 11/7/02 to be continued for consideration of fractual information is reset for 12/11/02 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 11/12/2002)
860 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER inviting the United States to visit community residential and day programs for the period 11/13/02 to 11/15/02 ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [856−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $26,465.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 11/12/2002 (Entered: 11/12/2002)
861 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 26,465.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 11/12/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
862 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER a meeting on maintenance of effort and safeguards on 11/21/02 at 10:00 am ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
863 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER resetting case management hearing to 2/27/03 at 10:00 am ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) Modified on 11/15/2002 (Entered: 11/15/2002)
864 OBJECTION by State of Connecticut to: [859−1] order of special master (Falcone, K.) Modified on 12/18/2002 (Entered: 12/16/2002)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 53 of 88

11/21/2002 11/22/2002
11/22/2002
11/25/2002 11/27/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/04/2002 12/05/2002
12/06/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/09/2002 12/10/2002 12/11/2002 12/12/2002 12/16/2002

865 MEMORANDUM by David Ferleger on retention of consultant on communication aspects of habilitation (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
866 MOTION by Richard Messier, Thomas Maloney, Carole Ann Carr, Leon Horton, Raymond Mitchell, Leonard Haversat, Gregory Kabbai, David Yeske, People First, ARC/Connecticut, Inc, Western Connecticut to Intervene (Brief Due 12/13/02 ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
867 MEMORANDUM by Richard Messier, Thomas Maloney, Carole Ann Carr, Leon Horton, Raymond Mitchell, Leonard Haversat, Gregory Kabbai, David Yeske, People First, ARC/Connecticut, Inc, Western Connecticut in support of [866−1] motion to Intervene (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
868 MEMORANDUM by David Ferleger in support of [865−1] memorandum (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
869 REPORT by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut, in response to Special Master's Memorandum re; engaging Consultant on Habilitation (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
870 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for postponement of habilitation Hearing until 2/11/03 (Sherman, M.) Modified on 12/02/2002 (Entered: 12/02/2002)
871 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER granting [870−1] motion for postponement of habilitation Hearing until 2/11/03 ( signed David Ferleger by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
872 STATUS REPORT No. 43: compliance with management information (MIS) Plan by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
873 STATUS REPORT No. 44 court requirement 11, security by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [870−1] motion for postponement of habilitation Hearing until 2/11/03 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
874 ORDER In the interest of attempting to reach an amicable settlement of the community placement issues among the parties all position papers shall remain confidential as among the parties until further order. SEE FOR FURTHER DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
875 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER regarding 12/11/02 hearing at 9:30 am on modification to Court Requirement 16 (transportation) ( signed by Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
876 STATUS REPORT No. 45: Court Requirement 92 ( Readmissions) by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
877 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
878 Reply by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [857−1] order (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
879 ORDER overruling [864−1] objection to the collection of data on timeliness ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [877−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $30,129 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
880 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 30,129.00 to David Ferlger pursuant to [877−0] order dated 12/11/02 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
881 US opposition to [864−1] Defendant's objection by State of Connecticut, to [859−1] order of speical master (Falcone, K.) Modified on 12/18/2002 (Entered:

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 54 of 88

12/16/2002 12/16/2002 12/18/2002
12/18/2002 12/18/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/20/2002 12/24/2002 12/30/2002
01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/09/2003 01/10/2003
01/13/2003 01/14/2003 01/15/2003

12/16/2002)
882 Opposition by USA to [866−1] motion to Intervene by movants (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
883 MOTION by State of Connecticut to Extend Time to respond to motion to intervene until 12/18/02 (Falcone, K.) Modified on 12/18/2002 (Entered: 12/18/2002)
884 ORDER of the Special Master's Report 43, and absent objections from the parties, the Management Information System (MIS) is released from active judical oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
885 ORDER of the Special Master's Report No. 44, and Requirement 11, Evaluation Criteria 2 and 3 (Security Staff) are released from active judical oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
886 REPLY by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to response to [866−1] motion to Intervene by movants (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
887 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Extending date for discovery, reset Discovery deadline to 1/10/03 (Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) Modified on 12/19/2002 (Entered: 12/19/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [883−1] motion to Extend Time to respond to motion to intervene until 12/18/02 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
888 ORDER on 1/6/03, the parties shall jointly submit time−line proposal for the continuing settlement negotiations on habilitation and community placement ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
889 MOTION by Richard Messier to Extend Time until 1/10/03 to respond to oppositions to motion to intervene (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [889−1] motion to Extend Time to respond to oppositions to motion to intervene, Brief Deadline set for 1/10/03 [866−1] motion to Intervene ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
890 ORDER denying [866−1] motion to Intervene ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
891 JOINT SUBMISSION in Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of CT to [888−1] order (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
894 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000478 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
892 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
893 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Order to prohibit a fourth review of communication services by a second consultant and for a Expedited ruling (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
895 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [895−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $23,190.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
896 RULING denying [893−1] motion for Order to prohibit a fourth review of communication services by a second consultant, denying [893−2] motion for a Expedited ruling ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Sherman,

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 55 of 88

01/15/2003 01/17/2003 01/21/2003 01/23/2003 01/28/2003 01/29/2003 01/30/2003 01/31/2003 02/03/2003 02/03/2003 02/05/2003 02/10/2003 02/11/2003 02/11/2003 02/18/2003 02/20/2003 02/24/2003 02/24/2003 02/24/2003 02/25/2003

M.) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
897 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 23,190.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to 895 order dated 01/14/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
898 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for release of Court Requirements 41.4 and 42.2 from active judicial oversight (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
899 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER upon consideration of the report pertaining to Habilitation Initiative ( signed by David Ferleger Special Master ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
900 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER. Habilition Hearing scheduled to begin 2/11/03 is hereby continued until 3/18/03 ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 01/23/2003)
901 ORDER re: Court Requirement 92 (readmissions) is hereby RELEASED from active judicial oversight [876−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
902 FISCAL REPORT for 2002 by David Ferleger (Warner, R.) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
903 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of David Ferleger Special Master Re: Court No. 34 modification of compliance thresholds for two court requirements (Sherman, M.) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
904 MOTION by David Ferleger for Fees and Services (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
905 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to USA's Submission on Modification of Court Requirement 16 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [904−1] motion for Fees and Services and disbursement by clerk to Special Master $19,821 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
906 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 19,821.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 02/03/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
907 Special Master's ORDER revising compliance determination Schedule. SEE ORDER for details ( signed by Special Master ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
908 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Continuance of the case management hearing until 4/2/03 (Sherman, M.) Modified on 02/13/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
909 Notice of filing of 22nd quarterly compliance report with revised format and content by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Warner, R.) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
910 ORDER approved and accepted[892−1] report, approving [842−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
911 Special Master's ORDER on Communications Report (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
912 Special Master's ORDER on Recommendation to Court No. 34 (Thresholds) (by Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
913 Special Master's ORDER Continuing 2/27/03 Case Management Hearing (by Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
914 Special Master's ORDER Forwarding Mortality Review Report (by Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
915 ORDER: Special Master's Reports will assist court in considering if layoffs affect state's compliance with court requirments ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 56 of 88

02/25/2003 02/26/2003 02/27/2003 02/27/2003 03/05/2003 03/05/2003 03/06/2003 03/07/2003
03/07/2003
03/07/2003 03/11/2003 03/11/2003 03/11/2003 03/12/2003
03/12/2003 03/17/2003 03/20/2003

Burns ) SEE Order for details 3 pgs (Brown, S.) Modified on 02/26/2003 (Entered: 02/26/2003)
916 REPORT #46: Court Requirements 42,EC4, and 42,EC2 (Staff Review of OPS) by Special Master, David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
917 Special Master's ORDER on Habilitation Hearing; 3/18/03 hearing continued to 5/21/03 (Special Master Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
918 MOTION by David Ferleger for Fees for Services rendered (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
919 MOTION by State of Connecticut for Costs and Fees (Brief Due 3/20/03 ) (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
920 Special Master's ORDER Docketing Defendants' February 26, 2003 Letter (copy attached) (Special Master David Ferleger)(Brown, S.) Modified on 03/07/2003 (Entered: 03/05/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [919−1] motion for Payment of Special Master Consultant Deposition Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
921 Special Master's ORDER docketing United States March 5, 2003 Letter (copy attached) (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
922 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut for Clarification of [917−1] order declaring special master's reports will assist in considering if layoffs affect state's compliance with court requirements; and to reverse [915−1] special master's order continuing 3/18/03 habilitation hearing to 5/21/03 (Brief Due 3/28/03 ) (Brown, S.) Modified on 03/11/2003 (Entered: 03/07/2003)
923 MEMORANDUM by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut in support of [922−1] motion for Clarification of [917−1] order declaring special master's reports will assist in considering if layoffs affect state's compliance with court requirements; and to reverse [915−1] special master's order continuing 3/18/03 habilitation hearing to 5/21/03 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
924 Special Master's ORDER Setting Revised Compliance Determination Schedule (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
925 ORDER Extending Order of Reference until 12/31/03 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
926 REPORT to The Court No. 47; Modification of Court Requirent 16 (Transportation) by David Ferleger − 2 volumes (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [918−1] motion for Fees for Services rendered in the amount of $38,656.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
927 RULING denying [922−1] motion for Clarification of [917−1] order declaring special master's reports will assist in considering if layoffs affect state's compliance with court requirements; and to reverse [915−1] special master's order continuing 3/18/03 habilitation hearing to 5/21/03 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 4 Page(s) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
928 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 38,656.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 03/11/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
929 MOTION by State of Connecticut for Release of Court Requirement 16 re Transportation (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
932 ERRATUM re March 6, 2003 Memorandum (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/21/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 57 of 88

03/21/2003 03/21/2003 03/25/2003 03/25/2003 03/25/2003 03/25/2003 03/26/2003 03/26/2003
03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/28/2003 03/28/2003
04/01/2003 04/01/2003 04/01/2003
04/02/2003

930 Special Master's ORDER Revising Compliance Determination Schedule Regarding ICA (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
931 REPORT to the Parties: Response Protocol 2 (Average Chlorpromazine Equivalent) by David Ferleger, Special Master (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
933 Vol. 1 Special Master's REPORT No. 48: Intra−STS Transfers Under Response Protocol 7 by Special Master, David Ferleger (Brown, S.) Modified on 03/25/2003 (Entered: 03/25/2003)
934 Vol. 2 Special Master's REPORT No. 48: Intra−STS Transfers Under Response Protocol 7 by Special Master, David Ferleger(Brown, S.) Modified on 03/25/2003 (Entered: 03/25/2003)
935 Special Master's ORDER: Responses to Report No. 48/ Response Protocol 7 due 5/1/03 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/25/2003)
938 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Enlarge Time until 3/27/03 to offer proof as to the Special Masters habilitation consultants (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
936 MOTION by State of Connecticut to Extend Time to file objections to report to the court #47 , or, in the alternative for Leave to File such objections nunc pro tunc (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
937 ORDER granting [936−1] motion to Extend Time to file objections to report to the court #47, granting [936−2] motion for Leave to File such objections nunc pro tunc to on or before 3/27/03 (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
939 Statement by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for period 2/27/03−3/27/03 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [939−1] motion for Costs and Fees for period 2/27/03−3/27/03 in the amount of $45,380 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [938−1] motion to Enlarge Time to 3/27/03 to offer proof as to the Special Masters habilitation consultants ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
940 ORDER granting [936−1] motion to Extend Time to file objections to report to the court #47, granting [936−2] motion for Leave to File objections by 4/1/03 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
941 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000525 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
942 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 45,380.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to 939 order dated 03/27/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
943 Defendant's Offer of Proof for Purposes of Cross−Examination with Regard to Testimony of Special Master's Consultants on Habilitation Issues by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) Modified on 03/28/2003 (Entered: 03/28/2003)
944 MOTION by State of Connecticut for Order releasing court requirement 2 evaluation requirement 3(abuse not tolerated) and court requirement 8, step 12(abuse involving staff) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
945 MOTION by State of Connecticut for Order releasing court requirement 3, evaluation criteria 8(abuse prevention) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
947 OBJECTIONS by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to [929−1] motion for Release of Court Requirement 16 re Transportation by State of Connecticut (Villano, P.) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
946 ORDER re: [916−1] report. CR 41, EC 4, and CR 42, EC 2 are hereby RELEASED from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 58 of 88

04/07/2003
04/07/2003 04/07/2003 04/14/2003 04/15/2003
04/15/2003 04/15/2003 04/15/2003
04/15/2003 04/15/2003 04/16/2003 04/22/2003 04/24/2003
04/30/2003
05/01/2003 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 05/01/2003
05/01/2003 05/02/2003

Burns ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
948 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time until 06/04/03 for Hearing on Habilitation (Rodko, R.) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
949 Special Master's ORDER Continuing Habilitation Hearing to 6/10/03 @ 10:00 (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
950 Special Master's ORDER Continuing Hearing on Medical Standards to 4/28/03 (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
951 RULING overruling [947−1] objection, approving [926−1] report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 5 Page(s) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
952 ORDER directing Clerk to docket the attached letter to order and file same under seal (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) Modified on 08/13/2003 (Entered: 04/15/2003)
953 SEALED LETTER dated 2/5/03 Regarding: Workforce reduction and impact upon court requirements by State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
954 ORDER Resetting Mortality Review Hearing to 4/29/03 @ 3:00 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) Modified on 08/13/2003 (Entered: 04/15/2003)
955 Special Master's ORDER Resetting Status Conference on Medical Records to April 29, 2003 @ 9:30 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) Modified on 04/15/2003 (Entered: 04/15/2003)
956 ORDER Resetting Communications Hearing to 4/29/03 @ 10:00 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) Modified on 08/13/2003 (Entered: 04/15/2003)
957 STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger, Special Master (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
958 ORDER regarding hearing procedures for communications hearing ( signed by Special Master ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
959 Special Master's ORDER on Response Protocol 2 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
960 Proposed Exhibit List by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
963 ORDER approving and adopting [962−1]Special Master's order, approving and adopting [961−1] Special Master's order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
961 Special Master's ORDER Adopting Parties Communications Agreement (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
962 Special Master's Approving Communication Services Agreement ORDER (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
964 Special Master's Scheduling ORDER amending Schedule adopted 3/6/03 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
965 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill to Extend Time to File Motion for Release of Court Requirement 14 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
966 RESPONSE by USA to Motion for Release of Court Requirement 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
971 Special Master's ORDER granting [965−1] motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Release of Court Requirement 14; Motion due 5/2/03 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/07/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 59 of 88

05/05/2003 05/05/2003 05/05/2003
05/06/2003
05/08/2003 05/08/2003 05/08/2003
05/09/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/14/2003 05/14/2003 05/22/2003
05/23/2003
05/27/2003
05/27/2003
05/28/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003

968 Special Master Statement by David Ferleger for Fees and Services (Brief Due 5/26/03 ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
967 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill For Release of Court Requirement 14 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
969 Special Master's ORDER granting Extension of Time from 5/1/03 to 5/5/03 re; Motion to Submit Comments to Special Master's Report #48 () (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
970 Response by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill to [934−1] Special Master's report no. 48 by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/06/2003)
972 Special Master's MEMORANDUM on Safegauards and Maintenance of Effort by David Ferleger, Special Master (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
973 Special Master's ORDER on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [968−1] motion for Fees and Services in the amount of $51,520.00 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
974 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 51,520.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 05/08/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
975 Special Master's ORDER on Replacement ICA (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
976 Special Master's ORDER re; Payment of Consultant Fees (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
977 Special Master's Scheduling ORDER on Habilitation and Case Management (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
978 MEMORANDUM by David Ferleger in support of [977−1] Special Master's order on Habilitation and Case Management (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
979 OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to: [973−1] Special Master's Order on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
980 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER setting briefing schedule on Mortality Review. USA and defendants shall file post−hearing briefs and propsed findings of fact and conclusions of law by 6/30/03 ( signed by Special Master David Ferleger ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
981 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER The parties will report to the Special Master on or before 5/27/03 as to whether defendant's objections on the "June 2" and 10 day notice issues have been resolved (Ferleger, Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
982 SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT TO THE COURT #49: Investigation of Abuse/Neglect Allegations (CR2,EC1) (Ferleger Special Master) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
983 Special Master's ORDER denying as moot Defendants' Reconsideration Motion (Special Master David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
984 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
985 23d Quarterly Compliance REPORT by State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
986 MOTION by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill to Partially Seal Compliance Report (Brown, S.) Modified on 06/03/2003 (Entered: 06/03/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 60 of 88

06/02/2003 06/02/2003
06/03/2003 06/04/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/09/2003 06/09/2003 06/10/2003
06/10/2003 06/11/2003 06/11/2003 06/11/2003 06/13/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/17/2003
06/17/2003

987 MOTION by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill to Stay Special Master's Oder on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
988 MEMORANDUM by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill in support of [987−1] motion to Stay Special Master's Oder on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/03/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [984−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $30,831 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) Modified on 06/03/2003 (Entered: 06/03/2003)
989 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 30,831.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to [0−0] order dated 06/03/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
990 Special Master's Amended Scheduling ORDER on Habilitation and Case Management (Special Master, David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
991 Special Master's ORDER on Review of Individual Compliance Audit (Special Master, David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
992 Special Master's Scheduling ORDER on Court Requirement 60 (Medical Standards) (Special Master, David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
993 Reply by USA to Response to [973−1] Special Master's order on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
996 Special Master's ORDER Amending Order on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort (Special Master, David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
994 ORDER overruling [979−1] objection to Special Master's Order on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort, and adopting [973−1] Special Master's order on Safeguards and Maintenance of Effort ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
995 ORDER approving and adopting [961−1] Special Master's order Adopting Parties Communications Agreement ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
997 Special Master's Order filing (attached) STATUS REPORT re; Impact of Staff Reductions On Habilitation and Case Management by Special Master, David Ferleger Part 1 of 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
997 Special Master's ORDER filing (attached) Status Report re; Impact of Staff Reductions on Habilitation and Case Management (Special Master, David Ferleger) Part 2 of 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
998 Special Master's ORDER on 6/5/03 Parties' Joint Agreement on Habilitation (Special Master, David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
999 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Re: Communication Services Report (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
1000 Special Master's ORDER on CR 14, EC 2, Pending Motions (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
1001 Special Master's Production ORDER (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
1002 Motion for Court Instruction to Special Master and OBJECTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill to [992−1] Special Master's Scheduling order re; Court Requirement #60 (medical Standards) Part 1 of 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
1002 Objection to Special Master's Scheduling Order on Court requirement 60 (medical standards); and MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill For Court Instruction to Special Master Part 2 of 2 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 61 of 88

06/17/2003
06/24/2003
06/24/2003 06/24/2003
06/25/2003
06/25/2003
06/26/2003 06/26/2003 07/01/2003 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 07/03/2003 07/03/2003 07/07/2003 07/07/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/09/2003 07/14/2003 07/16/2003
07/16/2003

1003 MEMORANDUM by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill in support of [1002−1] motion For Court Instruction to Special Master, [1002−1] objection to Special Master's Scheduling Order on Court Requirement 60 (medical standards) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
1004 Special Master's Amended Scheduling ORDER on Habilitation; hearing reset to 9/8/03 through 9/12/03 @ 9:30 in New Haven, district courthouse (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
1005 Special Master's ORDER on Consent Decree Office Staffing (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
1006 Special Master's Amended Scheduling ORDER on Case Management hearing reset to 8/4/03 through 8/8/03 @ 9:30 in New Haven, district courthouse (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) Modified on 06/24/2003 (Entered: 06/24/2003)
1007 RULING denying [1002−1] motion For Court Instruction to Special Master, overruling [1002−1] objection ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 3 Page(s) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
1008 ORDER: ...the Court hereby Releases From Active Judicial Oversight Remedial Plan Court Requirement 2, Evaluation Criterion 1 (requiring that all allegations of abuse/neglect be investigated and a detemination be made) ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
1009 Sealed Portion of Compliance REPORT filed 6/2/03 by State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [986−1] motion to Partially Seal Compliance Report ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
1015 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000584 by William A. O'Neill, State of COnnecticut. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
1010 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [1010−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
1013 Special Masters STATUS REPORT Volume 3 Supplemental Record by David Ferleger (Falcone, K.) Modified on 07/07/2003 (Entered: 07/07/2003)
1014 Special Masters STATUS REPORT Volume 4 Final Report by David Ferleger (Falcone, K.) Modified on 07/07/2003 (Entered: 07/07/2003)
1011 STATUS REPORT − June 2003 by David Ferleger (Warner, R.) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
1012 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 68,233.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to 1010 order dated 07/02/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
1016 SPECIAL MATER'S ORDER for Payment of Deposition Witnesses ( signed by Special Master ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
1017 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on Behavior Services Review ( signed by Special Master ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
1018 RECOMMENDATIONS of Special Master Re: Remedial Plan Response Protocol 2 be DELETED from Remedial Plan (Warner, R.) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
1019 MOTION by David Ferleger approval for payment of special master consultant deposition fees (Brief Due 8/4/03 ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
1020 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on Extension of Time Regarding Communication Services ( signed by David Ferleger, Special Master ) (Villano, P.) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [1019−1] motion approval for payment of special master consultant deposition fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns )

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 62 of 88

07/21/2003 07/22/2003 07/22/2003 07/28/2003 07/30/2003 07/30/2003
07/30/2003 07/30/2003
07/31/2003 08/01/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/08/2003 08/08/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003 08/14/2003 08/15/2003

(Warner, R.) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
1021 Preliminary REPORT to Parties: CR 14, EC 2 (Habilitation; Variety of Activities) by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
1022 Volume 1 REPORT to the Court No. 51: Mortality Review by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
1023 Volume 2 Record REPORT to the Court No. 51: Mortality Review by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
1024 Special Master's ORDER Regarding Case Management Hearing commencing August 4, 2003 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
1025 Special Master's ORDER directing Payment of Deposition Witness; Defendants to pay $1,036.19 to Human Services Research Institute within 30 days (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/30/2003)
1026 ORDER approving and adopting [1018−1] Special Master's report and recommendations re; deleting Remedial Plan Response Protocol 2 from Remedial Plan ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 1 pg (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
1027 ORDER approving and adopting [1014−1] Special Master's report recommending Remdedial Plan Response Protocol 7 be released from active judicial oversight ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 2 pgs (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
1028 ORDER approving [1011−1] Special Master's June 2003 Fiscal report; Defendants to deposit $100,000 into court registry within 30 days for account of Office of Special Master ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) 2 pgs (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
1029 MOTION by State of Connecticut for Approval for Payment of Special Master Consultant Deposition Fees (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
1030 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees for Services from July 1−31, 2003 (Brief Due 8/22/03 ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [1029−1] motion for Approval for Payment of Special Master Consultant Deposition Fees ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [1030−1] motion for Costs and Fees for Special Master's Services from July 1−31, 2003 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
1031 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 53,001.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to 1030 order dated 08/07/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
1032 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time for 4 days to respond to Special Master's Report re: Mortality Review (Rodko, R.) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
1033 Special Master's Scheduling ORDER on Communications Hearing; Set for 9/16/03 @ 10:00 A.M in New Haven (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [1032−1] motion to Extend Time for 4 days to respond to Special Master's Report No. 51 re: Mortality Review ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
1034 MOTION by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Extend Time to 8/15/03 to Respond to Special Master's Report #51 re; Mortality Review (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [1034−1] motion to Extend Time to 8/15/03 to Respond to Special Master's Report #51 re; Mortality Review ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Rodko, R.) (Entered: 08/15/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 63 of 88

08/19/2003
08/28/2003 09/03/2003
09/03/2003
09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003
09/05/2003 09/08/2003 09/09/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/16/2003 09/18/2003 09/22/2003
09/22/2003 09/23/2003

1035 Response by Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut to Vol.1 [1023−1] report #5l re; Mortality Review by David Ferleger, Vol.2 [1022−1] report #5; re Mortality Review by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

1036 Special Master's ORDER directing parties to file by 9/24/03 , findings of fact and conclusions of law and any briefs re; August 2003 Case Management Hearing (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/28/2003)

1037

Special Master's ORDER continuing communication services hearing is granted. September 16, 2003 is continued until 10/8/03 at 2:00pm. Discovery shall end 9/26/03. Defendants' counsel Thomas York and Plaintiff's consel Robert Stern and LInda Keyser are attached October 8 through 10, 2003 ( signed by Special Master ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

1038

Special Master's ORDER continuine 9/8/03 Habilitation Hearing. It is further ordered that parties shall confer forthwith and inform Special Master at 9/11/03 parties' meeting of any discovery deadline and 3 dates for hearing which do not conflict with other dates in compliance determination schedule ( signed by Special Master ) (Warner, R.) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

1039 Special Master's ORDER for Payment: Defendants to pay witness− consultant Amy Gerowitz $4,715.99 within 30 days (David Ferleger) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

1040 ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Further Order in Accordance with Court Order of July 14, 1999 is withdrawn with respect to deletion of CR 14, EC 2. (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

1041 ORDER approving and adopting [1023−1] report #51: Mortality Review, approving and adopting [1022−1] report #51: Mortality Review and adopting Revised RP 11 attached to this order ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

1042 REPORT to the Parties: Transportation Timeliness (CR 16, EC2) by David Ferleger, Special Master (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/08/2003)

1043 Special Master's Second ORDER on Consent Decree Ofice Staffingi; Defendants to provide Special Master with status report by 9/11/03 re Remedial Plan enforcement (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/08/2003)

1044 Special Master cash BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000622 by William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/11/2003)

1045 MOTION by David Ferleger for Costs and Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/15/2003)

ENDORSEMENT granting [1045−1] motion for Costs and Fees in the amount of $39,288 ( signed by Senior Judge Ellen Bree Burns ) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

1046 Clerk's disbursement of funds in the amount of $ 39,288.00 to David Ferleger pursuant to dated 09/15/03 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

1047 22d Quarterly REPORT by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/18/2003)

1048 Special Maser's ORDER Filing attached Documents; copy of 9/12/03 e−mail to Special Master from USA and letter dated 9/18/03 to Special Master from Defendants (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) Modified on 09/23/2003 (Entered: 09/23/2003)

1049 Special Master's ORDER Adopting 9/19/03 Revised Compliance Determination Schedule, Attachment B (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/23/2003)

1050 Special Master's ORDER denying as moot Motin for Exttime of Time to provide Expert Report Paul Cascella, Ph.D ( David Fergleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/23/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 64 of 88

09/25/2003 10/03/2003 10/08/2003 10/14/2003
10/14/2003 10/16/2003 10/16/2003 10/17/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/27/2003 10/29/2003 10/29/2003 10/30/2003 11/04/2003 11/06/2003 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/13/2003 11/18/2003

1051 Special Master's ORDER Extending Briefing Schedule to 10/1/03 (David Ferleger, Special Master) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

1053 Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 Receipt # R000636 dated 10/06/03 by State of Connecticut (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

1052 Special Master's ORDER for Payment (Amending 9/3/03 Order) ( signed by Special Master ) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

1054

RESPONSE to Defendants' Motion for Release of Court Requirement 52, Evaluation Criterion 3, Response Protocol 3, Step 2; Response Protocol 15; Respnse Protocol 13; Court Requirement 51, Evaluation Criterion 2.9, and Court Requirement 50, Evaluation Criteria 3, 4, 5 and 9 filed by USA. (Villano, P.) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/17/2003 (Villano, P.). (Entered: 10/15/2003)

1055 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Regard to Case Management Services by USA. (Villano, P.) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/17/2003 (Villano, P.). (Entered: 10/15/2003)

1056 MOTION for Cost and Fees for Services from 09/13/03 − 10/15/03 by David Ferleger.Responses due by 11/6/2003 (Villano, P.) (Entered: 10/17/2003)

1057 Twenty Third Quarterly REPORT to Court by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/17/2003)

1058 Endorsement ORDER approving 1056 MOTION for Cost and Fees in the sum of $42,477 filed by David Ferleger. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/17/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

1059 ORDER denying Motion for Leave to File Reply to 1USA's 10/15/03 Proposed Findings of Fact. Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 10/20/03. (Brown, S.) Modified on 10/23/2003 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 10/23/2003)

1060 ORDER Filing CR 3, EC 8 Report . Signed by David Ferleger,Special Master on 10/21/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/23/2003)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $42,477.00 Paid to David Ferleger. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

1061 Special Master's ORDER for Payment. Defendants shall pay to Stephen Calculator, Ph.D., $2,625.98 within 30 days. Signed by SM on 10/28/03. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

1062 REPORT to the Court No. 52: Case Management (8 volumes) by David Ferleger. (not scanned − 8 bound volumes. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 10/31/2003)

1063 MOTION for Lindsley J. Barbato to Withdraw as Attorney by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/04/2003)

1064 Special Master's ORDER on Quality Assurance Data System Evaluation . Signed by SM on 11/3/03. (Brown, S.) Modified on 11/13/2003 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 11/07/2003)

1065 Special Master's ORDER Continuing Habilitation Hearing. Signed by SM on 11/5/03. (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

1066 MOTION to Continue 11/17/03 Hearing re; Habilitation Services by Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

1067 MOTION for Extension of Time re 1062 Status Report #52, Case Management Plan Compliance . (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/12/2003)

1068 ORDER granting 1063 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Linsley J. Barbato terminated . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis on 11/13/03. (Brown, S.) Modified on 11/17/2003 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 11/14/2003)

1069 MOTION for Approval for Payment of Special Master Consultant Fees by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 65 of 88

11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/18/2003 11/20/2003 11/21/2003 11/21/2003 11/21/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003
11/24/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003
11/24/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 12/05/2003 12/09/2003 12/10/2003

1070 ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting 1069 Motion for Approval for Payment of Special Master Consultant Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/18/03. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/19/2003)

1071 ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting 1067 Motion for Extension of Time until 11/24/03 to file their objections to Status report No. 52 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/18/03. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

Set Deadlines: Status Report due by 11/24/2003. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1072 Endorsement ORDER denying 1066 Motion to Continue hearing in area of Habilitation Services . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/20/03. (Warner, R.) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

1073 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER ON HABILITATION PROCEEDINGS. . Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 11/20/03. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/24/2003)

1074 ORDER re: Remedial Plan's implementation period. . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/21/03. (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/24/2003)

1075 MOTION for Cost and Fees for the period 10/16/03 − 11/20/03 by David Ferleger.Responses due by 12/12/2003 (Villano, P.) (Entered: 11/24/2003)

1076 MOTION for Approval for Payment of Special Master Consultant Fees by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill.Responses due by 12/15/2003 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/24/2003)

1077 NOTICE of Filing of Twenty−Fifth Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill (attachments not scanned) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/24/2003)

1078 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered 1075 Motion for Cost and Fees for the period 10/16/03−11/20/03 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/21/03. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

1080 REPORT to the Court No. 53: Transportation Timeliness (CR 16, EC2) by David Ferleger. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/26/2003)

1082

Defendants' Objections to Special Master's Report to The Court No. 52: Case Management re 1062 filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document Part 2)(Malone, P.) Modified on 11/26/2003 Corrected Text (Malone, P.). (Entered: 11/26/2003)

1083 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER on Quality Assurance Data System Evaluation. Signed by SM on 11/21/03. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/02/2003)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $41,983.00 Paid to David Ferleger. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

1079 ORDER directing the U.S. to file response to objection re 1062 Special Master Report to the Court No. 52 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/25/03. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/26/2003)

1081 ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting 1076 Motion for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/25/03. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 11/26/2003)

1084 Objections to 1073 Special Master's Order on Habilitation Proceedings filed by State of Connecticut, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/08/2003)

1085 RESPONSE re 1064 Special Master's Order on Quality Assurance Data System Evaluation filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/10/2003)

1086 Special Master's ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule . Signed by Judge Special Master on 12/9/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/10/2003)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 66 of 88

12/11/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/19/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003 12/24/2003 12/29/2003 12/31/2003 01/05/2004 01/05/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004 01/06/2004

1087 Special Master's Recommendation to Cout No 36: Office of Protection &Advocacy Statute Signed by Clerk−SM on 12/11/03. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
1088 Special Master's Recommendation to Court No. 37: Consent Decree Office Staffing . Signed by Special Master, David Ferleger on 12/16/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
1089 Special Master's Amended ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule . Signed by Special Master, David Ferleger on 12/16/03. (Brown, S.) Modified on 12/18/2003 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/18/2003)
1090 ORDER Vacating Evaluation Criterion 3 of Remedial Plan Court Requirement 5. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/16/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
1091 ORDER Approving 1088 Special Master's Order/Recommendation to Court No. 37: Consent Decree Office Staffing. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/16/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
1296 RESPONSE filed by USA re 1062 Special Master's Status Report to the Court #52: Case Management, re 1079 Order of Court, 1082 Defendants' Objection. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
1092 Special Master's Order Filing (unscanned) Medial Quality Assurance Report by David Ferleger, Special Master. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
1093 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger, Special Master.Responses due by 1/13/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
1094 ORDER Approving 1093 Motion for Cost and Fees by Special Master, David Ferleger . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/24/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
1095 NOTICE by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill Withdrawing 1084 Objections to Special Master's Order on Habilitation (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $19,203.00 Paid to David Ferleger. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
1096 Reply to RESPONSE to Special Master's 1062 Status Report No. 52: Case Management filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1097 Special Master's ORDER Filing Quality Assurance Plan Report . Signed by David Ferleger, SM on 1/2/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1098 Notice of Filing 13th Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content (exhibits unscanned) by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) Modified on 1/6/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1099 Notice of Filing 17th Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content (exhibits unscanned) by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) Modified on 1/6/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1100 Notice of Filing 20th Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content (exhibits unscanned) by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1101 Notice of Filing 21st Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content (exhibits unscanned) by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1102 Notice of Filing 24th Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content (exhibits unscanned) by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
1103 Fiscal REPORT − December 2003 by David Ferleger, Special Master. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 67 of 88

01/15/2004
01/15/2004 01/20/2004 01/21/2004
01/22/2004 02/02/2004 02/04/2004 02/04/2004 02/04/2004
02/05/2004 02/06/2004
02/06/2004
02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004 02/13/2004 02/17/2004 02/17/2004
02/17/2004
02/17/2004
02/18/2004

1104 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Filing Revised Compliance Determination Schedule. Signed by David Ferleger, SM on 1/14/04. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
1105 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER Filing Behavior Services Report. Signed by David Ferleger,SM on 1/14/04. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
1107 REPORT to the Court No. 54: Abuse/Neglect Client Training by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
1106 ORDER: Adopting and Approving Special Master's Report to the Court No. 53: Transportation Timeliness (CR 16, EC 2) . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 1/21/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
1108 NOTICE of Appearance by Todd Schneider on behalf of USA (Brown, S.) Modified on 7/26/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 01/27/2004)
1111 Special Master's ORDER for CR 14, EC 2, Compliance Review . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/2/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
1110 Erratum by David Ferleger (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
1112 Special Master's ORDER Docketing August 20, 2003 Letter (attached) . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/2/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
1113 NOTICE of Filing 26th Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format and Content (with manually filed exhibits) by State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
1109 ORDER approving and adopting 1107 Status Report filed by David Ferleger. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/4/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
1114 Special Master's ORDER Extending Time to 3/15/04 to Provide Outline for Evaluation of Data Systems . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/4/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
1115 Supplement to REPORT #54: Abuse/Neglect Client Training by David Ferleger, Special Master. (Brown, S.) Modified on 2/9/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
1116 24th Quarterly REPORT (filed manually) by David Ferleger, Special Master. (Brown, S.) Modified on 2/9/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
1117 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger, Special Master.Responses due by 3/1/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
1118 ORDER granting 1117 Motion for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/10/04. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
1119 Special Master's ORDER on Current Case Management Vacancies . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/12/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $34,877.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement on 02/10/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
1120 ORDER Approving and Accepting Special Master's Report to the Court No. 51: Mortality Review. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/17/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
1121 STIPULATION for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 02/18/2004)
1122 Joint MOTION for Release of All Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan Pertaining to Medical Services by State of Connecticut.Responses due by 3/9/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
1123 Special Master's ORDER Approving Defendants' Request for Testimony. Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/17/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/19/2004)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 68 of 88

02/20/2004 03/01/2004 03/05/2004 03/08/2004 03/08/2004 03/10/2004 03/12/2004 03/25/2004 03/25/2004 03/29/2004 03/29/2004
03/31/2004
03/31/2004 03/31/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004

1124 Special Master's ORDER Continuing until further notice 3/8/04 Medial Quality Assurance hearing . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/19/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
1125 NOTICE of Appearance by Sandhya L. Subramanian on behalf of USA (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
1126 REPORT to the Court No. 56/Certain Behavior Services Requirements by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
1127 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 3/29/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
1128 Compliance STATUS by Special Master, David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
1129 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered 1127 Motion for Cost and Fees in the amount of $57,891.00 by David Ferleger. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/10/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $57,891.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement dated 03/10/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
1130 MOTION for Determination Regarding Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by USA.Responses due by 4/15/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
1131 Memorandum in Support re 1130 MOTION for Determination Regarding Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
1132 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 4/19/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
1133 MOTION for 2 Week Continuance of Hearing on Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
1134 Endorsement ORDER granting 1133 Motion to Continue Hearing on Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight; hearing reset to 4/28−29/04, @10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/31/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
Set Hearings: Hearing set for 4/28/2004 10:00 AM before Ellen Bree Burns. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
1135 endorsement ORDER Approving 1132 Motion for Cost and Fees by Special Master. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/31/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
1136 ENDORSEMENT granting 929 Motion for Release of Court Requirement 16 (Transporation) . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 1/21/04. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
1137 ENDORSEMENT granting 945 Motion for Release of Court Requirement 3, Evaluation Criteria 8 (Abuse Prevention) . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/4/04. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
1138 ENDORSEMENT granting 987 Motion for Stay of Special Master's Order on Safequards and Maintenance of Effort. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/5/03. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
1139 Endorsement ORDER granting 948 Motion to Continue 5/21/03 Habilitation Hearing . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 4/7/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
1140 Endorsement ORDER granting 908 Motion to Continue 2/27/03 Case Management Hearing. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/24/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered:

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 69 of 88

04/05/2004 04/21/2004 04/27/2004 04/28/2004 04/29/2004
04/29/2004 04/29/2004 04/30/2004 05/03/2004 05/05/2004
05/10/2004 05/11/2004 05/12/2004 05/13/2004 05/17/2004
05/17/2004 05/17/2004
05/27/2004
05/28/2004
06/01/2004
06/01/2004

04/05/2004)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $20,036.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement of Doc. #1132. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
1141 JOINT Proposed Witness List by USA. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
1142 MOTION to file brief as Amici Curiae Responses due by 5/18/2004 (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
1143 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ellen Bree Burns : Settlement Conference held on 4/28/2004. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
1146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ellen Bree Burns: Hearing re: Joint Agreement held on 4/29/2004. Briefs due 6/1/04 (Court Reporter B. Granfield/Falzarano.) (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
1147 Marked Exhibit List from hearing on 4/28/04−4/29/04. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
1148 Marked Witness List from hearing on 4/28/04−4/29/04. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
1144 REPORT to the Court No. 57 − 3 bound volumes by David Ferleger. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
1145 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 5/24/2004 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
1149 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered 1145 Motion for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger, Special Master. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/5/04. (Brown, S.) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 05/06/2004)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $19,396.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB ebdorsement 05/05/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
1150 Notice of Filing 27th Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
1152 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/28/04 before Judge EBB. Court Reporter: Falzarano. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
1151 TRANSCRIPT of Settlement Agreement Proceedings held on 4/29/04 before Judge EBB. Court Reporter: Falzarano. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
1153 MOTION for Extension of Time to 6/1/04 to Respond to Motion to file Amici Curiae by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
1154 Memorandum in Opposition to Messier Plaintiffs' 1142 MOTION to File Brief as Amici Curiae filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
1155 Reply Memorandum in Support re 1121 STIPULATION for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) Modified on 3/29/2005 (Inferrera, L.). (Entered: 05/18/2004)
1156 MOTION for Extension of Time 6/15/04 to File Post Hearing Brief by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
1157 Endorsement ORDER granting 1156 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/15/04 to file Post Hearing Brief . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/28/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
1158 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 1142 MOTION to file brief as Amici Curiae by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
1159 Post Hearing Brief in Support re 1130 MOTION for Determination re; Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight filed by

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 70 of 88

06/01/2004 06/01/2004
06/03/2004
06/03/2004 06/07/2004 06/09/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004 06/18/2004
06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/23/2004

USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits# 2 Exhibit)(Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/02/2004)

1160 Post Hearing Brief in Support re 1122 MOTION for Release of Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan Pertaining to Medical Services filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits# 2 Exhibit)(Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/02/2004)

1161 Parties Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, USA.Responses due by 6/22/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/02/2004)

1162 Endorsement ORDER granting 1158 Motion for Extension of Time to File brief in opposition to 1142 MOTION to file brief as Amici Curiae Responses due by 6/3/2004. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/3/04. (Warner, R.) (Entered: 06/07/2004)

1163 Memorandum in Opposition re 1142 MOTION to file brief as Amici Curiae, 1130 MOTION for Determination Re Joint Agreement for Release filed by State of Connecticut. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/08/2004)

1164 MOTION for Court Approval of Proceeding with Evaluation as set forth in Section III.6 ("Communication") Pending Court's Ruling on Revised Parties Joint Agreement by State of Connecticut. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/08/2004)

1165 APPROVAL ORDER for Special Master statement for fees and services. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/9/04. (Warner, R.) (Entered: 06/09/2004)

1166 NOTICE of Appearance by M.J. McCarthy on behalf of State of Connecticut (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/16/2004)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $10,638.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB Endorsement dated 06/09/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

1167 MOTION for Extension of Time to 6/18/04 to file Post Hearing Brief by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/16/2004)

1168 MOTION for Thomas Fiorentino to Withdraw as Attorney by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/16/2004)

1169 Endorsement ORDER granting 1167 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/18/04 to File Post Hearing Brief . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/17/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

1170 ORDER granting 1168 Motion for Thomas Fiorentino to Withdraw as Attorney. . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/16/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 posted by Dept of Mental Retardation, State of Connecticut. Per Order from Court. Receipt Number R00791 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/25/2004)

1171

MOTION To File Reply Brief to 1121 Revised Joint Agreeement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by Messier class; ARC/Connecticut, Inc, Philip Anfang, Carole Ann Carr, Leonard Haversat, Leon Horton, Gregory Kabbai, Thomas Maloney, Richard Messier, Raymond Mitchell, People First of Connecticut, Inc., Southbury Training School, David Yeske.Responses due by 7/9/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/21/2004)

1172 Uncontested MOTION for Leave to File Post Hearing Brief Nunc Pro Tunc by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/23/2004)

Special Master BOND in the amount of $ 100,000.00 posted by Dept of Mental Retardation, State of Connecticut. Per Court Order. Receipt Number R000793 (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/25/2004)

1175 ORDER granting 1164 Motion for Approval of Proceeding with Evaluation as Set Forth in Section III.6 Pending Ruling on Revised Parties Joint Agreement. Signed

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 71 of 88

06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004
06/24/2004
06/28/2004 06/28/2004 06/29/2004 06/30/2004 07/08/2004 07/12/2004
07/12/2004 07/14/2004 07/20/2004 07/20/2004
07/21/2004
07/23/2004

by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/24/04. (Brown, S) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
1173 ORDER denying Motion to file brief as Amici Curiae 1142 and denying Motion to file Reply Brief as Amici Curiae 1171 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 06/24/04. (Coleman, C.) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
1174 ORDER granting 1172 Motion for Leave to File . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/24/04. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
1176 ORDER granting 1153 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/1/04 to Respond to 1142 MOTION to File Brief as Amici Curiae . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/24/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
1177 ORDER granting 1172 MOTION for Leave to File Post Hearing Brief filed by State of Connecticut, Brian Lensink, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/24/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
1306 RESPONSE re 1122 MOTION for Release of Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan, 1130 MOTION for Determination re: Joint Agreement filed by State of Connecticut. (Attachments: # 1 Response Continued (Part 2)# 2 Response Continued (Part 3))(Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
1178 Statement for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger, Special Master .Responses due by 7/19/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
1179 Manually filed Twenty−fifth Quarterly REPORT To the Court by David Ferleger, Special Master. (Brown, S.) Modified on 6/29/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 06/29/2004)
DOCKET ENTRY CORRECTION re 1179 Twenty−fifth Quarterly Report to the Court; docket text modified to include "manually filed" (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
1180 ORDER Approving 1178 Statement for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/30/04. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
1181 Objection to 1179 Special Master's 25th Quarterly Report filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
1182 MOTION for Extension of Time to 7/20/04 to file Objections to 1179 Special Master's Twenty−fifth Quarterly Report by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $26,913.00 Paid to David Ferlerger. Per EBB Order 06/30/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
1183 Endorsement ORDER granting 1182 Motion for Extension of Time to 7/20/04 to file Objections to Special Master's Twenty−fifth Quarterly Report. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/14/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
1184 ORDER re Progress Review of Overall Plan of Service Initiative; Review to be conducted in independent manner, results of review to be provided in writing . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/20/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
1185 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections to Special Master's Twenty−Fifth Quarterly Report; Request 3 day extension to 7/23/04, by Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) Modified on 7/21/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/21/2004)
DOCKET ENTRY CORRECTION re 1185 Second MOTION for 3 day Extension of Time to 7/23/04 to File Objections to Special Master's Quarterly Report; docket text modified to include time frame for time extension (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
1186 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1185 Defendants' Second Motion for Extension of Time to file objections to Special Master's Twenty−Fifth Quarterly Report to the Court to and including July 23, 2004 THIS IS THE ONLY

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 72 of 88

07/26/2004 07/26/2004 07/27/2004 08/04/2004 08/04/2004
08/09/2004 08/12/2004 08/18/2004
08/18/2004
09/03/2004 09/15/2004 09/16/2004 09/21/2004 09/22/2004

NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/23/04. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 07/23/2004)

1187 MOTION for Permission to File an Objection, Nunc Pro Tunc, to the Twenty−Fifth Quarterly Report by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 07/26/2004)

DOCKET ENTRY CORRECTION re 1108 Notice of Appearance; Docket text modified deleting Linda Keyser and adding Todd Schneider on behalf of USA (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/26/2004)

1188 OBJECTION to 1179 Special Master's Twenty−Fifth Quarterly Report filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

1189 MOTION for Extension of Time to 8/6/04 to file Responses to 1186 Order granting Motion for Extension of Time to 7/23/04 to file Objections to Special Master's 25th Quarterly Report, by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/04/2004)

1190

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1189 Motion for Extension of Time until August 6, 2004 for defendants to file responses to the Order issued July 20, 2004, including a possible motion for reconsideration . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 8/4/04. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 08/04/2004)

1191 Notice of Filing of Twenty−Eighth Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Report in manual format) (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 08/10/2004)

1194 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 9/2/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/02/2004)

1192

MOTION for Reconsideration re 1184 ORDER re Progress Review of Overall Plan of Service Initiative; Review to be conducted in independent manner, results of review to be provided in writing by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation.Responses due by 9/8/2004 (Warner, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2004)

1193

Memorandum in Support re 1192 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1184 ORDER re Progress Review of Overall Plan of Service Initiative; Review to be conducted in independent manner, results of review to be provided in writing filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Warner, R.) (Entered: 08/19/2004)

1195 Response and Memorandum in Support of Defendants' 1192 MOTION for Reconsideration of 1184 Order re Progress Review of Overall Plan of Service Initiative filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/07/2004)

1196 MOTION for Approval for Payment of Evaluation Pending Ruling on Parties Revised Joint Agreement by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation.Responses due by 10/6/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/16/2004)

1197 REPLY to Response to 1192 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1184 Order filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/16/2004)

1198 Special Master's ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule re Communication Services aspect of Habilitation. Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 9/20/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/22/2004)

1199 Endorsement ORDER granting 1196 Motion for Approval for Payment of Evaluation re; Mr. Fincannon . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 9/22/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/22/2004)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 73 of 88

09/22/2004 09/22/2004 09/23/2004 09/24/2004 09/27/2004 09/29/2004 10/05/2004
10/05/2004
10/07/2004
10/07/2004 10/12/2004 10/13/2004 10/13/2004 10/19/2004
10/25/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004

1200 Manually Filed REPORT To The Court No. 57 by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/22/2004)

1201 ORDER denying as moot 1192 Motion for Reconsideration of 7/20/04 Order . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 9/22/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/22/2004)

1202 Special Master statement for fees and services (period 8/7/04 − 9/22/04) by David Ferleger. (Warner, R.) (Entered: 09/24/2004)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $2,667.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement on Doc. #1194 dated 09/07/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/24/2004)

1203 ENDORSEMENT ORDER Approving 1202 Motion for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 9/27/04. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $12,901.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement dated 09/27/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

1204 MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/12/04 to Object to 1198 Special Master's Order Resetting Briefing Schedule by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

1205 MOTION for Extension of Time to 10/12/04 to Respond to 1200 Report to the Court No. 57: Behavior Program Implementation by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

1206

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1204 Motion for Extension of Time until October 12, 2004 to file their objections to the Special Master's Order Resetting Briefing Schedule; granting 1205 Motion for Extension of Time until October 12, 2004 to file their response to Report to the Court No. 57: Behavior Program Implementation . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/7/04. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 10/07/2004)

1207 Manually Filed REPORT to the Court No. 58: Quality Assurance Individual Compliance Audit by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/12/2004)

1208 Objection re 1198 Special Master's Order Resetting Briefing Schedule filed by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/13/2004)

1209 Manually Filed REPORT to the Court No.58: Quality Assurance Individual Compliance Audit by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) Modified on 10/13/2004 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 10/13/2004)

DOCKET ENTRY CORRECTION re 1209 Report to the Court No. 58: Quality Assurance Individual Compliance Audit; docket text modified to note that Report is manually filed (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/13/2004)

1210 MOTION to Expedite Ruling on Parties Revised Joint Agreement and Implementation/Compliance Status Report by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

1211 MOTION for Fees an Services by David Ferleger.Responses due by 11/15/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/25/2004)

1212 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered re 1211 Motion by Special Master David Ferleger for Fees and Services in the amount of $10,164 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/2704. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2004)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $10,164.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endoresement dated 10/27/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 74 of 88

11/04/2004 11/08/2004 11/12/2004 11/19/2004 11/24/2004 12/03/2004 01/12/2005 01/26/2005 01/27/2005 01/31/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/08/2005 02/17/2005 02/24/2005
02/24/2005 02/25/2005 02/28/2005 02/28/2005

1213 ORDER adopting and approving 1200 Special Master's Manually Filed Report to Court No. 57: Behavior Program Implementation filed by David Ferleger . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/3/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
1214 ORDER directing parties to respond to this order re; Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial oversight 1161 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/4/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
1215 Quarterly Compliance REPORT Summary by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation, Southbury Training School. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
1216 MOTION for Fees and Services by David Ferleger.Responses due by 12/10/2004 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
1217 Endorsement ORDER Approving 1216 Motion for Cost and Fees in the amount of $2,999. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/24/04. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $2,999.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB's endorsement dated 11/29/04. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
1218 Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation, USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
1220 MOTION for Fees and Services by David Ferleger.Responses due by 2/16/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
1219 Parties Amended Revised Joint Agreement by State of Connecticut, Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink, Dept of Mental Retardation, William A. O'Neill, USA. (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
1221 Special Master's REPORT: Preliminary Questions Regarding Cottage Closures by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
1222 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered 1220 MOTION for Cost and Fees filed by David Ferleger . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/1/02. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
DOCKET ENTRY CORRECTION re: 1222 ORDER granting 1220 Motion for Cost and Fees . Text modified to reflect ruling on motion. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $7,367.00 Paid to David Ferleger. per EBB endorsement dated 02/01/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
1223 JOINT RESPONSE re 1214 Order filed by USA, State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
1224 Memorandum in Support re 1121 STIPULATION for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut (Attachments: # 1 Document continuation)(Brown, S.) Modified on 3/29/2005 (Inferrera, L.). (Entered: 02/24/2005)
1225 Thirtieth Quarterly Compliance REPORT (with manually filed attachments) with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
1226 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 3/18/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
Order: Hearing set for 3/14/2005 11:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT.. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/25/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
1227 ORDER: Hearing set 3/14/05 @ 11:00 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/25/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 75 of 88

02/28/2005 03/01/2005 03/07/2005 03/08/2005 03/08/2005 03/10/2005
03/11/2005 03/11/2005 03/14/2005 03/14/2005 03/14/2005 03/15/2005 03/21/2005 03/22/2005 03/24/2005
03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/29/2005 03/31/2005

1228 ORDER directing parties to provide court and Spepcial Master with copies of various documents. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/25/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/28/2005)

1229 ORDER granting 1226 Motion for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/1/05. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $13,865.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement dated 03/01/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

1230 Corrected Label by David Ferleger 1225 Statment (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

1231 STATUS REPORT/Submission with Respect to 2/25/05 Order by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/08/2005)

1232

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 1187 Motion for Leave to File Objection, Nunc Pro Tunc, to the Twenty−Fifth Quarterly Report; and granting, nunc pro tunc, 1194 Motion for Cost and Fees of Special Master for the Period: July 2004 (June 26, 2004−August 6, 2004. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/10/05.THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/10/2005)

1233 RULING denying 1130 Motion determination re joint agreement . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/10/05. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/11/2005)

1237 RESPONSE 2/25/05 re 1228 Order filed by USA. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

1234 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1228 Order, 1225 Status Report by State of Connecticut.Responses due by 4/4/2005 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

1235 Memorandum in Support re 1234 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1228 Order, 1225 Status Report filed by State of Connecticut. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

1236 MOTION to Continue hearing scheduled for 3/14/05, (no date) by State of Connecticut. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/14/2005)

1238 ORDER: Special Master shall report his findings as a result of the evidentiary hearing on communication services held before him on 2003. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/15/05. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 03/16/2005)

1239 SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT ON COTTAGE CLOSURES by David Ferleger. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 03/21/2005)

1240 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER setting briefing schedule. Signed by David Ferleger Special Master on 3/21/05. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/22/2005)

1241

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER denying without prejudice to renew 1122 Joint Motion for Release of Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan Pertaining to Medical Services. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/05.THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) Modified on 3/29/2005 (Inferrera, L.). (Entered: 03/24/2005)

Docket Entry Correction re 1155 Memorandum in Support of Motion ; corrected link to 1121 Stipulation for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

Docket Entry Correction re 1224 Memorandum in Support of Motion ; corrected link to 1121 STIPULATION for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

Docket Entry Correction re 1241 Order on Motion ; added additional text, "Pertaining to Medical Services" (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/29/2005)

1242 FISCAL REPORT −2004. Signed by Clerk−SM on 1/5/03. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 04/01/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 76 of 88

04/05/2005
04/06/2005 04/11/2005
04/11/2005 04/14/2005
04/14/2005 04/18/2005
04/19/2005 04/20/2005
04/21/2005 04/27/2005 04/27/2005 05/03/2005
05/03/2005
05/04/2005 05/04/2005

1243

NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Hearing set for 5/11/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Ellen Bree Burns. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 04/05/2005)

1244 Manually filed REPORT to the Court No. 57: Communication Services, Volume 4 Report by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/06/2005)

1245 MOTION to Modify Order of Reference and for Inspection of Special Master's Billing Records by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith.Responses due by 5/2/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/12/2005)

1246 MOTION for Fees and Services by David Ferleger.Responses due by 5/2/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/12/2005)

1247

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER denying 1210 Motion to Expedite; granting 1234 Motion for Reconsideration, but the court adheres to its previous decision denying relief; granting 1236 Motion to Continue Hearing date . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 4/14/05.THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 04/14/2005)

1248 ORDER; So Ordered 1246 Motion for Fees and Services . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 4/14/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/15/2005)

1249 MOTION for Extension of Time to 5/3/05 to Object to Special Master's 1244 Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/19/2005)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $15,616.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement dated 04/14/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 04/19/2005)

1250 ORDER granting 1249 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to 5/3/05 to File Objections to Special Master's Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 4/20/05. (Conneely, E.) (Entered: 04/20/2005)

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Objections to Special Master Report #57 due by 5/3/2005 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 04/21/2005)

1251 MOTION for Richard Farano to Withdraw as Attorney by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/27/2005)

1252 MOTION for Deval Patrick, Lauie Weinstein, Robert Stern to Withdraw as Attorney by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/27/2005)

1253 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to 5/5/05 to file Objections to 1244 Special Master's Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/03/2005)

1254

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1253 Motion for Extension of Time until May 5, 2005, to File Objections to Special Master's Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/3/05. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 05/03/2005)

Reset Deadlines as to Special Master Report #57 Objections due by 5/5/2005 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

1255

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1251 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Richard J. Farano is terminated; granting 1252 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Laurie J. Weinstein, Robert Stern and Deval Patrick are terminated . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/4/05.THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 05/04/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 77 of 88

05/06/2005 05/09/2005
05/09/2005
05/09/2005
05/10/2005 05/11/2005 05/24/2005 05/26/2005 06/02/2005 06/02/2005 06/02/2005 06/03/2005 06/03/2005 06/06/2005 06/13/2005 06/13/2005

1256 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to 5/9/05 to file objections to Special Master's Report to the Court No. 57: Commun ication Services by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/06/2005)

1257

NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Hearing re. settlement agreement set for 5/31/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Ellen Bree Burns. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

1258

NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Hearing re. settlement agreement set for 6/6/2005 − NOTE NEW DATE − 10:00 AM in Courtroom Three, 141 Church St., New Haven, CT before Judge Ellen Bree Burns. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

1259

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1256 Motion for Extension of Time until May 9, 2005, to file any objections to the Special Master's Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/09/05. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

Reset Deadlines as to Special Master's Repor to Court No. 57: Objections due by 5/9/2005 (Torday, B.) (Entered: 05/10/2005)

1260 Objections to 1244 Special Master's Report to the Court No.57: Communication Services filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/11/2005)

1261 RESPONSE to 1244 Objections to 1260 Special Master's Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services filed by USA. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 05/24/2005)

1262 Thirty First Quarterly Compliance REPORT and Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/26/2005)

1264 Pre−Hearing RESPONSE to 1228 Order filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. Attachments in manual format. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/03/2005)

1265 Final Revised Joint Agreement for Release of the Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by USA, State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/03/2005)

1266 INDEX to Materials Submitted by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith in response to 1228 Order in connection to 1265 Revised Joint Agreement (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/03/2005)

1263 Special Master Statement for Cost and Services for period 4/8/05−5/6/05 by David Ferleger.Responses due by 6/24/2005 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/03/2005)

1268 Endorsement ORDER; So Ordered 1263 Motion for Cost and Fees for Special Master. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 6/3/03. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/07/2005)

1267 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ellen Bree Burns : Hearing held on 6/6/2005. (Court Reporter B. Scott (Falzarano).) (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 06/06/2005)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $9,060.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB order dated 06/03/06. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

1269 STIPULATION: Final Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remdial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by USA, State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered:

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 78 of 88

06/20/2005 06/27/2005 07/05/2005
07/06/2005 07/07/2005 07/13/2005 07/14/2005 07/15/2005 07/20/2005
07/20/2005 07/21/2005 07/21/2005
07/21/2005
07/21/2005
07/21/2005
07/21/2005

06/15/2005)

1270 Final Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by USA, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/22/2005)

1271 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for proceedings held on June 6, 2005 before Judge Ellen Bree Burns.. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

1272 MOTION For Release of All Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan re Medical Svcs by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith.Responses due by 7/26/2005 (Brown, S.) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/6/2005 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/06/2005)

1273 Docket Entry Correction re 1272 MOTION For Release of All Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan re Med Svcs; added pdf (electronic document) to docket entry (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/06/2005)

1274 MOTION for release of outstanding provisions of remedial plan re: Medical Svcs by USA.Responses due by 7/28/2005 (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/08/2005)

1275 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 8/3/2005 (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 07/13/2005)

1276 ORDER; So Ordered 1275 Motion for Cost and Fees to Special Master Ferleger in the amount of $6,953. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/13/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/14/2005)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $6,953.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB Order dated 07/13/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 07/15/2005)

1277 MOTION for Extension of Time to 7/27/05 to Respond to Court's Memorandum re Revised Joint Agreement by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/21/2005 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/20/2005)

1278 RESPONSE To Court's Memorandum re; Revised Joint Agreement filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/20/2005)

1279 Docket Entry Correction re 1277 MOTION for Extension of Time TO 7/27/05 To Respond to Court's Memorandum re; Revised Joint Agreement; added correct pdf (electronic document) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1280 Docket Entry Correction re 1277 MOTION for Extension of Time to 7/27/05 to Respond to Court's Memorandum re; Revised Joint Agreement and 1279 Docket Annotation; added correct pdf (electronic document) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1281 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER denying 1277 Motion for Extension of Time until July 27, 2005, to Respond to the Court's Memorandum Re: Revised Joint Agreement. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/21/05. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1282

ORDER re 1272 MOTION For Release of All Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan re Med Svcs and 1274 MOTION for Release of Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan re: Medical Svcs; parties directed to submit supplemental evidence on issue of compliance with all remaining court requirements pertaining to medical services since 12/3/03 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/21/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1283 Ruling disapproving 1270 Parties Final Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 7/21/05. (Brown, S.) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/21/2005 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/21/2005)

1284 Docket Entry Correction re 1283 Ruling disapproving 70 Parties Final Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan; added correct pdf(electronic document) for main document and added pdf for exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 79 of 88

07/25/2005 07/28/2005
07/28/2005
08/04/2005
08/04/2005
08/11/2005 08/12/2005 08/15/2005 08/16/2005
08/18/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/26/2005 08/26/2005
09/01/2005 09/01/2005 09/06/2005 09/07/2005

1287 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE re 1283 Order. Signed by Clerk−SM on 7/22/05. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

1285 SPECIAL MASTER COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court set 2/1/06 deadline for compliance, after compliance determination recommendations are made. Signed by Clerk−SM on 7/27/05. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/02/2005)

1286 SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONSE TO ORDER OF 7/22/05 REGARDING SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT TO COURT NO 57: Communication sevices is granted until 8/9/05. . Signed by Clerk−SM on 7/28/05. (Torday, B.) Modified on 8/2/2005 (Torday, B.). (Entered: 08/02/2005)

1288 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1283 Ruling disapproving Parties Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan from Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith.Responses due by 8/25/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)

1289

Memorandum in Support re 1288 MOTION for Reconsideration of 1283 Ruling disapproving Parties Final Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remndidal Plan from Active Judicial Oversight filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/05/2005)

1290 Special Master's Order Regarding Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/11/2005)

1291 Special Master's ORDER on Meeting and Hearing Dates. Signed by Special Master on 8/11/05. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 08/12/2005)

1292 Amended Special Master's Order re Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/15/2005)

1293 Thirty Second Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content (with manually filed exhibits) by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/16/2005)

1294 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 9/8/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/18/2005)

1295 ORDER; So Ordered 1294 Motion for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 8/18/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/19/2005)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $9,583.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement dated 08/19/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 08/19/2005)

1297 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1245 Motion For Modification of Order of Reference and Request for Inspection of Special Master's Billing Records. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 8/25/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/26/2005)

1298

ORDER remanding to Special Master: 1272 Motion for Release of All Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan Re; Medical Svcs, remandiing to Special Master: 1274 Motion for Release of All Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan Re; Medical Svcs . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 8/25/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/26/2005)

1299 RESPONSE to 1282 Order, filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

1300 MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/11/05 to Respond to 1282 Order, by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

1301 Special Master's ORDER on Habilitation Review . Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 9/2/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

1302 Corrected MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/8/05 to Respond to 1282 Order, by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/07/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 80 of 88

09/08/2005
09/08/2005
09/09/2005
09/16/2005 09/19/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/22/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 10/05/2005
10/06/2005 10/06/2005 10/07/2005 10/11/2005 10/17/2005 10/21/2005

1303

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 1302 Defendants' Corrected Motion for Extension of Time until September 8, 2005, to file their responses to the court's July 21, 2005 Order regarding Medical Services. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL WILL RECEIVE. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 9/8/05. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

1305 ORDER: Defendants shall submit supplemental evidence to the Court on the issue of compliance with Goals One and Two of the Case Management Plan; USA shall have one week to supplement briefing. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 9/8/05. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

1304 Supplemental Brief Responding to 1282 Order directing parties to submit supplemental evidence on issue of Compliance Pertaining to Medical Services filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/09/2005)

1307 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1283 Ruling disapproving 1270 Parties Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remdial Plan From Active Judicial Oversight by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

1308 Objections to 1301 Special Master's Order on Habilitation Review filed by William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

1309 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 255 receipt number N016581 re 1307 Notice of Appeal filed 9/16/05 by State of Connecticut, (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/22/2005)

1310 Special Master's ORDER on Medical Services . Signed by Special Master, David Ferleger on 9/21/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/27/2005)

1311 Special Master's ORDER on Habilitation Review . Signed by Special Master, David Ferleger on 9/21/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/27/2005)

1312 Ruling on Defendant's Objections to Special Master's Order on Habilitation Review dated 9/2/05 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 9/30/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

1313 MOTION for Extension of Time To Provide Supplemental Evidence with Regard to Case Management Proceeding by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/04/2005)

1314

ORDER granting 1313 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants have until October 6, 2005 to comply with the Court's Order of September 8, 2005, and to provide supplemental evidence of compliance with Goals 1 and 2 of the Case Management Plan. . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/05/05. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

1315 Objection to 1310 Special Master's Order on Medical Services filed by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/06/2005)

1316 REPORT Supporting Compliance with Case Management Issues by William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/06/2005)

1318 RESPONSE to 1312 Order directing parties to forward name and credentials of mutually acceptable habilitation expert to Special Master filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/17/2005)

1317 Special Master's ORDER on Habilitation Review. Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 10/7/05. (Brown, S.) Modified on 10/25/2005 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 10/12/2005)

1319 SPECIAL ORDER ON ADVOCACY REVIEW, with reguard to Court requirements 73 and 74 on Advocay. . Signed by Clerk−SM on 10/13/05. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 10/20/2005)

1320 ORDER requiring Status Report by 10/27/05. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/21/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 81 of 88

10/21/2005 10/24/2005 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005
11/01/2005
11/01/2005 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/14/2005 11/14/2005 11/14/2005

Set Deadline: Status Report due by 10/27/2005. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
1322 Special Master's ORDER on Advocacy Review Scope of Work. Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 10/21/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
1323 Special Master's REPORT No. 59: Deletion of Several Court Requirements by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
Docket Entry Correction re 1317 Special Master's Order; corrected file date (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
1321 Ruling re 1315 Objection to Special Master's Order on Medical Services dated 9/21/05 filed by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation, . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/26/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
1324 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until 11/1/05 to respond to 1320 Order by USA, State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1325 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger, Special Master.Responses due by 11/21/2005 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1326 Report on Outstanding Medical Svcs Court Requirements re 1320 Order requiring Status Report by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) Modified on 11/1/2005 to created link to order (Brown, S.). Modified on 11/1/2005 to create link to correct order (Brown, S.). (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1327 RESPONSE to 1320 Order requiring Status Report filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) Modified on 11/1/2005 to create link to correct order (Brown, S.). (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1328 NOTICE of Appearance of Joseph J. Sperber, IV by USA (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1329 MOTION for Sandra Ssubramanian to Withdraw as Attorney by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1330 RESPONSE re 1320 Order requiring Status Report filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
1331 ORDER granting 1329 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sandhya L. Subramanian terminated. . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/4/05. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
1332 Special Master's ORDER Extending filing of Quarterly Report unil 11/4/05 . Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 11/3/05. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
1333 Special Master Statement for Fees &Services re: October 2005 Skarnulis Consultant by David Ferleger.Responses due by 11/25/2005 (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
1334 MOTION To Intervene In The Remedial Proceedings In The District Court And The States's Appeal by Richard Messier. Responses due by 11/30/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
1335 Memorandum in Support re 1334 MOTION to Intervene filed by Richard Messier. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
1336 33rd Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
1337 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Blumenthal on behalf of State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
1338 MOTION to Recuse or Remove the Special Master by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith.Responses due by 12/5/2005 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 82 of 88

11/14/2005 11/15/2005 11/15/2005 11/15/2005 11/16/2005 11/16/2005 11/16/2005 11/17/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005
11/30/2005 11/30/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005

1339 Memorandum in Support re 1338 MOTION to Recuse or Remove the Special Master filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
1340 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 1324 Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time until November 1, 2005, to Respond to the Court's Order of October 21, 2005.. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/15/05. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
Set Deadlines Status Report due by 11/1/2005. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
1341 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered 1325 Motion for Cost and Fees in the amount of $22,575 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/15/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
1342 Endorsement ORDER So Ordered 1333 Motion for Cost and Fees in the amount of $7,909. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/15/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
1343 ORDER directing expert review of outstanding provision of Remdial Plan pertaining to medical services. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/16/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
1345 USCA Scheduling Order as to 1307 Notice of Appeal filed by State of Connecticut,. USCA Number: 05−5115cv (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
1344 Special Master's ORDER on Habilitation Report . Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 11/17/05. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
1346 Special Master's ORDER Appointing Medical Consultant. Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 11/16/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $22,575.00 Paid to David Ferleger. per EBB order dated 11/15/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $7,909.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB order dated 11/15/05. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
1347 Ruling on Case Management Plan Compliance and Releasing Goals 1 and 2 from active Judicial Oversight . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/22/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
1348 Letter from Joseph Sperber, Deputy Chief, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Litigation Section; Dated November 21, 2005 Re: Disposition on Special Master's removal from case (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
1349 ORDER re 1244 Status Report to the Court No. 57: Communication Services filed by David Ferleger. USA shall file updated response on or before December 23, 2005. Status Report due by 12/23/2005.Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 11/23/05. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
1350 MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/1/05 to File Response to 1334 MOTION to Intervene by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
1352 Opposition to 1334 MOTION to Intervene filed by USA. (Brown, S.) Modified on 12/2/2005 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 12/01/2005)
1354 Special Master's ORDER on Medical Review Scope of Work . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 11/18/05. (Attachments: # 1 part2)(Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
1351 ORDER granting 1350 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 1334 MOTION to Intervene until 12/1/05. Responses due by 12/1/2005. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/1/05. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
1353 ORDER Accepting and Approving 1323 Special Master's Report to the Court No. 59: Deletion of Several Court Requirements filed by David Ferleger, . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/1/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/01/2005)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 83 of 88

12/01/2005 12/01/2005
12/02/2005 12/07/2005 12/12/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005
12/23/2005
12/23/2005 12/27/2005 12/28/2005 12/29/2005
12/29/2005 12/29/2005
01/03/2006 01/05/2006 01/06/2006
01/12/2006 01/12/2006 01/17/2006

Reset Deadlines as to 1334 MOTION to Intervene. Responses due by 12/1/2005 (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

1355 RESPONSE TO 1334 MOTION to Intervene filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

1356 Docket Entry Correction re 1352 Opposition to 1334 Motion to Intervene; added bracket [ to 1334 Motion in docket text (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

1358 RULING denying 1338 Motion to Recuse/Remove Special Master. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/6/05. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

1357 Ruling denying 1334 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 12/12/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

1359 RESPONSE to 1349 Order to file undated Response to Defendants Objections to Special Master's Report filed by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2005)

1360 MOTION for further Extension of Time to Respond to Special Master's 1344 Order on Habilitation by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/20/2005)

1361

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1357 Ruling denying Motion to Intervene by Richard Messier, Thomas Maloney, Carole Ann Carr, Leon Horton, Raymond Mitchell, Leonard Haversat, Gregory Kabbai, People First of Connecticut, Inc., ARC/Connecticut, Inc, Western Connecticut Association For Human Rights. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number N017261. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/21/2005)

1362 Special Master's ORDER Deleting Certain Thresholds from Medical Review Scope of Work . Signed by Special Master, David Ferleger on 12/22/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/23/2005)

1364 MOTION for Fees and Services for Time Period 10/29/05−12/22/05 by David Ferleger.Responses due by 1/13/2006 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 12/27/2005)

1363 26th STATUS REPORT by David Ferleger. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 12/27/2005)

1365 Special Master's ORDER Regarding Advocacy Report. Signed by David Ferleger, Special Master on 12/26/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/28/2005)

1366 MOTION for Reconsideration of 1358 Ruling denying Motion to Recuse/Remove Special Master by William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink.Responses due by 1/19/2006 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/30/2005)

1367 Supplemental MOTION to Recuse Special Master by Robert Griffith.Responses due by 1/19/2006 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/30/2005)

1368 Memorandum in Support re 1367 MOTION to Recuse Special Master filed by Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 12/30/2005)

1369 FISCAL REPORT 2005 by David Ferleger. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/04/2006)

1370 Endorsement ORDER Approving 1364 Motion for Cost and Fees . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 1/4/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/05/2006)

1371 NOTICE by USA re 1366 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1358 Order on Motion to Recuse or Remove Special Master, 1367 Supplemental MOTION to Recuse Special Master. USA does not intend to participate in Court's consideration of these motions. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 01/06/2006)

1372 RESPONSE to 1260 Objections to 1244 Special Master Report #57 filed by USA. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/13/2006)

1374 NOTICE of Appearance by Anita C. Snyder on behalf of USA (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/18/2006)

1373 Report to the Court No. 60 Habilitation by David Ferleger. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/17/2006)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 84 of 88

01/18/2006 01/19/2006 01/20/2006 01/23/2006 01/24/2006
01/26/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006

1375 ORDER re 1373 Status Report filed by David Ferleger, . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 1/18/06. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/18/2006)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $41,007.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per endorsement dated 01/04/06. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 01/19/2006)

1376

MOTION To Reply to USA's Response to Objections to Special Masters Report No. 57 and 11/23/05 Order re 1349 Order directing USA to file Response by 12/23/05 1372 Response to 1260 Objections to 1244 Special Master's Report No.57 by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith.Responses due by 2/10/2006 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

1377 ORDER granting 1376 Motion for extension of time until February 6, 2006, to reply to United States' Response to Defendants' Objections to the Special Master's Report No. 57 and Court's Order dated November 23, 2005 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 1/23/06. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

1380

Index to Record on Appeal by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith re 1307 Notice of Appeal, 1304 Response, 1277 MOTION for Extension of Time, 1199 Order on Motion for Cost and Fees, 1174 Order on Motion for Leave to File, 1278 Response, 1155 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1122 MOTION Release of Outstanding Provisions of Remedial Plan, 1143 Settlement Conference, 1303 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 1281 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 1160 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1282 Order,, 1264 Response, 1195 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1134 Order on Motion to Continue, 1270 Stipulation, 1227 Order, 1172 MOTION for Leave to File, 1169 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 1171 MOTION To File Reply Brief re 1121 Stipulation, 1231 Status Report, 1224 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1298 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, 1159 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1192 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1184 Order, 1184 Order, 1247 Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Continue,,,, 1157 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 1198 Order, 1235 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1146 Miscellaneous Hearing, 1131 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1299 Response, 1240 Order, 1234 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1228 Order, 1225 Status Report, 1283 Order, 1130 MOTION Determination, 1233 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1269 Stipulation, 1167 MOTION for Extension of Time, 1204 MOTION for Extension of Time 1198 Order, 1177 Order, 1238 Order, 1265 Stipulation, 1206 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,, 1210 MOTION to Expedite, 1193 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 1161 MOTION Revised Joint Agreement for Release of Remedial Plan, 1175 Order on Motion for Order, 1151 Transcript, 1156 MOTION for Extension of Time, 1218 Stipulation, 1236 MOTION to Continue, 1241 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, 1271 Transcript Request, 1148 Witness List, 1258 Calendar Entry,, 1306 Response,, 1196 MOTION for Cost and Fees, 1288 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1283 Order, 1208 Response, 1300 MOTION for Extension of Time 1282 Order,, 1219 Stipulation, 1272 MOTION For Release of All Outstand Provision of Remedial Plan re Med Svcs, 1141 Witness List, 1266 Exhibit, 1274 MOTION for release of outstanding provisions of remedial plan re: Medical Svcs, 1237 Response, 1302 MOTION for Extension of Time 1282 Order,, 1267 Miscellaneous Hearing, 1289 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 1201 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 1152 Transcript, 1147 Exhibit List, 1121 Stipulation, 1223 Response, 1257 Calendar Entry,, 1197 Reply to Response to Motion, 1214 Order, 1133 MOTION to Continue, 1164 MOTION for. For docket entries without a hyperlink, contact the court to arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

1378 REPORT to the Court No. 61: Advocacy by David Ferleger. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

1379 ORDER Releasing outstanding Advocacy requirements CR73 and CR74, EC2 from active judicial oversight . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 1/26/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

1381 Manually Filed REPORT To The Court No.62: Safeguards &Maintenance of Effort by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 85 of 88

02/07/2006
02/07/2006
02/07/2006 02/16/2006 02/17/2006 02/21/2006 02/22/2006 02/27/2006
02/27/2006 03/01/2006 03/07/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006 03/08/2006
03/08/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006

1382 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Objections to Special Master's Report No. 57 and Court's 11/23/05 Order by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

1383

ORDER granting, absent objection, 1382 Motion for Leave to File Nunc Pro Tunc a Reply to the United States' Response to Defendants' Objections to the Special Master's Report No. 57 and Court's Order Dated November 23, 2005. Response is due February 7, 2006. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/7/06. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

1384 REPLY to RESPONSE re 1349 Order of Court, 1244 Report No. 57 filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 02/10/2006)

1385 ORDER directing Defendants to Deposit $50,000 into Court Registry within 20 days of whenever balance in the account for master is less than $100,000.. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 2/16/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

1386 ORDER (with manaully filed Report) directing Filing of attached Report on compliance with Medical Services Requirements of Remedial Plan . Signed by Special Master David Ferleger on 2/16/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

1387 Thirty−Fourth Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format &Content by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

1388 REPORT to The Court No:63/Medical Services by David Ferleger. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

1389 ORDER directing parties that if they are to acquire any of the more than 230,000 documents in the Master's possession, to put request in writing, and to take possession of document(s) by 3/30/06. Signed by Special Master, David Ferleger on 2/24/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

1390 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 3/20/2006 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

1391 ORDER; So Ordered 1390 Motion for Cost and Fees in the amount of $35,918. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/1/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

1392 MOTION for Todd Schneider to Withdraw as Attorney by USA. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/07/2006)

1393 ORDER granting 1392 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Todd J. Schneider terminated . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/8/06. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $35,918.00 Paid to David Ferleger. Per EBB endorsement dated 03/01/06. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

1394

ORDER: Defendants shall provide updated and detailed information to the Court on the efforts to recruit and hire a Speech−Language Pathologist. Information due within 7 days of this order. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/8/06. (Ruocco, M.) Modified on 3/8/2006 (Ruocco, M.). (Entered: 03/08/2006)

Docket Entry Correction re 1394 Order, text of entry modified to say that defendants shall provide information to the Court. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 03/08/2006)

Request from USCA for Record on Appeal (documents #866 &867) Made Via email re 1307 Notice of Appeal, 1361 Notice of Appeal: USCA #05−5115 (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal Consisting of Paper Documents 866 &867 to US Court of Appeals re 1307 Notice of Appeal, 1361 Notice of Appeal,. USCA Number: 05−5115−cv (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 86 of 88

03/16/2006
03/22/2006 03/23/2006
03/24/2006 03/24/2006
03/24/2006 03/24/2006
03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/30/2006 03/30/2006 04/05/2006

1395

RESPONSE to 1394 ORDER: Defendants shall provide updated and detailed information to the Court on the efforts to recruit and hire a Speech−Language Pathologist. filed by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. Exhibits in paper format only(Pesta, J.) Modified text on 3/17/2006 (Pesta, J.). (Entered: 03/17/2006)

1396 ORDER re 1388 Special Master's Report to the Court No. 63: Medical Services; the Court RELEASES all outstanding aspects of the Remedial Plan relating to medical services from active judicial oversight. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/22/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1404

RULING ON COMMUNICATION SERVICES COMPLIANCE re 1244 Status Report No. 57 filed by David Ferleger. All Remedial Plan Court Requirements related to the Communication Services aspect of Habilitation are hereby RELEASED from active judicial oversight. See Ruling for further details. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/23/06. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1397 ORDER finding as moot 898 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. The relief requested was previously granted in Doc. No. 946 . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1398

ORDER finding as moot 944 Motion for Release of CR2 EC3 and CR8 Step 12. CR2 EC3 was resolved by the OPA/DMR Agreement, and is therefore released. CR8 Step 12 was deleted from the Court Requirements as per Court Order [Doc. No. 1353]. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1399 ORDER finding as moot 967 Motion for Release of Court Requirement 14 (Direct Care Staff), Evaluation Criteria 2. CR14 EC2 was released in the Habilitation Ruling [Doc. No. 1375] . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1400

ORDER finding as moot 1272 Motion for Release of All Outstanding Provisions of the Remedial Plan Pertaining to Medical Services. All outstanding Court Requirements related to Medical Services were released as per [Doc. No. 1396]. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1401 ORDER finding as moot 1274 Parties' Second Joint Motion for Release of Medical Services. All outstanding Court Requirements pertaining to Medical Services were released by Document No. 1396. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1402 ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 1300 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to the Court's Order Regarding Medical Services. . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1403 ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 1360 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Objections and the Court's Order of November 23, 2005. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (S−Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1405 ORDER PURGING DEFENDANTS OF CONTEMPT AND ENDING ACTIVE JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT and accepting and approving 1381 Status Report No. 62 filed by David Ferleger. See order for further details . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/24/06. (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

1406 ORDER finding as moot 1366 Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Recuse the Special Master . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/30/06. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

1407 ORDER finding as moot 1367 Defendants' Supplemental or Second Motion to Recuse or Remove the Special Master. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 3/30/06. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

1408 ORDER Amending 1385 Order directing $50,000 deposit into court registry. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 4/5/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 87 of 88

05/01/2006 05/02/2006 05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/04/2006 05/11/2006 06/05/2006 07/10/2006 08/21/2006 09/26/2006 11/07/2006 02/08/2007 05/07/2007 07/05/2007
08/07/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007 02/14/2008 06/03/2008 08/05/2008

1409 MOTION for Cost and Fees by David Ferleger.Responses due by 5/22/2006 (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

1410 ORDER; So Ordered 1409 Motion for Cost and Fees in the amount of $25,795 for Special Master David Ferleger. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/1/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $25,795.00 Paid to David Ferleger. per endorsement dated 05/01/06. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

1411 ORDER finding as moot 1288 Motion for Reconsideration . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/3/06. (Corbett, P.) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

1412 ORDER directing Clerk to remit monies in account established for payments of Special Master to State of Connecticut . Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 5/3/06. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/04/2006)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $46,048.17 Paid to State of Connecticut c/o James Welsh, Speical Asst. Atty General. Close out savings account per court order dated 05/03/06. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 05/11/2006)

1413 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) dated 6/1/06 Withdrawing 1307 Notice of Appeal filed by State of Connecticut, (Brown, S.) (Entered: 06/06/2006)

1414 STATUS REPORT: 35th Quarterly Compliance Report by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/11/2006)

1415 Notice of Filing 36th Quarterly Compliance REPORT by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/22/2006)

Clerk's Disbursement of Funds in the amount of $46,048.17 Paid to Dept. of Mental Retardation c/o Atty James Welsh. Stop payment on check issued on 05/10/06. (Carfora, C.) (Entered: 09/26/2006)

1416 37th Quarterly Compliance REPORT by State of Connecticut, Dept of Mental Retardation. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 11/08/2006)

1417 38th Compliance REPORT by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

1418 Notice of Filing 39th Quarterly Compliance REPORT by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

1419

MANDATE of USCA dated 7/5/2007 re: Stipulation withdrawing appeal from active consideration without prejudice with leave to reactivate 1361 Notice of Appeal, filed by Western Connecticut Association For Human Rights, ARC/Connecticut, Inc, Leon Horton, Gregory Kabbai, Carole Ann Carr, Thomas Maloney, People First of Connecticut, Inc., Raymond Mitchell, Leonard Haversat, Richard Messier (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 07/05/2007)

Appeal Record Returned: 1361 Notice of Appeal, 1307 Notice of Appeal (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 08/07/2007)

1420 40th Quarterly Compliance REPORT (with attachments) by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) Modified on 8/27/2007 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 08/27/2007)

Docket Entry Correction re 1420 40th Quarterly Compliance Report; modified to include text "with attachments" (Brown, S.) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

1421 Notice of Filing Forty−First and Forty−Second Quarterly Compliance REPORT (with manual attachments) by State of Connecticut. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

1422 Notice of filing of Forty Third Quarterly Compliance REPORT with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

1423 Notice of Filing Forty−Fourth Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith. (Garguilo, B) (Entered: 08/05/2008)

Case: 3:86-cv-00252-EBB As of: 07/10/2014 08:48 PM EDT 88 of 88

10/16/2008 11/06/2008 05/11/2009
08/13/2009 10/30/2009 11/02/2009 11/03/2009 12/16/2009 04/22/2010 05/17/2010 05/24/2010

1424 NOTICE of Appearance by R. Jonas Geissler on behalf of USA (Geissler, R.) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
1425 NOTICE of Filing of Forty Fifth Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Garguilo, B) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
1426 NOTICE OF FILING OF FORTY SEVENTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT WITH REVISED FORMAT AND CONTENT by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Garguilo, B) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
1427 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 48th Quarterly Compliance Report by State of Connecticut (Torday, B.) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
1429 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss by USA, State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Robert Griffith. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
1430 ORDER granting 1429 Joint Motion to Dismiss case. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/30/09. (This corrects document #1428) (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
1428 ENTERED IN ERRROR: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION. Signed by Judge Ellen Bree Burns on 10/30/09. (Pesta, J.) Modified on 11/3/2009 (Pesta, J.). (Entered: 11/03/2009)
1431 NOTICE of Filing Ninth Quarterly Compliance Report with Revised Format and Content by State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retardation, Brian Lensink, Robert Griffith (Garguilo, B) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
1432 Acknowledgment of Receipt of defendant's returned trial exhibits from August 1995 received by James Welsh. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
1433 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE by David Ferleger on 5/14/2010 of Special Master Exhibits A−E from 10/18/1999. (Falcone, K.) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
1434 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Plaintiffs Trial Exhibits from August of 1995 Acknowledgment by R. Jonas Geissler. (Pesta, J.) (Entered: 05/25/2010)

 
 Docket Summary

Page 1 of 2

If you view the full docket, you will be charged for 8 Pages $ 0.64

US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case Summary

Court of Appeals Docket #: 96-6218 Nsuit: 1440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other USA, et al v. State of Connecticut, et al Appeal from: U.S. District Court CTDC

Filed: 8/19/96

Lower court information: District: 0205-03: 86-cv-252 Trial Judge: Ellen Bree Burns

2/18/97

Order FILED GRANTING motion for extended time [931725-1] by Appellants State of Connecticut, William A. O'Neill, Dept of Mental Retard, Brian Lensink, and Robert Griffith, endorsed on motion form dated 2/12/97. "On consent, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is granted." (SAB) (ag41)

2/19/97

Appellant State of Connecticut, Appellant William A. O'Neill, Appellant Dept of Mental Retar, Appellant Brian Lensink, Appellant Robert Griffith reply brief filed with proof of service. Satisfy appellant's reply brief due. (ag41)

3/31/97

Letter from Appellee AUSA concerning availability of argument dates, received. (ag41)

4/10/97

Proposed for argument the week of 6/2/97 PM PANEL. (ca93)

5/6/97

Set for argument on 6/6/97 . [96-6218] (ca90)

6/6/97

Case heard before ALTIMARI, JACOBS, LEVAL C.JJ. #39) (ca95)

(TAPE:

INDIV HEARD CLOSED C61341
O06 4

6/13/97

Judgment filed; judgment of the district court is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction by detailed order of the court without opinion filed. (Per Judge Jacobs) (ag42)

7/31/97

Judgment MANDATE ISSUED. (ag42)

8/7/97 9/22/97
1/15/98

Mandate receipt returned from the district court. (reh)
Notice of filing petition for writ of certiorari for Appellant State of Connecticut, Appellant William A. O'Neill, Appellant Dept of Mental Retar, Appellant Brian Lensink, Appellant Robert Griffith dated 18 September 1997 filed. Supreme Ct#: 97-485. (ag40)
Letter dated 12 January 1998 from the Supreme Court advising of order DENYING petition for writ of certiorari [1049635-1] by Appellant Robert Griffith, Brian Lensink,

http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/reports.pl

6/8/2006

Docket Summary

Page 2 of 2

Dept of Mental Retar, William A. O'Neill, State of Connecticut filed. (Supreme Court # 97-485) (ag40)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description: Billable Pages:

06/08/2006 15:17:05

hs0328

Client Code:

Elizabeth Chilcoat

dkt

Case

summary Number:

96-6218

1

Cost:

0.08

http://pacer.ca2.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/reports.pl

6/8/2006

 
 I
I

0 0
r ~ r ’ t’ ’~"~ , ,.. ,
- ’ . .. ".

0

0 0

0 ©
C?0

0 0

¯ ~~:~4~ ,-
’~.i:-:::::i_"i
~.-":~,,,~..~~.,.~....
o ¯,~:~--..

.~..~~.’,~~I~- ’~
i¸
0

:~r

o

D

C~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION

...........

1

STATEMENT

OF THE ISSUES

....................

2

STATEMENT

OF THE CASE .....................

2

A.

The Complaint And Remedial Orders ..........

2

I. The Consent

Decree

...............

4

2. The Implementation

Plan ............

6

3. The 1990 And 1991 Stipulations

.........

7

B.

The Evidence Of Connecticut’s

Contempt ....... 9

Medical
..

Services

................

9

2. Psychological

Services

............

13

3. Physical

Therapy Services

..........

18

C,

The District Court’s Order ............

21

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................

24

ARGUMENT:

I. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR LACK

OF APPELLATE

JURISDICTION

.............

26

A,

The District Court’s Order Is Not A

Final, Appealable Order Under 28

U.S.C.

1291

.................

26

B,

The District Court’s Order Is Not

An Appealable Interlocutory Order

Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (1) ..........

31

II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY FOUND CONNECTICUT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF THE COURT’S

REMEDIAL

ORDERS

..................

36

A. The Standard

Of Review ............

36

B. The Three-Part Test

37

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued):

PAGE

C,

The Orders That Connecticut Violated Are

Clear And Unambiguous

..........

. 37

Connecticut,s Claim That There Was Not Clear

And Convincing evidence Of Connecticut’s

Violation Of The Remedial Orders Is

Meritless ..................

41

The Record Demonstrates That Connecticut Was

Not Reasonably Diligent In Attempting To

Comply With The Orders ............

44

III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION TO APPOINT A

SPECIAL MASTER WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF ITS

REMEDIAL AUTHORITY

................

47

A. The Standard Of Review 47

The District Court’s Decision To

Appoint A Special Master Was

Proper

............

¯ a¯ ¯¯ .¯ ,

48

CONCLUSION

.........................

50

CASES:

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

Beraer v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556 (2d Cir. 1985) .......

C_arso n v. Ameri.can Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) . .

31,

.Catli n v..United S tat@s, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) ........

26

Cohe_______nnv..BeneficialIndus. Loan Corp., 337 u.s. 541 (1949) " " " ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . 29

Comptone

¢O. v. ~, 251 F.2d 487

(2d Cir. 1958) ...................

27,

28

Coopers & Lybrand v. iv~i~, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) ...... 29

Deckert v..Independence Shares ¢orp_, 311 U.S. 282 (1940) ¯ " " " " " " " ’ " ¯ " ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯ - ¯ ¯ ¯ 27

v. A~lant$c Capita I CorD., 963 F.2d 15

(2d Cir. 1992)

...................

26, 27

- ii -

CASES (continued)

PAGE

F~uO_Cv. Local 40, Int’l Ass’n of Bridqe Workers,

76 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) ...............

32

EEOC v. Local 638, 81 F.3d 1162 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 333 (1996) .........

36, 37, 43

G<illi v. Metropolitan Life Ins., Co., 78 F.3d 1533

(llth Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 608 (1996)

27

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.,

485 U.S. 271 (1988)

................

26, 31

H. M. Kolbe Co. v. Armuus Text,S@ Co., 315 F.2d 70

(2d Cir.

1963)

.....................

27

Hutto v. Finned, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) ............

48

In re Fugazv Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769

(2d Cir.

1992)

.....................

26

In re Irving, 600 F.2d 1027 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 866 (1979)

..........

26-27

In re Pearson, 990 F.2d 653 (ist Cir. 1993) .........

36

In re Peterson,

253 U.S. 300 (1920) .............

48

Kittiuas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnvside Valley Irriqation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032 (gth Cir.),

cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032 (1985) ...........

3O

Liddell v. State of Missouri, No.96-2994, slip op.

(Sth Cir. Jan. 28, 1997) ................

31

Manhattan Indus., Inc. v. Sweate~ Bee by Banff. Ltd.,

885 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S.

1029

(1990)

......................

37

New York Sta~e Ass’n FQ~ Retarded Childr@n ~nc. v. ~_~L@~,

706 F.2d 956 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S.

915 (1983)

.......................

49

Ppwell v. War____dd, 643 F.2d 924 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,

454 U.S. 832 (1981)

..................

49

Richardson-Merrell. Inc. v. ~olle~, 472 U.S.

424 (1985)

.......................

29

Ros@~te v. Bainbo Record Mfq. Corp., 546 F.2d 461

(2d Cir.

1976)

.....................

27

- iii -

CASES (continued)

PAGE

Securities and Exchange Comm’__nn v. ev~Ei_~_~, 881 F.2d

1165 (2d Cir. 1989)

.................

40

v..Cltv of BuffalQ, 574 F.2d 689 (2d Cir 1978)
28
Thompson v. Enomoto, 815 F.2d 1323 (gth Cir. 1987) ..... 35

United State s v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) ..... 40

United State~ v. I~nt_ernational Bhd. of Teamsters, 12 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 1993) ............... 30
United S~a~es v. Loca~ 1804-~, Int’l Longshoremen’~, As$o¢., 44 F.3d 1091 (2d Cir. 1995) .......... 40
United States v. O’Rourke, 943 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1991)
¯ " ¯ " " ¯ ¯ " ’ " " " " " " " ¯ " ¯ ¯ ¯ 30
United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 946 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1991) 30
United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 29 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2608 (1995) ¯ " " " " ¯ " ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . 47
Whalen v. County of Fulton, 19 F.3d 828 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct 722 (1995) 29
Wilder v. Bernstei______nn, 49 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1995) ....... 32

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS:

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act

(CRIPA),

42 U.S.C.

1997 et ~ ...............

2

28 U.S.C. 1291

28 U.S.C.

1292

28 U.S.C.

1292(ai

28 U.S.C. 1331

28 U.S.C. 1343 28 U.S.C. 1345 " " "

.....................

(1)" [ ...................

..............

I, 24,

""""""""""¯"¯"¯¯ ¯

passim 50
31 36
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 1

42 U.S.C. 1997a
¯""""¯¯"¯" ¯¯"¯""""""¯¯¯¯1

- iv -

RULES:

Fed. Fed.

R. Civ. R. Cir.

P. 53 .................

P. 53(e)

....................

28, 36, 48 28

MISCELLANEOUS:

9A Wright & Miller, F~deral Practice & Procedure

2615 (2d ed. 1995)

..................

28

15B Wright, Miller, & Coopers Federal Practice

~ 3916 (2d ed. 1992) ............

26

- V -

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 96-6218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., Defendants-Appellants
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLEE
SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION The district court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997a and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 1345. This Court, however, lacks appellate jurisdiction over this appeal. As discussed, at pp. 26-36, infra, the district court’s order finding Connecticut in contempt and stating its intent to appoint a special master is not appealable, either as a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. 1291, or as an interlocutory order that grants or modifies an injunction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (i). October 30, 1996, the United States filed its motion to dismiss the appeal. On December 12, 1996, this Court denied the motion without prejudice, and permitted the United States to raise the issue before the panel assigned to review the case on the merits.

-2STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether this Court has appellate jurisdiction over a district court order that finds a defendant in civil contempt of its Remedial Orders, but only states its intent to appoint a special master to ensure compliance in the future. 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding the State of Connecticut in civil contempt of the court’s Remedial Orders. 3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in stating its intent to appoint a special master.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The Complaint And Remedial Orders. On September ii, 1985, the United States filed a complaint against the State of Connectdcut, its Governor, the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation, and the Director of the Southbury Training School (Connecticut), pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. 1997 e_!t ~ (J.A. l).-i! Southbury is an institution for persons with developmental disabilities in Connecticut. At the time of the hearing on contempt, Southbury housed 843 residents (J.A. 238 & n.l). The complaint alleged, ’nt~ alia, that Connecticut is failing to: (i) provide residents of Southbury with adequate medical care; (2) provide Southbury residents with training %. ~! "J.A. " refers to the Joint Appendix. "R. " refers to the docket number assigned a document filed in the district court. "Tr. ,, refers to the transcript of the hearing. "Conn. Br. ,, refers to Connecticut’s brief. "Am~ Br. ,, refers to the brief of the Amicus Curiae, Martha Dwyer, et el.

-3 necessary to preveht undue risks to the~" , rsonal safety; (3) protect Southbury residents from unreasonable risks of harm caused by staff and other residents; and (4) ensure that medications are prescribed and administered to Southbury residents pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by qualified professionals and not in lieu of training programs (J.A. 1-6).
The United States and Connecticut entered into a Consent Decree, which the district court approved on December 22, 1986 (R. 35). The Consent Decree sets forth several requirements with which Connecticut must comply in order to provide Southbury residents with the level of psychological services, medical care, and physical therapy that is secured and protected by the United States Constitution (J.A. 10-11). Pursuant to the terms of the Decree, Connecticut proposed an Implementation Plan in 1987, which provides the steps and procedures that Connecticut would take to comply with the mandates of the Decree (J.A. 31). The United States and Connecticut agreed to amendments to that plan and the district court approved the amended plan as an order of the court on July 22, 1988 (J.A. 27). The parties stipulated two additional court orders on April 24, 1990, and December 9, 1991 (J.A. 147, 189). In its order finding Connecticut in civil contempt, the district court refers to the Decree, Implementation Plan, and stipulations as the "Remedial Orders,, (J.A. 239 & n.4) The provisions of the Remedial "~rders that are pertinent to the contempt motion are as follows.

- 4 I. The Cgnsent Decree. Part I provides that "the purposes

and objectives of this Consent Decree are to establish within the

timelines set forth [in the Decree] * * * conditions at [Southbury] * * * to ensure that residents at [Southbury] are not

being deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured to

them by the Constitution of the United States" (J.A. ii). Those

rights, privileges and immunities include: "[t]raining programs

professionally designed to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks

to personal safety or unreasonable use of restraints";

"[a]dequate medical care [for] all residents pursuant to the

exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional";

and "[r]estraints, seclusion procedures and behavior modifying

medications, when appropriate, must be administered safely and pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment" (J.A. 12).

Part I concludes by providing that the purposes and objectives

"shall be achieved * * * by implementing the requirements set

forth in Parts III and IV" and "by developing and implementing

the plans described in Part V of [the] Consent Decree’, (J.A. 13).

Part IIi of the Decree requires that Connecticut immediately correct certain conditions, .9_~g=., provide a sufficient number of

nurses and direct care workers (J.A. 15). Part IV requires

certain ratios of professional staff to number of residents by

%

certain deadlines (J.A. 17). Part V orders Connecticut to submit

plans "for implementing th[e] Consent Decree.,’ Such plans must

include:

(a) Part V(3): "[P]rocedures to be utilized provide regular, periodic professional evaluations of

n~

..i

-5-
each resident in order to identify those in need of training programs; and (b) to provide a sufficient number of training program hours to each resident" who needs such training (J.A. 18). A "[t]raining [p]rogram" is "[a] program of steps and activities, including behavior management and the teaching of basic self-care skills, determined by a qualified professional consistent with professional judgment to be necessary to protect a resident from unreasonable risks to personal safety and to facilitate his or her ability to function free from undue restraint" (J.A.
14).
(b) Part V(5): "Recordkeeping systems, policies, procedures with respect to each patient’s care, medical treatment, and required training that shall be utilized to maintain and make available in each resident’s record such information as is professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judument in that resident’s car~, medical trea!ment, and traininq" (J.A. 19). Professional judgment is "[a] decision by qualified professional that is not such a substantial departure from accepted professional * * * standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible did not bas~ the decision on such Drofessionai opinion, practice, or standards" (J.A. 15) (emphasis added).
(c) Part V(6): "[M]easures that will be undertaken provide adequate medical care, including evaluation of residents with physical disabilities and the specific steps that will be undertaken to provlde appropriat~ ~edicBl and physical therapy services to_prevent contractures, physical deqeneration, and inappropriate body .srowth and deformity" (J.A. 19) (emphasis added).
(d) Part V(8): "[P]olicies and procedures * ~ provide that restraints [and] behavior modifying medications * * * (a) are administered only pursuant the judgment of a qualified professional; and (b) are not to be used as punishment, in lieu of training programs" (J.A. 20).
(e) Part V(9): "[P]rocedures that will be utilized provide that residents shall be protected from unreasonable risks of bodily harm to their personal safety by the conduct of staff or other residents" (J.A. 20).
The Decree requires also that Connecticut submit quarterly
compliance reports (J.A. 23).

2. ~he Impl~mentation

- 6 Pl~n. The Plan begins by stating

that it was (J.A. 35):

developed to assure that residents of the Southbury Training School are not deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United
States, including: appropriate training programs; freedom from unreasonable restraint; adequate medical
care; and an environment that is safe and free from unreasonable risks of harm.

The Plan is organized into four areas: (I) staffing requirements to comply with Part Ill of the Decree; (2) program development

and implementation to satisfy Part V(2)-(4); (3) comprehensive

programs to meet Part V(5)-(8); and (4) safe conditions to

with Part V(9) & (i0) (J.A. 35). Appended to and incorporated

within the Implementation Plan are policies that the Connecticut

Department of Mental Retardation began implementing in May 1986. Those policies set forth the rights of the residents at

Southbury, which explicitly include the general rights and

privileges provided under the Constitution, as well as special

rights such as: (a) "[a]ppropriate treatment, services, and

habilitation,,; (b) "[p]rograms that maximize each resident’s

developmental potential,,; (c) "[f]reedom from physical

chemical restraint employed as a punishment or as a substitute for a habilitation program,,; and (d) "[p]rompt, sufficient, and

appropriate medical and dental treatment" (J.A. 107).

The Appendix also provides that each resident will have an

Overall Plan of Services (OPS), which "shall encourage

integration of the client into normalized settings,, and "be

developed in keeping with accepted principles in the field of

-7mental retardation" (J.A. 118). Connecticut’s provision of OPS as set forth in the Appendix to the Implementation Plan is intended to comply with Part V(3) of the Consent Decree, which requires that Southbury residents receive adequate training programs (J.A. 35, 63).
Each OPS must include, ~nter alia: (i) a list of the resident’s strengths and needs; (2) a list of prioritized goals; (3) "for each goal, behavioral objectives * * * that are objectively measurable; (4) for each objective, "a teaching strategy detailing what the staff will do to assist the client to accomplish new skills or behaviors"; and (5) evaluation procedures to determine whether the teaching strategies are assisting clients to accomplish objectives (J.A. 118).
The policy also requires an interdisciplinary team to develop and regularly review the OPS provided to each resident (J.A. 121). The team "will be convened whenever a significant change in [a resident’s] situation warrants a revision of the OPS" (J.A. 123). Substantial changes in a resident’s OPS require "formal agreement and documentation by the team" (J.A. 123).
All sections of the Plan were reviewed and approved by the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation and the Director of the Southbury Training School (J.A. 36).
3. The 1990 And 1991 Stipulations. These Stipulations, in pertinent part, require Connecticut to:
(a) 1990 Stipulation I~F): provide "appropriate physical therapy to each resident with physical handicaps for whom a program of physical therapy has been ordered by a qualified professional, and ensure

-8-
records of such treatment are made and entered in the resident’s medical record" (J.A. 150).
(b) 1990Stipulation I(G): provide a "qualified physician [to] assess each resident with physical disabilities to determine whether a physical therapy program should be initiated or an existing physical therapy program modified to prevent contractures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body growth and deformity. The physician shall refer those residents for whom such need is identified to a registered physical therapist" (J.A. 150).
(c) 1990 Stipulation ~(V): "implement the existing Plan of Implementation to assure that: (i) such training programs as are needed to protect residents from unreasonable risks to their personal safety and from unreasonable bodily restraints are consistently implemented; (2) recordkeeping systems are implemented with respect to each resident’s course of training so as to ensure that sufficient relevant information regarding training is maintained * * * and (3) restraints * * * are not used * * * in lieu of a prescribed training program" (J.A. 155-156).
(d) !990 Stipulation l(W): "(I) develop, implement, and, thereafter, regularly evaluate, a system for observing and recording observations regarding client behavior relevant to training programs, and (2) develop and implement a system to verify that the data are reliable,, (J.A. 156).
(e) ~991 Stipulation I(A): establish a permanent committee of doctoral level psychology staff that, every 30 days, reviews the implementation of training programs for each "at risk" resident. "[A]t risk" residents are those who receive behavior modification medications, exhibit self-injurious or aggressive behavior, are subject to aversive programming, or are otherwise thought to be at risk (J.A. 189). "Where *** continuation of the training or treatment program is otherwise not justified, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate Interdisciplinary Team, which shall within 30 days from the referral, modify the existing [training] program in accordance with professional judgment of qualified professionals" (J.A. 190, 193).
(f) ~991 Stipulation I(B): implement a Consolidated Behavior Review Plan that requires (J.A, 190), inter alia, an interdisciplinary team to review and upd-~-~e OPS to reflect client needs and status of training programs for "at risk’, clients (J.A. 190-193).

-9B. The Evidence 05 Connecticut’s Contempt. In support of its application for an order to show cause why Connecticut should not be held in contempt, the United States provided: (i) testimony and reports from its experts, Dr. Renee Wachtel, Dr. Alan Harchik, and Ms. Susan Harryman, experts in the areas of behavioral psychology, medicine, and physical therapy, respectively (J.A. 263, 321, 392); (2) reports from Connecticut’s experts Dr. Fred Volkmar, expert in the area of child psychiatry, and Dr. James Walker, Dr. Henry Schneiderman, Ms. Rhea Sanford, and Ms. Karen Green McGowan; (3) selected Southbury mortality reviews; and (4) internal investigative reports (J.A. 734-791). I. Medical Services. The United States presented evidence that Connecticut’s inadequate medical treatment caused or contributed to the deaths of six Southbury residents. For example, in her November 1993 report, Dr. Wachtel discussed how internal reports of the September 1992 death of a Southbury resident named John T. showed "numerous omissions and commissions in the provisions of adequate medical and nursing care" (J.A. 505). One report found that: (I) the medical management of John T. from August 21 to September i, 1992, was "plagued with medical flaws that may have contributed to precipitating [his] death" (J.A. 780); (2) "[u]pon return to [Southbury] in a debilitated but stable condition, John’s evaluation by his [primary care physician] failed to assess and address important aspects of his medical condition" (J.A. 780); and (3) while on August 30, T. had a "life threatening" level of Dilantin in his bloodstream,

- i0 the Southbury staff failed to assess the magnitude of the problem and transfer him to the local hospital where appropriate measures to reduce the amount of Dilantin could have been taken (J.A. 783). John T. lost consciousness in the evening of August 31, 1992, and died in the morning of September 1 (J.A. 784).
During the hearing, Dr. Wachtel testified about five other residents who died between May and July 1995 and might not have died had they received the adequate follow-up, monitoring, treatment, and protection from unreasonable risk of harm that the Remedial Orders require: (I) John E. (J.A. 280-281); (2) Vincent S. (J.A. 283-286); (3) Marilyn C. (J.A. 286); (4) Richard (J.A. 291-294); and (5) Jose M. (J.A.
For example, Dr. Wachtel discussed serious inadequacies in Vincent S.’s treatment. The most serious was the physician’s decision that Vincent S. receive a tracheostomy or a tube in the windpipe to correct his problems with aspiration (J.A. 284-285). The physician opted for a tracheostomy instead of inserting a feeding tube on the ground that "Mr. S. gets some satisfaction or joy from eating and I would not favor [a tube in the small intestine]" (J.A. 285). According to Dr. Wachtel, the tracheostomy required making a hole in his windpipe, which is "a much more medically invasive and much more medically at risk procedure than just putting a feeding tube in him" (J.A. 285). Vincent S. died of aspiration shortly after the tracheostomy. At a minimum, a second opinion should have been obtained, because less risky proceaures are available. In Dr. Wachtel’s opinion,

- II Vincent S. would have lived longer if he had not had that risky procedure (J.A. 286).
Jose M. was another resident who received delayed diagnosis and treatment from Southbury and died soon after being transferred to a hospital (J.A. 295-296). He became sick on May 19, 1995, with "fever, vomiting and * * * stools that had blood in them" (J.A. 295). He continued with those symptoms until the next day when a physician noted "harsh breath[ing] sounds,,, but didn’t recommend a chest x-ray (J.A. 295). The next day a nurse indicated that a physician had seen him, but "there’s no physician note" (J.A. 295). On May 22, he had sounds in his lungs that indicated pneumonia; he was given oxygen and transported to the hospital (J.A. 295). But there are no notes in his medical record about his vital signs or treatment that was performed, until he left for the hospital. He died on May 23 (J.A. 295).
Dr. Wachtel also presented evidence in her November 1993 report and in her testimony of additional examples in the treatment of Southbury residents that showed Connecticut’s violation of several provisions of the Remedial Orders. In her report, Dr. Wachtel discussed three individuals who died while residents at Southbury and whose medical records were either inadequate or indicated inadequate treatment: (i) A.R.’s records were unclear as to whether any significant intervention had been made to prevent further pneumonia (J.A. 489); (2) J.D.’s records showed no follow-up after she had received a gastronomy (J.A.

- 12 491); E.S.’s records showed no consultations for appropriate specialties regarding her recurrent pneumonia (J.A. 493).
Further, Dr. Wachtel testified about ii other Southbury residents who had not died, but whose records revealed serious lapses in medical care that in many cases caused residents longterm suffering (Tr. 36, 43, 51, 53, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 75, 81). For instance, Walter N. suffered from a skin disorder and injured himself by scratching so much that he had "two new open areas on the right side of his neck that go to the front and back of the open existing area" (J.A. 276). The resident was first seen by dermatologist in May 1992 (J.A. 277). But the resident was not seen again by a dermatologist until more than three years later in July 1995 (J.A. 276-277). Dr. Wachtel found that adequate "reconsultation with a dermatologist would [have probably] provided for more effective management of his dry skin and itching and perhaps lessened his self-injury,, (J.A. 277).
Dr. Wachtel determined that Connecticut was deficient in six categories that are relevant to the provision of medical care: (i) "delay in diagnosis and treatment,,; (2) "inadequate diagnosis and treatment"; (3) "inadequate follow-up and monitoring,,; (4) "inadequate records,,; (5) "inadequate communication,, between Southbury medical professionals and nearby acute care hospitals; and (6) inadequate protection of Southbury residents from harm (J.A. 269). In Dr. Wachtel’s opinion, Connecticut’s deficiencies in these areas were "deviations from accepted professional practice and current standards,, (J.A. 270).

- 13 Dr. Wachtel further concluded that Connecticut failed to comply with, in~r alia: (I) Part I(3) of the 1986 Consent Decree, which requires Connecticut to provide adequate medical care (J.A. 300); (2) Part V(4) of the 1986 Consent Decree, requires Connecticut to provide the "procedures to be utilized to reasonably ensure there is consultation and communication of relevant information * * * regarding residents’ care, training needs and priorities" (J.A. 301); (3) Part V(5) of the Consent Decree, which requires Connecticut to set forth record keeping procedures "as is professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judgment in that resident’s care, medical treatment and training,, (J.A. 301); and (4) Implementation Plan’s requirements that residents receive "prompt, sufficient and appropriate * * * treatment" (J.A. 305). 2. Psycholg.g~cal Services. In his report, Dr. Harchik stated that each resident’s Overall Plan of Services (OPS) should include assessment, planning, teaching procedures, implementation, and monitoring of progress (J.A. 695). Those activities are critical for any training program that is "determined by a qualified professional consistent with professional judgment to be necessary to protect a resident from unreasonable risks to personal safety" (J.A. 695). Dr. Harchik found, however, that while professional standards require that regular, periodic assessments of resident maladaptive behavior be conducted, of the 21 OPS plans that he reviewed, none referred to any such assessments (J.A. 695). "IT]here was little relation

- 14 between the analyses and the treatment procedures’, (J.A. 697). In many cases, "no progress was observed or regression was occurring and no further analysis was done" (J.A. 697).
Each OPS is supposed to provide instructions for teaching of alternative behaviors to replace problem behaviors and an individualized system of positive reinforcement (J.A. 697). Few of the OPS plans that Dr. Harchik reviewed, however, provided alternative skills to compete with behavior problems (J.A. 698). "More troubling is the lack of positive reinforcement in the behavior plans" (J.A. 698). "The way that positive reinforcement is (and is not) used at STS demonstrates that the psychology staff * * * ha[s] a total lack of understanding of positive reinforcement,, (J.A. 698).
During the hearing, Dr. Harchik presented several examples of residents whose OPS either failed to include an appropriate behavioz assessment or lacked a treatment plan to address that assessment. For instance, he discussed the September 1994 investigative report prepared by Thomas Harmon (J.A. 524-569), concerning the death of Stanley B. (J.A. 406-407). Southbury’s staff was well aware that Stanley B. was a careless smoker who, whether he smoked cigarettes or a pipe, often burned holes in his clothing (J.A. 535). In 1989, Stanley B.’s OPS noted that needed to learn how to smoke his pipe safely (J.A. 533). The goals of the instruction included teaching him how to pack his pipe and empty the tobacco when finished smoking (J.A. 536). The expected date for achieving this goal was March 1990 (J.A. 536).

- 15 In 1993, however, Stanley B.’s OPS did not provide any instruction to the ~taff regarding his smoking habits or his need for supervision while smoking (J.A. 533). His records do not provide any explanation why he was no longer being taught how to smoke safely (J.A. 537). On April 2, 1994, Stanley B.’s clothing caught fire while he was smoking. As a result, he suffered burns to half his body, and died later that evening (J.A. 526).
Dr. Harchik discussed several examples of residents who exhibited maladaptive behaviors, such as severe self-injurious behavior, including head-banging, intentional vomiting (J.A. 410412), ingesting metallic objects (Tr. 359) and dangerous substances such as bleach (Tr. 353) or aggressive behavior towards other residents (J.A. 418). But Southbury had failed develop appropriate behavior plans to correct such maladaptive behavior, thereby allowing such behavior to perpetuate (J.A. 410419). For instance, Dr. Harchik described a resident named Mary Jane, who had sores, cuts, and injuries on the cheeks of her face because she was gouging herself (J.A. 418). He noticed that when Mary Jane walked past about 20-30 other residents, the residents cowered from her, probably because Mary Jane had been aggressive towards them (J.A. 419). Her behavior assessment indicates that she becomes aggressive from boredom (J.A. 419). But there was systematic positive reinforcement program and there was nothing specific about what skills should be taught to Mary Jane to train her to no longer exhibit aggressive behavior (J.A. 420).

- 16 In Dr. Harchik’s opinion, the failure of Connecticut to provide adequate behavior assessments and training programs in residents’ OPS plans violated Part V(3) of the 1986 Consent Decree, which requires procedures to be utilized to provide regular, periodic professional evaluations of each resident to identify those in need of training programs and to ensure a sufficient number of training program hours (J.A. 18, 710). Dr. Harchik also found that because appropriate training programs are not being provided to residents, restraints and behavior modification medications are relied upon inappropriately. Therefore, the failure to provide sufficient OPS plans also caused Connecticut to violate Part V(8) of the 1986 Consent DEcree, which prohibits Connecticut from using medications as punishment in lieu of training programs (J.A. 711). Dr. Harchik further found that "at least half of the behavior programs that [he] reviewed clearly required modification because no progress was occurring or behaviors were worsening," but the Quality Assurance reviews performed prior to his report did not recommend modification of any existing behavior plans despite worsening maladaptive behavibrs (J.A. 700). Dr. Harchik concluded that Connecticut’s failure to modify behavior programs as needed to prevent injury violates Parts I(A) & (B) of the 1991 Stipulation, which require Connecticut review and update training programs for residents who exhibit self-injurious behavior, receive behavior modifying medications, or are otherwise considered to be "at risk" (J.A. 712-713).

- 17 In his report (J.A. 702-703), and also at the hearing, Dr. Harchik explained that Connecticut failed to provide Southbury’s residents with sufficient engagement (J.A. 396). Engagement active participation in a meaningful activity, e._g~., putting together a puzzle or turning pages of a magazine (ibid.). It "is important because it can serve as a basis for learning new skills, [and] can provide alternatives to behavior problems" (J.A. 702). One does not expect all residents to be engaged all the time. At any given time, however, 80% of residents should be involved in meaningful activities (J.A. 398). During his last tour of Southbury before the hearing, Dr. Harchik made observations of 592 residents and found that only 44% of the residents were engaged (J.A. 399). Of those 592 residents, found that only one was being taught a positive habilitative skill (ibid.). In November 1993, he made a similar examination of the Southbury residents’ leve? of engagement and found that only 31% were engaged (J.A. 400). According to Dr. Harchik, Connecticut’s failure to keep its residents engaged was a violation of Part V(3) of the 1986 Consent Decree, which requires Connecticut to provide adequate training programs (J.A. 18). During the hearing, Dr. Harchik concluded that Connecticut is violating several additional Remedial Orders, inter alia: (i) Part I(1) of the 1986 Consent Decree, which requires that "’training programs be professionally designed to reduce or eliminate risks to personal safety or unreasonable use of restraints’" (J.A. 427); (2) Part I(V) of the 1990 Stipulation,

- 18 which requires that Connecticut implement "such training programs as are needed to protect residents from unreasonable risks to their personal safety and from unreasonable bodily restraints" (J.A. 428); (3) Part I(W) of the 1990 Stipulation, which requires Connecticut to: (a) "[d]evelop and implement and thereafter regularly evaluate a system for observing and recording observations regarding client behavior relevant to training programs; and (b) [d]evelop and implement a system to verify that [the] data are reliable" (J.A. 428-429); and (4) Part I(A) 1991 Stipulation, which requires Connecticut to ,,’modify the existing [training] program in accordance with professional judgment * * * when continuation of the * * * program, is otherwise not justified’" (J.A. 429). Dr. Harchik testified also that Connecticut’s provision of psychological and habilitative services is a "substantial departure from acceptable professional standards" (J.A. 430-431).
3. Physical Therapy Services. Ms. Harryman toured Southbury in 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1995 (J.A. 324). After each of those tours she found that physical therapy services at Southbury "did not meet current professional standards and did not comply with court orders requiring adequate physical therapy services" (J.A. 325). Appropriate physical therapy is necessary to prevent those with developmental disabilities from acquiring inappropriate body growth, deformity, physical degeneration, and contractures (i.e., inability to bend a joint through a full range of motion) (J.A. 330).

- 19 Of the 73 Southbury residents whom Ms. Harryman visited, 64 needed services from a physical therapist (J.A. 337). Of those 64, only two received services from a licensed physical therapist (J.A. 337). Southbury Cottages 7A and 42 house the residents with the most significant motor disabilities (J.A. 337). Not one of the residents at those cottages, however, received the services of a physical therapist (J.A. 337). In one case, Dr. Harryman reviewed the record of Marilyn S., who had suffered a stroke on June i0, 1995 (J.A° 338). Her medical files showed that a physical therapist failed to assess her until July 17, 1995 (J.A. 339). Such a delay is a substantial deviation from the current acceptable professional standards (J.A. 339).
Those who are confined to wheelchairs should be assessed annually. Absent yearly assessments, physical degeneration will continue to occur and deformities will increase (J.A. 334). her last tour of Southbury, Ms. Harryman found that i0 out of 57 residents who are eomfined to wheelchairs had not had an annual assessment (J.A. 333-334).
Ms. Harryman also testified that Connecticut’s failure to provide adequate physical therapy services resulted in some residents’ loss of range of motion -- the inability to move and bend a joint (J.A. 327), and loss of function -- the inability perform a certain activity (J.A. 327). The results of the loss of an individual’s range of motion can have devastating effects on a resident’s quality of life. For instance, Ms. Harryman testified that if a resident loses the ability to sit in a chair,

- 20 the person is confined to a bed for the rest of his or her life (J.A. 349). One of the residents that Ms. Harryman visited was precariously close to losing her ability to sit in a chair, yet she was not receiving any physical therapy services (J.A. 348349). Of the 73 residents that she examined, 14 had lost range of motion (J.A. 344). The records of the other residents whom she examined were so deficient that Ms. Harryman could not document if they had lost "range of motion" (J.A. 344).
Ms. Harryman also found that 20 of the 73 Southbury residents whom she visited had a documented loss of function (J.A. 349). Further, she found that Southbury could have made efforts to prevent the loss of function in 14 of those individuals (J.A. 350). Of those 14 instances in which a loss function could have been prevented: four had lost the ability to roll over, which means that a person stays in one position while in bed, which can lead to osteoporosis and problems with skin integrity (J.A. 351); two had lost the ability to maintain their sitting position (J.A. 351); four had lost the ability to move from their wheelchairs (J.A. 351); and five had lost the skills enabling them to walk with a walker (J.A. 353). Ms. Harryman found that Connecticut’s failure to maintain adequate records on loss of motion and loss of function of Southbury residents was a violation of current professional standards (J.A. 345, 355).
Ms. Harryman concluded that Connecticut was violating several requirements of the Remedial Orders that are relevant to the provision of physical therapy services (J.A. 355, 359-369),

- 21 including: (i) Section V(5) of the 1986 Consent Decree, which requires recordkeeping procedures "as is professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judgment [in] that resident’s care and medical treatment and training" (J.A. 360); (2) Section V(6) of the 1986 Consent Decree, which requires Connecticut to provide adequate medical care "including evaluation of residents with physical disabilities and * * * medical and physical therapy services to prevent contractures, physical degeneration and inappropriate body growth and deformity" (J.A. 360-361); and (3) Appendix A, page 2 of Revised Implementation Plan, which requires Connecticut to provide appropriate treatment services and habilitation (J.A. 365). In Dr. Harryman’s view, the deficiencies in physical therapy services "were all substantial departures" from current professional accepted standards (J.A. 369).
C. The District Court’s Order. i. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Connecticut was in civil contempt of the court’s Remedial Orders in its provision of psychological services, medical care, and physical therapy (J.A. 238-262). In explaining its findings contempt, the court cited the specific requirements that Connecticut had violated and discussed much, though not all, of the evidence that supports its findings. The examples that the court cited in its order are from the written reports of the expert witnesses (J.A. 243-262). The court noted that "some the most compelling evidence came from the [State’s] own experts"

- 22 -

(J.A. 259 & n.35). The court explained that while Southbury’s ,,quarterly reports reveal that it was in compliance with over 90%

of the Remedial Orders’ requirements," Connecticut was not ,,effectuating the Remedial Orders’ desired results" (J.A. 259).

The court further found that Southbury’s ,,systemic flaws have

caused many residents to suffer grave harm, and, in several

instances, death" (J.A. 259). In the area of psychological

services, tne court found that

Connecticut had violated Part I(1) of the 1986 Decree, which requires training programs designed by qualified professionals to

reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks to personal safety (J.A.

243). The court accepted Dr. Harchik’s evidence, including:

(I)

behavior assessments in the OPS plans rarely generate useful

information (J.A. 243); (2) the OPS plans do not provide

residents with training programs that teach ~kills to prevent them from harming themselves (J.A. 244-245); (3) Southbury staff

members exhibit a total lack of understanding of positive

reinforcement (J.A. 247-248); and (4) Connecticut’s failure modify behavior plans violates the Remedial Orders (J.A. 249).
With regard to medical services, the c0urt cited the

requirement that Connecticut provide medical care that was

,,pursuant to the exercise of a qualified professional," found in

Parts I(3) and (4); and to provide recordkeeping procedures

permit the exercise of professional judgment, found in Part V(5)

(J.A. 250 & n.18). The court then found, inter alia, that report about the death of resident John T. contained "appalling

- 23 examples of insufficient medical care," and systemic 5nadequacies that might be "sufficient alone to find Connecticut in contempt of the Decrees" (J.A. 252). Further, the court accepted the findings of one of Connecticut’s experts that recordkeeping procedures are below professional standards and the "problem lists" were inaccurate and incomplete. The problem lists are a "crucial part of effective medical care," and are "utterly useless" if inaccurate (J.A. 252-253).
In the area of physical therapy, the court cited, inter alia, Part V(6) of the Consent Decree, which requires the provision of adequate medical care, including steps to be taken to provide physical therapy services to prevent contractures and deformities (J.A. 256 & n.30). The court then credited the evidence presented by Dr. Harryman and found that Southbury’s failure to adequately assess its physical therapy services "placed the patients at risk of receiving ineffective, useless and detrimental therapy" (J.A. 258). Indeed, Southbury’s "inadequate physical therapy services have caused several residents who, only a few years earlier, were ambulatory, to be permanently bed-ridden" (J.A. 258). The court also accepted Dr[ Harryman’s findings that Southbury’s ’,grossly inadequate staffing was the primary cause of its poor physical therapy services"
(J.A. 256). The court further found that Southbury was not adequately assessing its physical therapy services, nor did it provide guidelines for determining staff competence before allowing the staff to administer such services (J.A. 257).

- 24 -
2. Because of the complex nature of the case and the ’,delicate interests of Southbury’s residents," the court
announced its intent to appoint a special master (J A. 261). The court authorized the masker to appoint, if necessary, a panel comprised of experts in the areas of psychological services, medical care, and physical therapy to assist in making
recommendations (J.A. 259-262). The court specificall~ directed
the master to (J.A. 262): (I) conduct an immediate and thorough review of all aspects of [Southbury’s] care and treatment of residents covered by the Remedial Orders to determine the changes needed to meet the Orders’ desired ends; (2) formulate specific methods to implement the required changes; and (3) work with the parties effectuate those changes.
The parties have recommended their choices as to who should be appointed master. The court has not yet made its selection.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is well Established that a finaing of contempt, absent the
imposition of sanctions, is not a final order. Also, it is widely recognized that an order appointing a special master is not appealable. It follows that the district court’s order, finding Connecticut in civil contempt and merely stating its intent to appoint a special master to ensure Connecticut’s compliance with the Remedial Orders, is not a final order under
28 U.S.C. 1291. Nor is the court’s order appealable under 28 U.S.C.
1292(a) (i) as an interlocutory order that has the effect

- 25 granting or modifying an injunction. Thi3 Court should reject Connecticut’s contention that the district court modified the Remedial Orders by "unilaterally" requiring the State to meet the Purposes and Objectives set forth in Part I of the Consent Decree. In its 1987 Implementation Plan, as well as in several portions of the Remedial Orders, Connecticut expressly agreed to the requirements found in the Purposes and Objectives in Part I of the Decree.
Assuming, arquendo, that this Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review the order, it should affirm the finding of civil contempt and the decision to appoint a special master. As Connecticut concedes, several provisions of the Remedial Orders contain specific requirements concerning psychological services, medical care, and physical therapy. Contrary to Connecticut’s claim, however, the requirements that the district court found Connecticut had violated are contained within those provisions. Therefore, this Court should find that the orders are clear and unambiguous. Moreover, the evidence of Connecticut’s contempt of those provisions is clear and convincing. Contrary to Connecticut’s claim, the district court considered whether it had been reasonably diligent in attempting to comply with the Remedial Orders. The record of Connecticut’s failure to provide adequate psychological services, medical care, and physical therapy services precludes a finding of reasonable diligence.
Finally, the district court’s decision to refer the review of Southbury’s operations to a special master, because of the

- 26 -

complex nature of the case and the "delicate interests of

Southbury’s residents," was a proper exercise of its broad

re~c~ia! authority.

ARGUMENT I

THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

A. The District Court’s Order Is Not A Final, Appealable Order Under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Section 1291 of Title 28 provides for appellate review of
final decisions of district courts. "[A]s a general rule a
district court’s decision is appealable under this section only

when the decision ’ends the litigation on the merits and leaves

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’"

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp- v. Mayacamas Corp.., 485 U.S. 271, 275 (1988) (quoting Cat lin v. United Sta~es, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)); see also 15B Wright, Miller, & Cooper, Federal Practic~ & Procedure § 3916 at 349 (2d ed. 1992) (,,[a]ppeal ordinarily

should not be available as to any particular post-judgment proceeding before the trial court has reached its final

disposition"). This Court has repeatedly held that a finding of contempt,
absent the imposition of sanctions, is not a final order. In re

Fuaazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir. 1992); Dove Atlantic Capital CorD-, 963 F.2d 15, 17 (2d Cir. 1992); In Irvinq, 600 F.2d 1027, 1031 n.l (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S.

- 27 -
866 (1979); Comptone Co. v. ~~, 251 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir. 1958).
For instance, in Com~tone Co., 251 F.2d at 488, this Court held that an order finding a defendant in contempt and indicating
an intent to enter an injunction e~ente lite is not a final appealable order. The Comptone Court’s rationale was that "no penalty has been imposed, and the contempt order remains merely a finding, without judgment thereon, subject to modification, prior to judgment." !bid. And in Dove, which involved a finding of contempt and a stay of the imposition of sanctions, the Court reiterated the general rule that a finding of contempt without the imposition of sanctions is not final, and quoted the Comptone Cdo/urt’s rationale for that principle,
Moreover, it is well-settled that an order appointing a
special master is not an appealable order. See Deckert v. Independence Shares CorD._, 311 U.S. 282, 290-291 n.4 (1940);
Grilli v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 78 F.3d 1533, 1538 (llth Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 608 (1996); Rosette v. Rainbo Record Mfa. CORD., 546 F.2d 461, 462 (2d Cir. 1976); H. M. Kolbe ~ v. Armqus Textile Co., 315 F.2d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 1963); see
U We recognize that this Court has carved an exception to the general rule in cases in which an appellant is found in contempt of a discovery order. See, e.a., Dove, 963 F.2d at 18. That exception, however, is not applicable here. This case does not involve noncompliance with a discovery order; rather, the State is being held in contempt for noncompliance with a consent decree. Further, the concern In Dove, that the contemnor was being placed in the difficult position of having to choose between contempt and making a disclosure that may cause him harm, i_~., is not present here.

- 28 also 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2615 at 707 (2d ed. 1995) (,’[a]n order of reference to a master under Rule 53 is interlocutory and not appealable given the final judgment rule").
It follows from these decisions that the court’s order finding the defendants in contempt and announcing its intention to appoint a special master is pot a~pealable as a f~nal order under 28 U.S.C. 1291. In this case, the district court’s order finding the defendants in contempt and merely stating its intent to appoint a master is analogous to a contempt finding and a stay of the imposition of sanctions. As was the case in Comptone Co., the court’s order is not final as it is subject to modification, and will require further proceedings before Connecticut is ordered to take any action as a result of the finding of contempt. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the order could be deemed final, because the court has not yet even selected the master (J.A. 262). Moreover, the order contemplates that the special master will undertake a significant factual inquiry into Southbury’s operations (J.A. 262). And even after the master makes recommendations, further litigation may take place, as Fed. ~. Civ. P. 53(e) provides the parties with the opportunity object to the special master’s findings and recommendations.
Furthermore, the special master’s recommendations will not be final until the district court enters those recommendations as an order of the court. See Sick v. City of Buffalo, 574 F.2d 689, 694 (2d Cir. 1978) (absent review of court, mere findings

- 29 recommendations of master are a nullity and nonappealable). Accordingly, an order finding the defendant in contempt and merely announcing an intent to appoint a special master is clearly not a final order.
Nor does the district court’s order qualify as an appealable order under the Cohen collateral order doctrine. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Collateral orders must "’conclusively determine the disputed question,’ ’resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action,’ and ’be effectively unreviewabie on appeal from a final judgment.’" Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 431 (1985) (quoting Coopers & Lvbrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)); see generally Whalen v. County of Fulton, 19 F.3d 828, 830 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 722
(1995). The court’s order does not meet any of these criteria. As discussed at p. 28, su_up_ra, the court’s ~ntent to appoint
a special master does not conclusively determine what Connecticut must do to comply with its orders in the future. Also, the order is not separate from the merits of the action. Since the issue at this stage is Connecticut’s compliance with the court’s remedial orders, the finding of contempt and the reference to the special master are central to the resolution of the case. Further, the court’s finding of contempt and its decision to appoint a special master can be reviewed once an injunctive or final order has been entered.

- 30 In response to the United States’ motion to dismiss filed on October 30, 1996, Connecticut argued, inter ali___aa, that cases such as United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 12 F.3d 360, 364 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ______~., 946 F.2d 180, 183 (2d Cir. 1991); and Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunn~sideVallev Irriqation Dist., 763 F.2d i032, 1034 & n.l (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032 (1985), support principle that in complex litigation cases, an appellate court should take a more flexible approach in determining whether a district court order is final under 28 U.S.C. 1291. None of those cases, however, suggest that a flexible interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 1291 should be extended to orders that merely indicate a court’s intent to appoint a special master. Furthermore, contrary to Connecticut’s assertion, United States v. O’Rourke, 943 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1991), is not analogous to this case. O’Rourke involved a finding of contempt as well as a final determination that the contemnor would pay "a fine of $I,000,000, plus an additional $I0,000 per day from the date of entry of the order until compliance therewith." Id____~. at 185. In contrast to O’Rourke, here there has been no final determination concerning what the State must do to ensure that it complies with the Remedial Orders in the future. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 to review the district court’s order.

- 31 B. The District Court’s Order Is Not An Appealable
Interlocutory Ord c Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (ll. An order may be appealed under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (I) as interlocutory order that grants, modifies, or denies injunctive relief. In Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83 (1981), the Supreme Court determined that the statute was intended as only a limited exception to the finality rule and, accordingly, articulated a three-part test to determine when interlocutory orders could be appealed. Such an order must: (I) have the practical effect of granting, modifying, or denying an injunction; (2) have "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence[s]"; and (3) be one that can be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal. Id____~. at 84. The district court’s order finding the defendants in contempt and merely stating its intent to appoint a special master is not an injunction, express or effective, because it is purely procedural, relating only to the conduct of the litigation. See Gulfstream, 485 U.S. at 279 ("[a]n order by federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and therefore is not appealable under § 1292(a) (I)") (citations omitted); see also Liddell v. State of Missouri, No. 96-2994 slip op. at 9 (Sth Cir. Jan. 28, 1997) (Addendum) (court dismisses appeals from orders that relate to settlement procedures and case management). No order having the effect of granting or modifying an injunction will be entered until the district court acts upon the special master’s recommendations.

k ....
- 32 This Court and other courts of appeals will sometimes review
an order to determine if it results in a modification of a previous decree that has the effect of granting an injunction. Compare, e.=g=., EEOC v. Local 40, Int’l Ass’n of Bridqe Workers, 76 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1996) (appeal allowed as district court extended duration of consent decree that, by its terms, expired in 1983), with Wilder v. Bernstein, 49 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995) (appeal dismissed as court found that district court’s directive that defendants "ensure that the protections of the consent decree are extended to children in kinship foster care" was already within scope of the consent decree’s mandates).
In this case, Connecticut claims (Conn. Br. 9-10), that the district court "unilaterally [rewrote] the terms of the [Consent] Decree, and then [held] the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with those terms." Connecticut contends (ibid.) that finding Connecticut had violated the "spirit" of the Remedial Orders, the district court erred by requiring compliance with the Purposes and Objectives provided in Section I of the Consent Decree. ~! Connecticut argues that the Purposes and Objectives are not injunctive orders; they are only the goals of the Orders. According to Connecticut, the specific requirements with which it
~/ In its brief, Connecticut emphasizes (Conn. Br. 9) the district court’s description of the State as complying with the "letter" of the Decree, but not its "spirit." The court used that language in describing only the provision of training programs in the area of psychological services (J.A. 243). described Connecticut’s "review" and "modify ’~ procedures as meeting the "letter" of the Decree, but not "produc[ing] the results" intended by the Decree (J.A. 249).

- 33 is required to comply are clearly set forth in other portions of the Remedial Orders, such as Sections IV and V of the Consent Decree (id. at i0). Since, as Connecticut claims (id. at 12), the injunctions that the district court found Connecticut had violated are not set forth in such sections, the district court modified the Decree.
This Court should reject Connecticut’s claim. In the Implementation Plan, which Connecticut was required to provide (J.A. 13), Connecticut expressly agreed to comply with the requirements set forth in the Purpeses and Objectives in Part I of the Decree. Part I of the Decree provides that the Purpose of the Decree is to ensure that Southbury’s residents are not being deprived of their constitutional rights, and describes those rights includin~ training programs developed by qualified professionals to eliminate unreasonable risks to personal safety; adequate medical care that is provided pursuant to the professional judgmen~ of a qualified professional; and behavior modification medications that are administered pursuant to the professional judgment of a qualified professional (J.A. 12).
In the first section of the Plan entitled ,,Development of the Plan," Connecticut states that the Plan was developed to ensure that residents of the Southbury Training School are not deprived of rights, privilege~ or immunities secured by the Constitution, ,,including: appropriate training programs; freedom from unreasonable restraint; adequate medical care; and an environment that is safe and free from unreasonable risks of

- 34 harm" (J.A. 35). The very next section of the Plan provides that "[a]ll sections of the [I~plementation Plan] were reviewed and approved by" the Commissioner for the Department of Mental Retardation and the Director of Southbury (J.A. 36).
Further, the Appendix to the Plan contains policies that the Department of Mental Retardation began implementing in May 1986, before entering into the Consent Decree in July 1986. Those policies are incorporated within the Plan and provide that persons with mental retardation "shall have the rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution and laws of the United States" (J.A. 107). The Appendix further enumerates "special rights" that are guaranteed by state and federal laws, which include: (i) appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation; (2) programs that maximize resident’s developmental potential; and (3) prompt, sufficient and appropriate medical treatment (J.A. 107).
Accordingly, as it developed its Plan, Connecticut was well aware that it was required to comply with the level of care set forth in the Purposes and Objectives portion of the Decree. For Connecticut to assert now, more than ten years after entering into the Decree, that it is not subject to the requirements in that section of the Decree is completely meritless. The State is also incorrect in asserting that the requirements in the Purposes and Objectives section of the Decree are not found in those portions of the Remedial Orders, such as Part V of the Consent Decree, which the State cons~dezs to provide the specific

- 35 requirements it must satisfy. In Argument II of this brief (at pp. 38-41, infra), we discuss those provisions in the Remedial Orders that contain the same requirements found in the Purposes and Objectives of the Decree. Therefore, this Court should rule that the district court did not modify Connecticut’s obligations under the Remedial Orders.
This Court should also hold that the district court’s intent to appoint a special master was not a modification of the Remedial Orders. In ~ v. Enomoto, 815 F.2d 1323, 1326 (1987), the Ninth Circuit determined that an appointment of special master is not a modification that had the effect of granting an injunction. Thompson is nearly identical to this case. It involved an action brought by inmates challenging the conditions at the California State Prison at San Quentin as unconstitutional. The parties eventually settled through a consent decree. Id. at 1324. Subsequently, the district court granted the inmates’ request for the appointment of a special master to monitor compliance with the decree. The Thompson court found that the appointment did not have the effect of granting or modifying an injunction, since the consent decree implicitly contemplates appointment of a master because the district court retained authority to ,,’establish procedures’ for its compliance." Id. at 1327.
in this case, the 1990 Stipulation also provides that the district court ,,shall retain jurisdiction for all purposes * * * until Defendants have fully and faithfully implemented all

- 36 -

provisions of the Consent Decree and plans" (J.A. 158). The court’s intention to appoint a special master, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, was, therefore, well within the scope of the

Decree’s provisions. Cf. In re pearson, 990 F.2d 653, 659 (Ist

Cir. 1993) (in denying petition for mandamus, court considers appointment of master as merely providing court with information to "ascertain the need for alteration of its ongoing activities

under a consent decree"). The court’s order also fails the remaining two parts of the

Carson test. Since the special master has not yet been appointed and has not made any recommendations with regard to how Connecticut should comply with the court’s remedial orders, Connecticut cannot show that the order has had any serious, irreparable consequences. Further, the correctness of the district court’s orders appointing a special master can be reviewed on appeal from an injunctive order or final judgment in

this case. Accordingly,

this Court also lacks jurisdiction

of the order

under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a) (I). II

THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY FOUND CONNECTICUT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF THE COURT’S REMEDIAL ORDERS

A. The Standard Qf Review. This Court reviews a district court’s finding of civil contempt for abuse of discretion. EEOC v. Local 638, 81 F.3d

1162, 1171 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 333 (1996). Factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. Ibid______= The

- 37 interpretation of violated orders are questions of law that are subject to de novo review. Ibid.
B. The Three-Part Test. A district court has discretion to find a party in civil contempt of its orders if: (I) the orders are clear and unambiguous; (2) the moving party establishes noncompliance clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the defendant has not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to comply. EEOC v. Local 638, 81 F.3d at 1166. A finding of willfulness is not necessary in order to hold a party in civil contempt. Such a finding is only required prior to holding a party in criminal contempt. Manhattan Indus., Inc. v. Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd., 885 F.2d l, 5 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1029 (1990). C. The Orders That Connecticut Violated Are Clear
And Unambiauous. Connecticut’s argument that the district court’s contempt order fails to satisfy this part of the test is premised upon its contention that the district court modified the Decree by unilaterally requiring Connecticut to provide adequate training programs and medical care as provided in Part I of the Consent Decree entitled Purposes and Objectives (Conn Br. 16). As discussed in Argument I infra, that contention is wrong, because in its Implementation Plan, Connecticut expressly agreed to adopt the requirements found in Part I of the Decree. Further, several provisions of the Consent Decree and the other Remedial Orders such as Part V of the Decree, which Connecticut concedes (Conn.

- 38 Br. I0 & n.4, 12) are clear and unambiguous, require Connecticut to provide the same requirements found in Part I of the Decree.
I. Part I(1) of the Consent Decree requires ,,training programs professionally designed to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks" (J.A. 12). Part V(3) implements requirement by ordering Connecticut to provide ,,regular, periodic professional evaluations" to identify those in need of training programs and "to provide a sufficient number of training program hours" (J.A. 18). Part I(W) of the 1990 Stipulation orders Connecticut to "(1) develop and implement, and, thereafter, regularly evaluate, a system for observing and recording observations regarding client behavior relevant to training programs, and (2) develop and implement a system to verify that the data are reliable" (J.A. 156). Also, in its Appendix to the Implementation Plan, Connecticut agrees to provide programs that maximize a resident’s development potential and provides rules for the development of an OPS for each resident to accomplish that requirement (J.A. I07, 118).
2. Part I(2) of the Decree calls for that degree of care "sufficient to protect all residents from unreasonable risks" caused by staff and other residents (J.A. 12). Part V(9) requires ,,procedures that will be utilized" to protect residents from ,,unreasonable risks" caused by "staff or other residents" (J.A. 20). Under Part I(V) of the 1990 Stipulation, Connecticut must implement the existing Plan of Implementation "to assure that sufficient such training programs as are needed to protect

- 39 -
residents from unreasonable risks to their personal safety and from unreasonable bodily restraints are consistently implemented"
(J.A. 155-156). 3. Part I(3) of the Decree requires ,,adequate medical care"
,’pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified
professional" (J.A. 12). Part V(5) requires ,,recordkeeping systems" to "make available * * * information as is
professionally necessary to permit the exercise of professional judgment in [a] resident’s care, medical treatment, and training"
(J.A. 19). Part V(6) requires ,,measures * * * to provide adequate medical care," including physical therapy services to prevent physical degeneration and deformity (J.A. 19). Part I(F)
of the 1990 Stipulation requires ,,appropriate physical therapy to each resident with physical handicaps for whom a program of physical therapy has been ordered by a qualified professional,
and ensure records of such treatment are made and entered in the resident’s medical record" (J.A. 150). Part I(G) of the Stipulation requires (J.A. 150):
a qualified physician [to] assess each resident with physical disabilities to determine whether a physical therapy program should be initiated or an existing physical therapy program modified to prevent contractures, physical degeneration, and inappropriate body growth and deformity. The physician shall refer those residents for whom such a need is identified to a registered physical therapist. 4. Parts I(4) and (5) of the Decree require Connecticut provide behavior modifying medications ,,pursuant to the exercise
of professional judgment by a qualified professional" (J.A. 12); Part V(7) requires Connecticut to provide procedures governing

- 40 -

the use of behavior modifying medications including ,,monitoring

and review of whether the drugs prescribed for and administered

to the resident are appropriate for the needs of that resident"

(J.A. 19). Review of the Remedial Orders demonstrates

that the Orders

were carefully drafted to ensure that Connecticut is explicitly required to provide the services in the manner guaranteed by the

Constitution. Accordingly, Connecticut’s reliance upon cases

such as United States v. Armour & CQ~, 402 U.S. 673, 681-682

(1971), and Securities & Exchanqe Comm’n v. Levine, 881 F.2d

1165, 1179 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Armour & Co., su__q~/~), is meritless. The rule those cases articulate is that parties that

enter into a consent decree can be held responsible only for

complying with requirements specifically provided in the decree.

Since consent decrees are agreements that represent compromises

between the parties, "the scope of a consent decree must be

discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it." Armour

& Co., 402 U~S. at 681-682. That rule does not, however, support

Connecticut’s position in this case; instead it supports the

district court’s findings of contempt. The Purposes and

Objectives of the parties are contained within Part I of the

Decree, and Connecticut explicitly bound itself to those

requirements. As this Court held in United Stakes v. Local 1804-

I, Int’l Lonqshoremen’s Ass~n, 44 F.3d I091, i098 (2d Cir. 1995)

(emphasis added),

- 41 -
[w]here a statement of purpose is contained in the decree itself, however, as the product of arm’s-length negotiations, and that purpose may be discerned without reference to the extrinsic aims of the parties, Armour cannot be read to prohibit consideration of that purpose. Therefore, this Court should reject Connecticut’s claim and
find the Remedial Orders clear and unambiguous. D. ~onn~cti~ut’s Claim That There Was Not Clear And Convincinq Evidence Of Its Violation Of The Remedial Orders Is Meritless.
Both Connecticut (Conn Br. 18-21) and the amicus curiae (Am. Br. 16-17) argue that the district court erred in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that Connecticut failed
to comply with the Remedial Orders, because, ~nter alia, the court also made findings that: (a) Connecticut had substantially
complied with the Orders (J.A. 259); and (b) that Southbury’s
accident rate was the lowest of the other institutions in the Department of Mental Retardation’s six regions (J.A. 247).
Those arguments are meritless, because they misconstrue the United States’ contempt motion and the district court’s findings
as to Connecticut’s noncompliance with the Remedial Orders in
this case. The United States did not assert that Connecticut is in violation of all the requirements of the Remedial Orders. Instead, the United States presented uncontroverted evidence in
the form of expert reports and testimony that Connecticut violated certain express provisions of the Remedial Orders, not all the provisions. The district court accepted that evidence, as well as the evidence that Connecticut’s experts presented. Indeed, the court noted that "some of the most compelling

- 42 evidence came from [Connecticut]’s own experts" (J.A. 259 & n. 35). The evidence supporting the court’s decision (see pp. 9-21, su_$_up_ra) can be summarized as follows:
I. With regard to Connecticut’s failure to comply with the requirement that it provide adequate medical care that is pursuant to the exercise of professional judgment by a qualified professional, Dr. Wachtel reported that inadequate diagnosis and treatments contributed to the deaths of at least six Southbury residents, i.e., John T. (J.A. 505), John E. (J.A. 280-281), Vincent S. (J.A. 283), Marilyn C. (J.A. 287), Richard C. (J.A. 292-294), and Jose M. (J.A. 295). Dr. Wachtel further testified about other examples of serious lapses in medical care that resulted in long term suffering. In one case, a resident suffering from a skin disorder, which caused him to itch until he opened large wounds on his neck, was not seen by a dermatologist for three years (J.A. 276-277). Also, Dr. Wachtel and one Connecticut’s experts, Karen Green McGowan, reported that Connecticut’s recordkeeping procedures are below professional standards and fail to satisfy the requirements under the Remedial Orders (J.A. 252-253, 301).
2. In the area of psychological services, Dr. Harchik’s report and testimony showed that Connecticut fails to provide: (I) updated and useful behavior assessments (J.A. 243); training programs that are targeted to improving behavior that is harmful to residents (J.A. 244-245); and (3) adequate positive reinforcement training that complies with professional standards

- 43 -

(J.A. 247-248). Further, Dr. Harchik discussed how the death of Stanley B. showed that Connecticut had failed to implement treatment procedures to address problems discovered during behavior assessments (J.A. 406-407). Additionally, Connecticut’s own expert, Dr. Volkmar, stated in his report that ,’psychiatric services at [Southbury] appeared to be entirely focused on issues of medication," thereby violating the Remedial Orders’ prohibition against use of medications in lieu of training

programs (J.A. 250). 3. As to Connecticut’s

failure to provide appropriate

physical therapy services as required by the Remedial Orders,

Susan Harryman testified that several aspects of Southbury

services were substantially below professional standards. For example, of the 73 Southbury residents she examined, 64 needed

services from a physical therapist (J.A. 337). Of those 64,

however, only two were being treated by a physical therapist (J.A. 337). Ms. Harryman further found 20 of those 73 residents

had suffered loss of function (J.A. 349). She determined that Southbury could have prevented loss of function in 14 of those

individuals (J.A. 350). In order to successfully

challenge the district court’s fact

findings of noncompliance, Connecticut must show that they are clearly erroneous. EEOC v. Local 638, 81 F.3d 1162, 1171 (2d Cir. 1996). At trial, however, Connecticut failed to present evidence that challenged the evidence u~on which the district court relied. Indeed, under cross-examination by the United

- 44 States, each of Connecticut’s witnesses testified that they could not contradict the evidence that the United States presented. Specifically, Dr. Martin Pollack, Southbury’s Director of Psychology, was unable to contradict Dr. Harchik’s report (J.A. 463-464). Dr. fan Lawson, the Southbury Medical Director, was not "prepared to refute point-by-point" Dr. Wachtel’s testimony (J.A. 471), and admitted that the care of John T. exemplified inadequate diagnosis and treatment (Tr. 599). Mr. Thomas Howley, Director of Southbury, could not refute the allegations presented by Dr. Harchik, Ms. Harryman, or Dr. Wachtel (J.A. 477). failing to controvert the evidence upon which the district court relied, Connecticut falls far short of meeting its burden.
E. The Record Demonstrates That..Connecticut Was Not Reasonably Diliqen~ In Attemptinq To_Comply With The Orders.
Connecticut’s assertion that "[t]here was no discussion, no analysis and no finding" as to Connecticut’s diligence is wrong (Conn. Br. 22). It is apparent from the district court’s legal analysis and findings that the court thoroughly reviewed Connecticut’s efforts to comply and was not persuaded that the State had been reasonably diligent.
First, in its discussion of the legal standard relevant to the finding of contempt, the district court stated that "[a] finding of contempt is appropriate when: * * * (3) the defendant has not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to comply" (J.A. 241). In its ruling on contempt, the court found that Southbury’s "quarterly reports reveal that it was in compliance

- 45 with over 90% of the Remedial Orders’ requirements"

(J.A. 259).

It is equally apparent, however, from the district court’s

findings that it had concluded that Connecticut had not ~een

reasonably diligent in attempting to comply with the Remedial

Orders’ requirements concerning the provision of psychological

services, medical care, and physical therapy.

The district court’s findings show that Connecticut’s

provision of psychological services, medical care and physical

therapy were far below acceptable professional standards. For

instance, in the area of psychological services, the court

credited, inter alia, Dr. Harchik’s testimony that he reviewed 21

behavior assessments, which are a required component of a

resident’s OPS (J.A. 243), and found that there "was little relation between the analyses and the treatment procedures" (J.A.

243). The court accepted also Dr. Harchik’s testimony that

Southbury staff members demonstrated a "’total lack of

understanding of positive reinforcement’" (J.A. 248), which

one of the most effective and efficient procedures for dealing

with maladaptive behavior (J.A. 247). Further, the court

described how the percentage of Southbury residents who were

engaged -- 31% -- was far below the professional standard of 80%

(J.A. 248-249).

In the area of medical care, the court found, inter alia, that a report about the death of resident John T. "was plagued

with appalling examples of insufficient medical care, and such

systemic inadequacies [that] might be sufficient alone to find

- 46 -

[Connecticut] in contempt of the [Decrees]" (J.A. 252). The

court accepted the finding of Connecticut’s nursing expert, Ms.

McGowan, that the "problem lists" were inaccurate and incomplete. The problem lists are a "crucial part to effective medical care,"

and are "utterly useless" if inaccurate (J.A. 253). Accordingly, the court accepted Ms. McGowan’s conclusion that Southbury’s

recordkeeping procedures are below professional standards (J.A.

252-253).

The district court found that Southbury’s "inadequate

physical therapy services have caused several residents who, only

a few years earlier, were ambulatory, to be permanently bed-

ridden" (J.A. 258). Southbury was not adequately assessing its

physical therapy services, nor did it provide guidelines for

determining staff competence before allowing the staff to

administer such services (J.A. 257). Additionally, the evidence demonstrates

that although the

experts had notified Connecticut about its deficiencies, the

State did not make a reasonably diligent attempt to follow the

experts’ recommendations as to the changes needed to comply with

the Remedial Orders. For instance, in his November 1993 report

on the status of Southbury’s psychological services, Dr. Harchik

recommended that behavior plans incorporate and include recent

behavior assessments and positive reinforcement (J.A. 713), and

those components are not in many of the plans he reviewed in 1995

(Tr. 376). He also recommended that ,’skill development and

participation objectives are addressed and modified if no

- 47 progress is occurring" (J.A. 714). In his 1995 tour Southbury, Dr. Harchik found "no indication" that Connecticut tried to implement that recommendation (Tr. 377).
In her report of February 1993, Dr. Wachtel reviewed the investigation of John T. and found that (J.A. 505):
[a] letter to the Commissioner of Mental Retardation dated 12/02/92, notes numerous recommendations that are to be implemented immediately. There is little evidence, however, that most of these recommendations have been in fact implemented. Ms. Harryman testified that in her June 1994 report, she made 18 specific recommendations to Southbury to improve its physical therapy services so that it meets currently accepted professional standards (J.A. 356, 520-522). Ms. Harryman testified that of those 18 recommendations, Southbury had only implemented one and partially implemented another (J.A. 356). The district court’s findings of Southbury’s systemic flaws and the evidence of Connecticut’s failure to implement the experts’ recommendations admit of only one conclusion: that Connecticut has not been reasonably diligent in attempting to comply with the Remedial Orders.
III THE DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION TO APPOINT A SPECIAL MASTER WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF ITS REMEDIAL AUTHORITY A. The Standard Of Review. A district court’s decision to appoint a special master is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Yonkers Bd. o.f Educ., 29 F.3d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2608 (1995).

- 48 B. The District Court’s Decision To ADDoint
A SpecialMaster Was Proper. It is well established that a district court has the inherent power to appoint an agent to oversee the implementation of its consent decree. In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 312 (1920). As this Court held in Ber~e~ v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. 1985): [A] court has an affirmative duty to protect the integrity of its decree. This duty arises where the performance of one party threatens to frustrate the purpose of the decree. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 permits the appointment of a special master only when exceptional conditions are present, a district court is entitled to deference in determining when those exceptional conditions exist. Moreover, as the district court noted (J.A. 261), "deference to the district court’s exercise discretion is heightened where, as here, the court has been overseeing a large, public institution for a long period of time" (J.A. 261, citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 688 (1978)). Under the circumstances in this case, this Cou£t should not disturb the district court’s determination that a special master is necessary. The same diutzict court judge has presided over this case since the United States filed its complaint in 1985. The court entered several orders to ensure that Connecticut provides Southbury residents with their constitutional right to adequate psychological services, medical care, and physical therapy services. It has now heard evidence detailing Southbury’s

- 49 systemic deficiencies in the provision of psychological services,

medical care, and physical therapy services that continue to be

substantial departures from professional standards and "have

caused many residents to suffer grave harm, and, in several

instances, death" (J.A. 259). Additionally, this case presents the type of "polycentric"

problems that this Court, in New York State Ass’n For Retarded

Children, Inc. v. Care~, 706 F.2d 956, 962 (2d Cir.), cert.

denied, 464 U.S. 915 (1983), held warrants the appointment of

master:

The monitoring of a Consent Judgment that mandates individualized care for thousands of class members that entails balancing of the interests of parties third-party employees, school authorities, and community groups is just the sort of "’polycentric problem that cannot easily be resolved through a traditional courtroom-bound adjudicative process.’"

and with

Moreover, the district court could have imposed more

intrusive remedies. See, e._~.g=., Powell v. Ward, 643 F.2d 924, 931

(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 832 (1981) (court ordered

prison superintendent to pay $5,000 fine, plus $I,000 per day for

continuing violations in addition to referring case to a special

master)~ Therefore, this Court should hold ~hat the district court did not abuse its authority by deciding to appoint a

special master.

The amicus curiae’s contentions (Am. Br. 14) that the

appointment of the master is "an ambush" to permit the United

States’ "ultimate objective" to close Southbury is meritless. At

trial, the United States did seek a reduction in population at

- 50 -

Southbury (J.A. 240). The district court, however, did not grant

that request and the United States has not appealed from the

order. The district court’s order stating its intent to appoint

the master does not instruct the master to consider closing

Southbury. Therefore, this Court should reject this contention.

CONCLUSION

This Court should find that it lacks jurisdiction, under

either 28 U.S.C. 1291 or 1292, to review the district court’s

order. In the event, however, that this Court finds it has

jurisdiction to review the order, it should affirm the district

court’s finding that Connecticut is in civil contempt of its

Remedial Orders and the decision to appoint a special master to

ensure Connecticut’s

compliance with the orders in the future. Respectfully submitted,

ISABELLE K. PINZLER Acting Assistant Attorney General

DENNIS LOUIS E. PERAERTZ
Attorneys Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-2173

L~........

U dted States Courtof Appeals
FORTHE[]GHTH CIRCUIT

No, DG-2994
Michael C. Liddell. a minorB by Hinnie L£ddell. his mother and next friend; Kendra Lidda11, a minors by Nir~£e Liddell, her =other and next, friend; Minnie Liddelll RoderLck D. LeGrand, a minor, by LeAs LeGrand. has mother and next friend; LoLs LeGrand; Clodis rather, a manor, by Samuel Yarbart his father and next friend; Samuel ¥arber; ¯ arl£ne Caldwell; Lillie Caldwell; ~endolyn Daniels; National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peop2.e; United States of~erAoa;
Plaintiffs-Appellees;
City of St. Louise
Plaintiff;

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Zsstern District of HAssouri.

The Board of Zducation of the City of St. Louis; Hattie R.

3ackson, President, The Board of Education of the City of

St. Louis; Rsv. Earl E. Names, 3r., a ae~bar of the Board of Education of the City of at.

Louis; Renni B. Shuter, a ne~mber of the Board of Educarian of the City of St. Louis; *

Paula V. Smith, a me~ber of

*

the Board of ]Mucation of the * city of St. Louis; Dr. Albert * D. Bender, St., ¯ neabe= of the * Board of Education oft he City *

of St. Louis; Zddie G. Davis, *

a member of the Board of F~luca- *

tLon of the City of St. Louis; *

Dr. John P. Nahoney, ¯ meaber *

of the Board of Zducation of

*

the Clty of st. Louis; Marybeth *

McBryan, a le~ber of the Board *

of Education of the City of St. *

Louis; Thomas M. Nolan, a . *

Rember of the Board oZ Educa *

tlon of the City of St. Louis; *

William Purdy, a member of the ¯

Board oZ Education of the City *

of St. Louis; Robbyn G. Wahby, *

a member oZ the Board of Educa- *

tion of the City of St. Louis; Madye Henson Whithead, a lamber

*

of the Board of Education of

*

the City of St. Louis,

¯

Dr. Cleveland Hammonds, 3r., *

tShupeerCinitteyndeonft St.oLf ouSichso,ols for

* *

Defendants Appellees,"

¯

Ronald Leggett, St. Louis Collector of Revenue,

¯

*

Defendant; e

State of Missouri, Mal

*

Carnahan, Governor of the

*

State of Missouri; 3sromiah W: *

(Jay) Nixon, Attorney General,

Bob Holden, Treasurer; Richard *

A. Hanson, Commissioner of

*

Administration;

Robert E.

Bartman, Commissioner of

Education; Missouri State

Board of Education, and its

~a~srs; Thomas R. Davis#

Gary M. Cunnlngham; Sharon M.

Williams; Peter F. Herschend;

Jacqueline D. Wellington;

Betty E. Preston; Russell V.

Thompson; Rice Pete BuEna;

Defendants-Appellants;

Special School Dls~ict of

St. Louin County; Affton Board

of Education; Bayless Board of

Education; Brentwood Board of

Education; Clayton Board of

Education; Ferguson-Florlssant

*

Board of Education; Hancock

*

Place Board of Education;

¯

HazelVood Board of Education;

*

3enninga Board of Education;

6

X~rkwood Board of Education;

*

LaDue Boar8 of Education7

*

Lindbergh Board of Education;

¯

MBoaaprldewooofd-REidcuhcmatoionnd,.HelghNteshlville

¯ ¯

Board of Education7 Normandy ¯

Board of Education; ParkwaF

*

Board of Education; Pattonville ¯

Board of Education; Rltenour

¯

Board of Education,; Rivervlew ¯

Gardens Board of Education;

¯

Rockwood Board of Education;

¯

UEdnuivceartsioitny,

VCaitlyley BoParadrk ofBoard

of

¯ ¯

Education; Webster Groyes Board * of Education; Wellston Board of t

Education; St. Louis County;

*

Buzz Westfall, County Exeou-

*

tire; James Baker, Director of ¯

Xd=inistration,

St. Louis

*

County, Missouri; Robert H.

t

Paterson, Collector of St.

Louis County "Contract Acoount," St. Louis county,

Missouri; The St. Louis Caree~ Education District;

e

Defendants-Appellees;

St. Loui~ Teachers’ Union,

Local 420, AFT, AFL-CIO.

e

e

Intervenor Below-Appellee.

No, 96-3630

Michael C. Llddell, ¯ninor,

*

by Minnie Liddell, his mother *

and next friend; Kandra

¯

Liddell, a ~Inor, b~Hinnte

*

Liddell, her mother end next

*

friend; Minnie Liddell; Roderlck D. LeGrand, a minor, ¯

by Lois LeGrand, his mother

*

and next friend; Lots LeGrand; ¯

Clodis ¥arber, a minor, by

¯

Samuel Yarber, his father and *

next friend; Samuel Yarbsr;

*

Earllne Caldwoll; Lillie

¯

Caldwell, Gwendolyn Danlels; *

National Association for the *

AdyancemQnt of Colored People; *

United States of Am¯flea7

e

PlalntlffsAppellees; ¯

City of St. Louis,

¯

e

Plaintiff; ,

Vo

¯

The Board of Education of the * City of St. Louis, Hattie R. * Jackson, President, The Board *

of Education of the City of

*

St. Louis, Roy. Earl E. Nance, ¯

Jr., ¯ member of the Board of *

Education oZ the City o£ 8~.

¯

Louis; Rennl B. Shut¯r, a

*

member of the Board of Eduo-

ation of the City of St. Louis,. ¯

Paula V. Smith, ¯ member of

*

the Board of Education of ~he ¯

City of St. Louis, Dr. Albert ¯

D. Bender, St., a ~embsr of the ,

Board of Education of the City *

of St. Louis; Eddie G. Davis, ,

a¯ imonemboefr tohfe ~Chiety Booafrdst. o~LEoudius,ce-

¯ *

Dr. John P. Mahonay, a member w

of the Board of Education of * the City of St. Louis, Marybsth * McBryan, a ~embsr of The Board ¯

of Educe¯lea of the City of St. ¯

Lou~s; Thomas M. Solan, a

¯

mtlsmonbeor fofthteheCitBy oarodf

of Educe-. St. LOUIS,

¯ ¯

will£am Purdy, a ~amber of the ¯

Board of Educat£on of the City ¯

of St. Louis; Robbyn G. Wahby, ¯

a member of the Board of Educa- * tion of the City of St. Louis; ¯ Madye Henson Whlthsad, a member ¯

of the Board st Education of *

the City of St. Louis;

*

Dr. Cleveland Hammonds, Jr., ¯

Superintendent of Schools for

the City of St. Louis,-

.

**

Defendants-AppeZlees,

¯

e

Ronald Leggett, St. Louis

¯

collector of Revenue;

¯

Defendant;

State of M¯issouri; Mel

¯ * *

Carnahan, Governor of the

*

State of Missouri; Jeremiah W. * (~ay) N;xon, Attorney General; *

Bob Holden, Treasurer; R/chard *

A. Hanson, Co~£8sioner of

*

Administration; Robert E.

*

Bartnan, Commlss$oner of

*

Education, Missouri State

*

Board of Educat/on, and Its

*

members; Thomas R..Davls;

*

Gary.M. Cunnlngham, Sharon M. t

Wlllxans; Peter F. Herschend;

*

JBaectqtuyelEin.e PrDe.stWoenl,lSRnqu~scsoenll; V.

¯ *

Thompson; RAce Pete B~ns;

*

D~fendants-Appellants;

¯

e

Special School District of

¯

St. Louis County; atfton Board *

of Education; Bayless Board of *

Education; Brentvood Board of

EducatLonl Clayton Board of

*

ZducatLon/ Fergueon-Florlesant

*

Board of Education; Hancock

,

Place Board ot Education;

*

Hazelvocd Board of Education;

*

JennLng8 Board of Education;

*

Kirkvood Board of Education;

¯

LaDue Board of Education;

*

Lindbergh Board of Education;

¯

Maplevocd-Rich=ond Helghte

¯

Board of Education; Mehlvtlle

*

Board of Education; Nozzsndy

¯

Board of Education; Parkway ¯

Board of Education; Pattonvllle t

Board of Education; Ritanour

*

Board of Education; R/vervLev ¯

Gardens Board of Education;

¯

Rockvood Board of Educat/on;

*

UnLversity City Board of

¯

S

EdUcation; Valley Park Board of *

Education; Webster Groves Board ¯ of Education; Wellston Board of *

Education; St. Louim County;

¯

Buzz Westfall, County Execu-

e

tive; James Baker, Director of

Administration,

St. Louis

e

County, Missouri; Robert H.

e

Paterson,

Collector

of St.

e

Louis County "Contract

Account,. St. Louta County,

Missouri; The St. Louis Career e

Education District;

Defendants-Appellees;

St. Louis Teachers’ Union,

Local 420, AFT, AFL-CIO.

6

i

Xntarvenor Below-Appellee.

e

Submitted: January 13, 19%7

Filed: ~anuary 28, 1997

¯ ii

l

Before MCMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

In lS84, this court, sitting en banc, affirmed an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

approving a settlement agreement to integrate the St. Louis School

District. l

Since then, as elements of the plan have been

implemented, over eighteen appeals have been before ~his court,

usually on questions relating to the responstbllitF

of the State of

Missouri to fund various aspects of the plan.

tLiddell v. Missouri,

731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1984). 6

Zn October 1991a the State moved the district court to declare the St. Louis School District unitary. This notion v¯s resisted by

the plaintiffs,

the United States, and the St. Louis Board of

Education. No response was filed by the State. Xn Nay 2992, the

State filed ¯ nay action requesting partial unitary status. Later

that neath, the district court held that the Starers request vas

premature but pezwitted the State to ¯never certain discovery

requests stating that the possibility

existed that a declaration of

unitary st¯tun might be appropriate in the future.

In November 1993, the State £1led ¯n amended motion for unitary status. Zt informed the court that it would be prepared to present its evidence in support of the notion vithin nine to twelve months. Most Pa~cies ¯gain responded that the notion was still premature. Zn October 1994, the State asked the district Cou_---t to set a date for ¯ hearing on its notion. In February 1995, the district court granted the State’s request and scheduled a hearing for September of that year. The hearing was later rescheduled for March 1996 tO accommodate the schedules of the twenty p¯~les to the case.

In November 1996, the State filed ¯ notion vit.h the district

court to terminate promptly an element of the desegregation progrn

that permits black students residing in the St. Louis School

District to voluntarily transfer to a suburb¯~l school, requires the

State to fund such transfers,

and also permits l~lted voluntary

transfers of suburban students to the St. Louis School District.

The notion was "conditional.-

ee the State requested the court to

consider the notion only If it did not enter an order finding that

the St. Louis School District had achieved a tmltary Iltetus. The

=orion provoked varikd responses¯ including that the pl(lintiffs

and

the United St¯tee urged the court to appoint a settlement

coordinator

to ettenpt to resolve the litigation,

and the City

Board asked that the pending hearing on unitary status be

postponed.

Zn February¯the dlstrict

¢o~’tdenl~e

State’s ©ondltional

notion ¯s having been lnprovidtntly

filed end not ripe for

adjudication.

The court it¯ted:

The Court¯greee with plaintiffs

that the best resolution

of this case would be an a~reed-upon plan for ending

Court supervision of the St. Louis Public Schools. The

Court[,] however[,] is reluctant to continue the hearing.

Zt nay veil be that the possibility for settle:ent will

be greater ~ollovlng the hearing, ¯t which tin¯ the

appointment

of ¯ Settlement

Coordinator

would be

appropriate and beneficial.

~, G(1939)96, at 2 (I.D. Ho. Feb. 15, 1996). The State not appeal the district court’s order denying Its motion.

The court held an evidentlaryhearlng

on the St¯teas unttarF

status motion from March 4 t~rough Hatch 26, 1995. The court has

yet to decide that motion. Following the hearing, the court

entered an order on April 23, 1996 sta~ing that the preferred conclusion of the case would be an agreed-upon plan for ending court supervision of the St. Louts Public School¯. Zt dot¯mined

that ¯ serious settlement

effort under the direction

of the

settlement undertaken.

coordinator,

Dr. William H. Danforth, should be

It ordered the parties to participate

in Good ~aith in

the negotiations.

Xt st¯Fed the post-hearing briefing schedule and

ordered that all co:ponents cf the settlement agreement then In

force should continue Xpril 23, 1996).

in effect.

~, G(2062)96 (E.D.

The State then filed a notion to alter cr a:end the court’s

order appointing Dr. Danforth, arguing that the settlement director

should not be authorized to make reconnendatione toO-he court as to

the disposition oft he case, that onl¥ twenty-five days should be

allowed for negotiations,

and raising several ether objections.

On Oune 26, 1995, the court~uled that the negotiations would

be confidential

from the court and outside parties, l~hat the

8

aoordinator would not recommend to the court how the case should be resolved, and rejected the time liuit for negotiations proposed by’ the State expressing confidence that the settlement coordinator would proceed with ¯11 due diligence. L~ILI~, G(2134)96 (E.D.
~une 26, 1996).

On July 24, 1996, the Stats appealed the rye district court

orders. The State also sought to stay the interdistrict

components

of the present desegr¯gation

remedy pending appeal of the order

appointing

the settlement

coordinator.

: The State sought

alternative

remedies limiting

its obligations

under the

desegregation plan. The district court denled the motions for the

stay pending appeal on August 14, 1996. ~, G(217S)96 (E.D.

Me. Aug. 14~ 1996). This court and 3ustlceThomas as c~rcuit judge

denied substantially

similar motions £or ¯ stay pending appeal on

August 23, 1996 end August 30, 1996e respectively.

On October 1,

1996, the State appealed distriot court order G(2175)96 denying the

State’s 1orion for ¯ 8taypending appeal. All three appeals have been consolidated by this court.

We dismiss all three appeals.

The appeals from orders

G(2062)96 and G(2134)96 are interlocutory

and relate to settlement

procedures and case management. They cannot be characterized

as

appeals ~rom orders denying an injunction. Thus, these appeals are

not within the pu~Tiew of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(I). A district

court, particularly

An school desegregation

camel, has broad

discretion to control its docket and hast he necessary ~lexibtll~y

to shape remedies that adjust ptd~lic and private needs.

~, 433 U.S. 267, 288 (1977); Brown v. Boawd of Educ., 349

U.S. 294, 300 (1955).

With respect to dll~rict cour~order G(2175)96, the denial

a stay pending appeal 18 not an appealable order. The st¯re argues

that the district

eou~t erred because At effectively

denle~ its

motion for unitary status. We disagree. The district

court has

9

yet to rule on ~he State’s unitary status motion. The district

court in this ease has not re~used to rule on the 8tatets not£on

that the St. Louis School District be declared unitary. It has

simply postponed post-hearing briefing and deferred Einal ruling on

this matter. We cannot review a matter that has not been ruled on

by the district court. We lack Jurisdiction

over the state’s clam

that the district

court has erroneously

den£ed Its motion for

unitary status.

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the State’s appeals.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 29, 1997, two copies of the Brief for the United States as Appellee were mailed first class, postage prepaid, to the following counsel:
James P. Welsh, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General
for the State of Connecticut McKenzie Hall, Ii0 Sherman Street Hartford, Connecticut 06105-2294
Attorney

 
 U.S. v. State of Conn., 116 F.3d 466 (1997)
116 F.3d 466 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s local Rule 32.1.1. for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
STATE of Connecticut; William A. O’NEILL, Governor State of Connecticut; DEPT. OF MENTAL RETARDATION; BRIAN LENSINK, Commissioner, Dept. of Mental Retardation; ROBERT GRIFFITH,
Director, Southbury Training School, Defendants-Appellants, SOUTHBURY TRAINING SCHOOL, Home and School Association of Southbury Training School and
Southbury Training School Foundation, Inc., Movant.
No. 96-6218. | June 13, 1997.
Attorneys and Law Firms
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: LOUIS E. PERAERTZ, Washington, DC (Isabelle K. Pinzler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Dennis J. Dimsey, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, of counsel)
JAMES P. WELSH, Assistant Attorney General, Hartford, CT (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Bernard F. McGovern, Jr. Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
PRESENT HON. FRANK X. ALTIMARI HON. DENNIS JACOBS, HON. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
*1 THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of June, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Burns, J.), and was argued.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal be and it hereby is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Defendants, the State of Connecticut and various state officials, appeal from a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut finding defendants in civil contempt and stating the intent to appoint a special master. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The United States initiated this action against the defendants in 1985 under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, et seq.. The complaint sought to address and remedy the living conditions at the Southbury Training School, a Connecticut institution for persons with developmental disabilities.
1

U.S. v. State of Conn., 116 F.3d 466 (1997)
The parties thereafter entered into a consent decree, which required the defendants to submit an implementation plan addressing the procedures by which the consent decree would be effectuated. The district court approved the plan in 1988, which was then modified by several stipulations filed by the parties in the late eighties. Two further stipulations and orders (primarily directed toward medical care at Southbury) were approved by the court in 1990 and 1991 respectively. The consent decree, the implementation plan, and the two later stipulations and orders were referred to collectively by the district court as the “Remedial Orders.” In 1996, following an investigation and examination of the conditions at Southbury, the United States brought an application for an order to show cause why defendants should not be held in contempt. The district court held a four day hearing and in a ruling dated June 18, 1996, found the defendants in contempt of the Remedial Orders and stated the court’s intent to appoint a special master to determine why Southbury’s efforts are not producing the Remedial Orders’ intended results, and to make recommendations to the court. The district court imposed no sanctions and has not yet chosen a special master, apparently due to the pendency of this appeal. We have jurisdiction to hear appeals of “final decisions” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[A] finding of contempt unaccompanied by sanctions is not final and thus cannot support an appeal.” Dove v. Atlantic Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15,17 (2d Cir.1992) (citing In re Irving, 600 F.2d 1027, 1031 n. 1 (2d Cir.1979); Comptone Co. v. Rayex Corp., 251 F.2d 487, 488 (2d Cir.1958) (per curiam)). And “[a]n order referring a matter to a special master is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Grilli v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 78 F.3d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir.1996); see also Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 290-91 & n. 4 (1940). *2 It follows that the district court’s ruling in this case-finding defendants in contempt, imposing no sanctions, and stating the intent to appoint a special master-is not an appealable final decision. Nor does the court’s order qualify as an appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Parallel Citations 1997 WL 321594 (C.A.2 (Conn.))
2